Abstract
Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology into identity workflows, such as automated face recognition (FR), has enhanced operational capabilities, with FR algorithms achieving super-human scale and accuracy. However, these gains can make human oversight of FR more difficult, raising questions about the effectiveness of these human-AI teams. We measured human reviewers' ability to detect false positive errors made by commercial FR algorithms across varying security configurations. Using a novel dataset, the Difficult Facial Image Comparison Test (DFICT), derived from false positives made by four comparable commercial face recognition algorithms, we measured the ability of 801human reviewers to detect algorithmic false positives across three security configurations, representing operationally relevant biometric thresholds. Our findings show that human reviewers can reduce algorithmic false positives, but performance declines at stricter security thresholds. Further, reviewer performance varied by algorithm indicating that some algorithms are more compatible with human oversight. We suggest that biometric systems should be designed to account for human reviewers' variable effectiveness, particularly in high-security applications. Our findings should be considered during algorithm selection and inform human oversight strategies to minimize AI-related risks in operational FR deployments.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33045
