Why Aggregate Accuracy is Inadequate for Evaluating Fairness in Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Systems
Facial recognition systems are increasingly deployed in law enforcement and security contexts, where algorithmic decisions can carry significant societal consequences. Despite high reported accuracy, growing evidence demonstrates that such systems often exhibit uneven performance across demographic groups, leading to disproportionate error rates and potential harm. This paper argues that aggregate accuracy is an insufficient metric for evaluating the fairness and reliability of facial recognitio
Record details
Published: 30 March 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Bias & fairness · Regulation · Privacy
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
When Fairness Metrics Disagree: Evaluating the Reliability of Demographic Fairness Assessment in Machine Learning
arXiv · 16 April 2026
Operational AI Deployment Assurance: Governance-State Orchestration Under Threshold-Sensitive Deployment Conditions -- A Governance Framework for High-Stakes AI Systems
arXiv · 27 May 2026
Ethical Fairness in Ubiquitous Health Sensing without Known Attributes
arXiv · 10 March 2026
What is ethical: AIHED driving humans or Human-Driven AIHED? A conceptual framework enabling the ‘ethos’ of AI-driven higher education
OpenAlex · 19 May 2026
Governing Healthcare AI in the Real World: How Fairness, Transparency, and Human Oversight Can Coexist: A Narrative Review
OpenAlex · 6 February 2026
Balancing Fairness, Privacy, and Accuracy: A Multitask Adversarial Framework for Centralized Data-Driven Systems
arXiv · 23 May 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (30 March 2026), “Why Aggregate Accuracy is Inadequate for Evaluating Fairness in Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Systems,” evidence record 6583, https://ethics.ai/record/6583 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.