September 30, 2026
AI, Emotions and Representativeness: Investigating the Performance of Convolutional Neural Networks in Facial Recognition by Gender, Ethnicity and Age
Gender, Emotions and Representativeness: Investigating the Performance of Convolutional Neural Networks in Facial Recognition by Gender, Ethnicity and Age
Cíntia Cristina Soares; Diego Pedroso dos Santos
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602787
Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.
Summary
Deep Learning models can exhibit algorithmic bias in facial emotion recognition, impacting the representativeness of expressions from different cultures. The study evaluated four convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithms – SimpleCNN, VGG-16, ResNet-50, and MobileNet-V2 – and proposed strategies to mitigate this bias. A quantitative experimental survey was conducted, using the RAF-DB databases for training and validation, and FairFace for bias evaluation. Performance and fairness metrics were applied, considering gender, ethnicity, and age, and the mitigation strategies Class Weights, Undersampling, and Hybrid were tested. The results indicated that SimpleCNN achieved the best overall performance. In the bias analysis, an overprediction of the “Sad” emotion and significant disparities by gender, ethnicity, and age were observed, especially in children. The Class Weights strategy proved to be the most effective in reducing the prediction of “Sad” and gender disparity, although it increased age disparity. It was concluded that the work contributed to the development of a more equitable emotion recognition model, but highlighted technical limitations related to dataset balancing in computer vision.
Keywords: Deep learning; Fairness; Facial emotion recognition; Algorithmic bias.
1. Introduction
Understanding human emotions represents a complex challenge for artificial intelligence models. The same person can express different emotions through varied facial patterns, such as crying, which can indicate both happiness and sadness. This duality suggests that classification using a multi-label, probability-based approach may be more effective than assigning a single emotional class. According to Barsoum et al. (2016), the use of image banks with label distribution demonstrates greater efficiency compared to the classification of a single emotion per image.
The complexity of emotional recognition is amplified by the vast diversity of social groups, which encompasses differences in race, age, ethnicity, and gender. Deep Learning models, although promising, can exhibit algorithmic bias, compromising the accuracy of emotion recognition. This requires models to not only learn facial patterns but also identify the origin of these patterns across different demographic groups.
The participation of minority social groups in the development of artificial intelligence models is limited, especially in the creation of datasets for training in natural language processing and facial recognition (Castaneda et al., 2022). This under-representation can lead to high-risk decisions by these technologies, exacerbating negative social impacts and perpetuating inequalities.
Given this scenario, the creation of more balanced and equitable image banks is fundamental to reducing algorithmic bias and developing fairer technologies (Akter et al., 2021; Barsotti and Koçer, 2024). The recognition and interpretation of emotions are challenged by cultural diversity and emotional subjectivity, and even advanced solutions still present limitations (Wang et al., 2023). The absence of diversity in datasets is a cause of systematic errors, disproportionately affecting racial minorities and women, which makes transparency and representativeness in these systems indispensable (Kim et al., 2024).
Deepening the understanding of the influence of algorithmic bias on the accuracy of emotion recognition models and identifying effective strategies to develop more inclusive and fair systems is, therefore, essential. Emotion recognition is relevant in various areas, but algorithmic bias can lead to misinterpretations and negative impacts on automated decisions. The lack of fairness in the representation of groups compromises the reliability of these technologies. Thus, this study sought to contribute to bias mitigation, proposing an artificial intelligence model that is fairer, more representative, and diverse in classifying facial expressions of gender, ethnicity, and age groups, using Deep Learning architectures to improve fairness and accuracy in emotion recognition.
2. Material and Methods
This study was characterized by an experimental, quantitative research. Image manipulation and database diversity were employed for numerical evaluations, aiming at the detection of algorithmic bias in both the models and the datasets used for emotion recognition. For image processing, “Deep Learning” techniques were adopted, particularly Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), due to their efficiency in identifying visual patterns and their robust performance in the training, validation, and testing stages.
It was considered that emotional recognition models may present systematic confusions between certain emotion classes, given the subtleties in facial expressions. It was investigated whether these limitations manifested unequally among distinct demographic groups. To this end, after training and validating the models, an analysis with confusion matrices was conducted to determine if the model erroneously classified emotions, reaffirming algorithmic bias.
