Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Different Defects, Different Effects: A Controlled Audit of Face Recognition Training Data

Summary

A WACV 2027 paper performs a controlled audit of the MS1MV3 face recognition training set, identifying five categories of residual data defects and showing through IResNet-50/ArcFace training that targeted fixes can maintain or even improve recognition performance while requiring fewer optimization steps, with duplicate removal yielding the clearest benefit.

SourcearXiv Computer VisionAuthor: Ana Dias, Jo\~ao Ribeiro Pinto, Hugo Proen\c{c}a, Jo\~ao C. Neves
Different Defects, Different Effects: A Controlled Audit of Face Recognition Training Data
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 20 Oct 2026]

Title:Different Defects, Different Effects: A Controlled Audit of Face Recognition Training Data

View a PDF of the paper titled Different Defects, Different Effects: A Controlled Audit of Face Recognition Training Data, by Ana Dias and 3 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:The development of face recognition has been strongly supported by the availability of large-scale training datasets. Among them, MS-Celeb-1M has played an important role by providing millions of facial images from nearly 100K identities. However, the size and heterogeneity of such datasets increase the likelihood of annotation errors, redundant samples, and other forms of data inconsistency. This motivated the introduction of refined versions, such as MS1MV2 and MS1MV3, aimed at improving the quality of the training data. Despite these cleaning efforts, we show that several types of training-data defects remain in MS1MV3. By proposing complementary data-auditing strategies, we identify five defect categories: exact and near-duplicate images, split identities, crop errors, multiple-face ambiguity, and invalid content. We then assess the effect of correcting these defects under a controlled face-recognition training protocol based on IResNet-50 and ArcFace. The results show that targeted interventions can preserve, and in some cases improve, recognition performance while requiring fewer optimization steps to reach the performance of the original training set. Duplicate removal provides the clearest overall benefit, while split-identity merging and invalid-content removal also improve training efficiency. Overall, the results indicate that the effect of dataset cleaning depends strongly on the type of defect being addressed and provide further evidence that training-data quality remains an important and comparatively underexplored factor in large-scale face recognition. The training manifests and code used in this work will be released upon acceptance.

Comments: Accepted at WACV 2027

Subjects:

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.28766 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2610.28766v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.28766

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Ana Dias [view email] [v1] Tue, 20 Oct 2026 18:04:27 UTC (1,792 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Different Defects, Different Effects: A Controlled Audit of Face Recognition Training Data, by Ana Dias and 3 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CV

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

ResearchersAdvanced

Key points

  • The authors identify five defect categories remaining in MS1MV3: exact and near-duplicates, split identities, crop errors, multiple-face ambiguity, and invalid content.
  • Duplicate removal provides the clearest overall benefit, while split-identity merging and invalid-content removal also improve training efficiency.
  • Corrected training preserves or improves performance while reaching the original dataset's results in fewer optimization steps.
  • Training manifests and code will be released upon acceptance.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.