Additionally, the “FairFace” database was used for the neutral testing phase of the models. The objective was to verify the main hypothesis of this research: the detection and quantification of algorithmic bias in emotion recognition tasks, especially among different ethno-racial groups (Kärkkäinen and Joo, 2019).
For data collection, the widely studied RAF-DB (Real-world Affective Faces Database) was used to ensure representativeness in the final set and mitigate possible algorithmic biases (Li & Deng, 2019). The initial set consisted of 25,158 images of faces in an uncontrolled environment, divided into seven basic emotions: “angry”, “disgust”, “fear”, “happy”, “neutral”, “sad”, and “surprise”. The images were annotated by approximately 40 independent raters, who determined the final “label” by majority vote.
An additional processing step was applied to ensure data quality, using a “Multi-task Cascaded Convolutional Networks” (MTCNN) (Zhang et al., 2016) facial detector with a confidence threshold of 90%. This detection removed partially cropped faces, low-quality images, multiple faces, or incorrect classifications. After filtering, the final image bank totaled 15,480 images, centered and standardized to 224×224 pixels.
The dataset split was performed stratified by class, allocating 70% of the images for training (10,829 images), 10% for validation (1,552 images), and 20% for testing (3,099 images). This process occurred in two stages: first, 20% was set aside for testing, and the remaining set was divided into 87.5% for training and 12.5% for validation, ensuring the final 70/10/20 proportion.
During the conversion of images into tensors and the application of pre-processing, the training set was reduced by 22.9%, totaling 8,345 images, due to the removal of inconsistencies in normalization or processing. The validation (1,152 images) and test (3,099 images) sets remained unchanged, resulting in a final database of 12,996 images in tensor format, distributed in proportions of 64.2% for training, 11.9% for validation, and 23.8% for testing.
The “FairFace” dataset (Kärkkäinen & Joo, 2021) was used exclusively during the neutral testing phase of the models, with 10,954 images. This dataset has clear labels for ethnicity, age, and gender, distributed among: (i) Gender: “Female” (47.1%) and “Male” (52.9%); (ii) Ethnicity: 7 groups (“Black”, “East Asian”, “Indian”, “Latino”/”Hispanic”, “Middle Eastern”, “Southeast Asian”, “White”); (iii) Age: 9 age ranges (0-2, 3-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+).
The image preprocessing consisted of essential steps to ensure that the data were prepared for the “machine learning” model training and evaluation pipelines. Initially, the database was divided into training and testing; subsequently, the training set was subdivided into training and validation, with the prediction data used separately to evaluate algorithmic bias.
To mitigate the natural imbalance of the image set, a balancing with a hybrid strategy was applied, based on three levels of sample quantity per class. Over-represented classes (> 2,500 images) were subjected to reduction techniques to 1,500 images, while intermediate (700-2,500 images) and under-represented classes (< 700 images) were kept entirely. This strategy preserved 50% of the original data.
Next, “data augmentation” was performed, a technique for artificially expanding the dataset through transformations on the original images, also by class. The augmentation reached approximately 2,000 images per class, with factor variations between 1.3 and 4.9 times, totaling 13,944 balanced training images. The transformations included random rotation (±15°), horizontal flip (50% probability), zoom, brightness and contrast adjustment (±20°), saturation (±20°), random crop with resize (scale 0.8-1.0), and affine transformations (translation ±10%). To avoid excessive distortions, the transformations respected a maximum limit of five per original image, randomly and combined.
The images were standardized to dimensions of 224×224 pixels, following an input pattern for modern CNNs. They were converted into tensors with normalization on a scale of 0 to 1, adjusting the color channels to “Red”, “Green”, “Blue” (RGB). The transformations were applied using the “Image” modules from the “PIL” library and “transforms” from the “torchvision” library. The “data augmentation” process was applied exclusively to the balanced training sets, aiming to reduce “overfitting” and improve model generalization.
The present study adopted the Python language with the “PyTorch” framework (Paszke et al., 2019), in addition to auxiliary libraries such as “torchvision”, “PIL”, “NumPy”, Pandas, and “Matplotlib” for data preprocessing and visualization. To mitigate the limitation of emotion-labeled databases, models were trained with “transfer learning” and pre-trained weights on “ImageNet” (Wang et al., 2023). Custom classification was performed by replacing the final layer (“CustomHead”) of the architectures, adapting it to the seven classes of the problem.
Four types of CNN architectures were used: SimpleCNN (“baseline”), ResNet-50, MobileNet-V2, and VGG-16, all with weights pre-trained on “ImageNet”, except for SimpleCNN. The Simple CNN has two convolution layers adjusted for three channels (RGB), followed by dense layers, batch normalization (Ioffe & Szegedy, n.d.), “ReLU” activation functions, and “pooling” layers, to evaluate learning with low complexity (Krizhevsky et al., 2017; Lecun et al., 1998).
ResNet-50 offers lower computational cost and good generalization capability, based on the work “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition” (He et al., 2016; PyTorch, 2017b). The VGG-16 model is characterized by being deep, with 16 layers and 3×3 convolutional filters, capturing hierarchical “features” consistently (Simonyan et al., 2014; PyTorch, 2017c). MobileNet-V3, created for application on mobile devices or those with limited resources, uses depthwise separable convolutions, reducing the number of parameters and computational operations (Howard et al., 2019; PyTorch, 2017a).
To ensure organization, traceability, and reproducibility in experiments, standardized parameters were defined through configuration files. The configurations applied to all training sessions included 50 epochs, “Stochastic Gradient Descent” (SGD) optimizers for Simple CNN and “Adam” for models with “transfer learning” (Hospodarskyy et al., 2024), and “CrossEntropyLoss” as the loss function (Bhagat and Bakariya, 2025). Additionally, “Early stopping” with a patience of seven epochs, “Learning Rate” of 0.001 for Simple CNN and 0.001 and 0.0001 for other models, “Batch Size” of 64, and “Momentum” of 0.9 were used.
Experiments were conducted under different scenarios, evaluating the models’ performance according to the strategies of balancing, partitioning, and applying “data augmentation”. The experiments followed the “Holdout” approaches and, immediately after, “K-Fold” validation. Firstly, the four architectures were trained with the balanced training set, in addition to being validated with the unbalanced validation set.
The best performing model during validation was selected and submitted to “K-Fold” cross-validation (k=5) with the complete training image bank, to obtain the final statistics. The trained models were saved and evaluated on the neutral test set, allowing for final generalization evaluation.
To validate the efficiency of the models regarding learning and the capacity for recognizing emotional patterns, analyses of quantitative metrics and visualizations of the graphs generated during training and validation were performed (Mukhlif et al., 2022; Nurunnabi et al., 2022; Plested and Gedeon, 2022). The main metrics analyzed were Accuracy, F1-Score per class, Precision, Recall, Training and Validation Loss, Confusion Matrix, and Fairness.
For the calculation of the metrics, the “Scikit-Learn” library was used, highlighting the functions “accuracy_score”, “f1_score”, “confusion_matrix”, and “ConfusionMatrixDisplay”. The combination of these metrics offered a comprehensive view of performance and supported a critical analysis of the models’ robustness. To identify recurring error patterns among the emotional classes, confusion matrices were analyzed, which revealed that subtleties in facial expressions can lead to ambiguous interpretations.
As the main objective, the presence of algorithmic bias related to demographic markers, especially ethnic-racial groups, was investigated. To verify this issue, the “FairFace” image bank was used as a neutral test set, as it has clear labels for ethnicity, age, and gender. This “dataset” was used exclusively in the prediction phase, ensuring that the models did not view the images during training and validation.
To quantify possible algorithmic inequalities, two “fairness” metrics were applied (Dulani, 2023; Lee, 2023). The first, Demographic Parity, investigated whether the rate of positive predictions is similar between different demographic groups, expressed by the equation P(Ŷ = 1 |A = 0) ≈ P(Ŷ = 1|A = 1), where A represents the sensitive attribute (ethnicity) and Ŷ the model’s prediction.
The second metric, “Equalized Opportunity”, assessed whether the true positive rate is consistent across groups, ensuring that individuals from different groups with the same true condition had similar probabilities of correct classification, calculated by the equation P(Ŷ = 1 |Y = 1,A = 0) ≈ P(Ŷ = 1|Y = 1, A = 1), where A represents the sensitive attribute, Ŷ the model’s prediction, and Y the true condition. These comparisons allowed for the identification of disparities in model performance.
After preliminary analyses of algorithmic bias, three strategies were applied to mitigate bias within the database. The first was “Class Weights”, which assigned differentiated weights to classes according to frequency and error patterns, using “CrossEntropyLoss” as the “weight” parameter in “PyTorch”. The second strategy was “Undersampling”, which limited the maximum number per class within the training set to 2000 samples, performing stratified random selection.
The third strategy, “Hybrid” (Híbrida), combined the two previous techniques to maximize the benefits of each approach. The strategies were performed only on the chosen model that obtained the best performance, keeping the hyperparameters constant, and resulting performance and “fairness” metrics for the analysis of algorithmic equity.
In line with the topic “Materials and Methods”, a GitHub repository was created, which details each algorithm developed that is of great importance to the project and complements the training with the proposed models. The ‘tcc_mba’ repository is available at: https://github.com/crisCintia/tcc_mba.git.
3. Results and Discussion
The performance evaluation of convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures in facial emotion recognition revealed significant differences. Four models were compared: SimpleCNN, VGG-16, ResNet-50, and MobileNet-V2, using the RAF-DB dataset, which contained 4,960 images for testing. The results indicated that SimpleCNN achieved the best overall performance, reaching an accuracy of 70.7% and a Macro F1-Score of 62.03%. This model outperformed the other architectures, which presented lower accuracies and F1-Scores, such as VGG-16 with 66.5% accuracy and 56.51% Macro F1-Score, ResNet-50 with 51.1% accuracy and 40.83% Macro F1-Score, and MobileNet-V2 with 50.2% accuracy and 39.43% Macro F1-Score.
The superiority of SimpleCNN, which was trained from scratch with approximately 500 thousand trainable parameters, can be attributed to its ability to learn the dataset’s specific patterns more effectively, resulting in less “overfitting”. In contrast, the VGG-16, ResNet-50, and MobileNet-V2 models, which employed “transfer learning” techniques with weights pre-trained on ImageNet, showed inferior performance. This difference is explained by “domain mismatch”, where the transferred low-level features were insufficient to capture the subtleties of facial expressions, and by the freezing of 90% of the “backbone”, which limited the learning of emotion-specific patterns. Deeper models, such as ResNet-50 (50 layers) and MobileNet-V2 (53 layers), may suffer from “overfitting” on small to medium-sized databases like RAF-DB, as pointed out by Ahmad et al. (2025) and Ashwini et al. (2023).
The analysis of the F1-Score by emotion, a crucial metric for imbalanced datasets, highlighted that the “Disgust” emotion was the most difficult to classify, with an average F1 of 18.8% among the models. In contrast, the “Happy” emotion proved to be the easiest to classify, with an average F1 of 72.8%. SimpleCNN demonstrated superior performance, recognizing six out of the seven emotions with higher accuracy and tying with VGG-16 only in the classification of the “Angry” emotion, with an F1-Score of 0.572. This discrepancy in performance between classes, especially between “Happy” and “Disgust”, is consistent with the imbalance of the RAF-DB dataset, where the class with the largest sample representation tends to be better predicted.
Deepening the analysis of error patterns, row-normalized confusion matrices revealed the classes most frequently confused by each model. For SimpleCNN, the highest accuracies occurred for the “Happy” emotion, with 902 correct predictions (79.2% recall), and “Neutral”, with 532 correct predictions (76.1% recall). The main confusions identified were the “Sad” emotion being confused with “Neutral” in 106 cases (22.4%), “Happy” with “Neutral” in 89 cases (7.8%), and “Disgust” with “Neutral” in 38 cases (19.9%). These patterns indicate that, despite theoretically distinct facial features, the models presented inherent limitations in classifying emotions with subtleties.
The VGG-16, ResNet-50, and MobileNet-V2 models also exhibited confusion patterns. VGG-16, for example, had 846 correct predictions for “Happy” (74.3% recall) and 562 for “Neutral” (80.4% recall), but confused “Happy” with “Neutral” in 182 cases (16%) and “Sad” with “Neutral” in 125 cases (26.4%). ResNet-50 and MobileNet-V2 showed lower total correct predictions and more pronounced confusions, such as “Happy” with “Neutral” in 236 cases (20.7%) for ResNet-50 and in 282 cases (24.8%) for MobileNet-V2. These universal confusions, present in all models, suggest that the overlap of facial “features”, such as the absence of a smile and low intensity between “Sad” and “Neutral”, or subtle smiles in “Happy” interpreted as “Neutral”, hinder precise classification (Abbas & Chalup, 2019; Ashwin & Biswas, 2024).
The difficulty in classifying the emotion “Disgust” was multifaceted. Firstly, the expression of “Disgust” is subtle, involving a wrinkling of the nose and a raising of the upper lip. Secondly, its sample representation in the RAF-DB dataset was low, with approximately 717 training examples compared to 4,772 for “Happy”. Finally, the similarity of its facial tensions with the emotion “Angry” contributed to the confusion. The high variability of the F1-Score for “Disgust” among models (0.424 for SimpleCNN versus 0.044 for ResNet-50) confirmed the difficulty in its generalized classification, a finding consistent with the literature addressing the complexity of facial expressions and the limitations of databases (Xu et al., 2020).
In contrast, the “Happy” emotion was easier to classify due to its distinct and pronounced facial features, such as the smile, lip curvature, and cheek elevation. This resulted in F1-Scores consistently above 0.60 across all models. The SimpleCNN presented a directional classification pattern, where “Sad” was confused with “Neutral” and vice versa, while the “Transfer Learning” based models exhibited more balanced bidirectional confusions, as in ResNet-50, which confused “Neutral” with “Sad” in 121 cases and “Sad” with “Neutral” in 118 cases. This behavior suggests that SimpleCNN, despite its good overall performance, may have struggled to learn robust features for these expressions due to possible overfitting on a limited-size dataset.
To validate the robustness of the SimpleCNN model, a K-Fold cross-validation with k=5 was performed, using the balanced and augmented RAF-DB dataset. The results demonstrated an average accuracy of 69.9% and an average F1-Score of 60.3%, values very close to those obtained in the “Holdout” training (70.7% accuracy and 62.03% F1-Score). The low standard deviations observed, 1.24% for accuracy and 2.45% for F1-Score, with coefficients of variation of 1.7% and 4.1% respectively, confirmed the stability and robustness of the model. This indicated that SimpleCNN was not excessively dependent on a specific training sample, validating its choice for the algorithmic bias analysis in the FairFace dataset.
The analysis of algorithmic bias, using the FairFace dataset, which has annotations for ethnicity, age, and gender, but not for emotions, allowed us to investigate whether classification patterns manifested unequally among different demographic groups. An overprediction of the “Sad” emotion was observed, representing 40.2% of the overall predictions, a value significantly higher than the expected prediction of 14.3% for a random distribution among seven classes. In contrast, the “Disgust” emotion was underpredicted, with only 1.1% of classifications, evidencing a failure of the model to identify this emotion.
Regarding gender bias, disparities were relatively low, with a maximum difference of 4.5% in the prediction of the “Neutral” emotion. It was noted that women were more frequently classified as “Sad” (41.5%), while men were more classified as “Neutral” (31.5%). The analysis of ethnic bias revealed moderate disparities, with a maximum difference of 6.3% between the “Sad” and “Neutral” emotions. Latino/Hispanic and Middle Eastern individuals were more classified as “Sad”, with 42.5% and 36.1% respectively. Indians (33.9%) and Latino/Hispanics (27.6%) were more classified as “Neutral”. These findings suggest a sensitivity of the model to facial morphological variations, resulting in high error rates for individuals with darker skin tones and non-Caucasians (Kim et al., 2021; Singhal et al., 2025).
The age bias showed the largest disparities, being particularly pronounced in children aged 3 to 9 years, who were classified as “Sad” in 46.7% of cases. In comparison, seniors over 70 years old were classified as “Sad” in 37.3% of cases. This trend indicates that the model interpreted children’s facial expressions as sadness in most situations, which can be explained by the difference in children’s facial patterns compared to adults, as discussed by Y. Huang et al. (2024). The systematic overprediction of the “Sad” emotion (40.2%) was observed across all analyzed demographic groups, reinforcing the presence of an inherent bias in the model or the training dataset.
To mitigate algorithmic bias, three strategies were tested: “Class Weights”, “Undersampling”, and “Hybrid”. The “Class Weights” strategy proved to be the most effective, promoting a 26% reduction in the over-prediction of the “Sad” emotion, decreasing from 40.21% to 29.70%. Furthermore, this technique reduced gender disparity by 51% (from 4.52% to 2.19%) and ethnic disparity by 10% (from 6.31% to 5.69%). Although there was a small “trade-off” in overall performance, with a decrease of 1.1 percentage points in accuracy and 2.4 percentage points in F1-Score, the gains in bias reduction were significant. However, age disparity increased by 82% (from 9.4% to 17.1%), indicating the need for more specific approaches for this attribute.
In contrast, the “Undersampling” technique resulted in a 54% increase in the overprediction of the “Sad” emotion, raising it to 61.98%, and worsened the performance and “fairness” metrics. This behavior can be explained by the reduction of the training set, which can lead to insufficient learning of patterns, causing the model to converge to the majority classes and increase bias, according to studies by Buda et al. (2018) and Fernando & Tsokos (2022). The “Hybrid” strategy, which combined “Class Weights” and “Undersampling”, presented intermediate results. Although it reduced the overprediction of “Sad” by 21% and gender disparity by 49%, there was a 29% increase in ethnic disparity and a 97% increase in age disparity, suggesting that the interaction of the techniques may have generated local “overfitting”, harming generalization to specific demographic subgroups.
The comparative analysis between the baseline model and the bias mitigation strategies revealed that “Class Weights” offered the best balance, maintaining performance close to the original model while providing substantial gains in reducing gender bias and the over-prediction of “Sad”. These results align with the literature demonstrating the effectiveness of weight adjustment techniques in imbalanced datasets (Fernando & Tsokos, 2022). However, age bias, especially concerning the classification of children as “Sad”, persisted and even increased across all strategies, highlighting that infant facial characteristics represent a critical challenge for emotion recognition models, which are predominantly trained with adult data.
In summary, the study demonstrated that SimpleCNN outperformed pre-trained models in facial emotion recognition, but revealed a significant algorithmic bias, characterized by the overprediction of the “Sad” emotion and notable disparities concerning age, especially in children. The “Class Weights” strategy proved to be the most effective in reducing gender bias and the excessive prediction of “Sad”, although it increased age disparity. These findings highlight the importance of considering fairness in the development of artificial intelligence models and point to the need for future research focused on dataset balancing and intersectional approaches to mitigate specific demographic biases.
4. Conclusion
The study sought to evaluate the performance of convolutional neural network algorithms in facial emotion recognition and to propose strategies for mitigating algorithmic bias related to gender, ethnicity, and age. It was found that SimpleCNN, an architecture trained from scratch, achieved the best overall performance, with an accuracy of 70.7% and a Macro F1-Score of 62.03%, outperforming pre-trained models that exhibited “domain mismatch” and “overfitting”. However, bias analysis revealed an over-prediction of the “Sad” emotion in 40.2% of classifications and an under-prediction of “Disgust”, with notable disparities by age, especially in children. The “Class Weights” strategy proved to be the most effective in reducing the over-prediction of “Sad” by 26% and gender disparity by 51%, even with a small “trade-off” in overall performance. These findings contribute to the development of more equitable and representative artificial intelligence models in facial expression classification.
Despite the advances, the study highlighted technical limitations related to dataset balancing in computer vision, as age bias, particularly the classification of children as “Sad”, persisted and even increased with the tested mitigation strategies. The lack of age uniformity in the RAF-DB dataset and the imbalance of emotional classes represented significant challenges. It is suggested that future research investigate bias mitigation strategies in a multidimensional way and focus on creating more balanced emotion datasets, incorporating intersectional approaches to reduce more specific demographic biases, such as age and ethnic-racial bias.
Bibliographic References
Akter, S.; Dwivedi, Y.; Biswas, K.; Michael, K.; Bandara, R.; Sajib, S. 2021. Addressing algorithmic bias in Al-driven customer management. Journal of Global Information Management, 29 (6): 1–27. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.20211101.oa3.
Barsotti, F.; Koçer, R. G. 202
Barsoum, E.; Zhang, C.; Ferrer, C. C.; & Zhang, Z. 2016. Training deep networks for facial expression recognition with crowd-sourced label distribution. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 2016, Tokyo, Japão, Anais p. 279-283. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1145/2993148.2993165.
Castaneda, J.; Jover, A.; Calvet, L.; Yanes, S.; Juan, A. A.; Sainz, M. 2022. Dealing with gender bias issues in data-algorithmic processes: a social-statistical perspective. Algorithms, 15(9): 303. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3390/a15090303.
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Data Science and Analytics of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform