Self-Certification of High-Risk AI Systems: The Example of AI-based Facial Emotion Recognition

Gregor Autischer; Kerstin Waxnegger; Dominik Kowald

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2601.08295

Self-Certification of High-Risk AI Systems: The Example of AI-based Facial Emotion Recognition

Gregor Autischer·Kerstin Waxnegger·Dominik Kowald

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act establishes comprehensive requirements for high-risk AI systems, yet the harmonized standards necessary for demonstrating compliance remain not fully developed. In this paper, we investigate the practical application of the Fraunhofer AI assessment catalogue as a certification framework through a complete self-certification cycle of an AI-based facial emotion recognition system. Beginning with a baseline model that has deficiencies, including inadequate demographic representation and prediction uncertainty, we document an enhancement process guided by AI certification requirements. The enhanced system achieves higher accuracy with improved reliability metrics and comprehensive fairness across demographic groups. We focused our assessment on two of the six Fraunhofer catalogue dimensions, reliability and fairness, the enhanced system successfully satisfies the certification criteria for these examined dimensions. We find that the certification framework provides value as a proactive development tool, driving concrete technical improvements and generating documentation naturally through integration into the development process. However, fundamental gaps separate structured self-certification from legal compliance: harmonized European standards are not fully available, and AI assessment frameworks and catalogues cannot substitute for them on their own. These findings establish the Fraunhofer AI assessment catalogue as a valuable preparatory tool that complements rather than replaces formal compliance requirements at this time.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Gregor Autischer, Kerstin Waxnegger, Dominik Kowald. 2026-01-13. Self-Certification of High-Risk AI Systems: The Example of AI-based Facial Emotion Recognition. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08295

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Who Should Be Generated? Justifying Demographic Targets in Open-Ended Generation

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Anticipatory Human Oversight of Agentic AI: A Philosophical Account

Human oversight is widely held to mitigate the risks of AI systems. Even for systems that produce discrete outputs at identifiable decision points, the realisation of human oversight as a reactive measure is empirically fragile, yet increasingly well understood. However, for agentic AI -- systems that plan, decompose goals, and execute multi-step actions over extended horizons -- reactive oversight reaches its structural limits: intervention on individual actions defeats the autonomy that motivates the deployment, while intervention on aggregate patterns is too coarse for harms whose cumulative consequences only become legible after the fact. This paper argues that reactive oversight must be complemented by an anticipatory mode: oversight exercised before the agent acts, by specifying the normative agenda that structures the space of permissible action and refining it iteratively through specification, runtime, and inspection. The two are complements -- the agenda's escalation conditions specify when reactive intervention is invoked. Drawing on Meaningful Human Control, we read anticipatory oversight as the operationalisation of distal-reason tracking. In addition, we argue that the proposed framework yields a specific responsibility architecture by design: occupying the anticipatory mode is the discharge of a role-grounded prospective obligation, and backward-looking responsibility takes the form of strict moral answerability -- rationalistic, relational, and holding regardless of fault, in virtue of the principal's prior opportunity for precaution. We develop bridging failure modes, address objections including moral luck and the illusion of control, and close with regulatory, architectural, and empirical implications

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Critical Data Studies in the Anthropocene

This chapter introduces the concept of the Anthropocene into critical data studies, a field that has, for the past decade, explored the entanglements between datafication and politics. With the scaling up of contemporary datafication alongside generative computing, it is essential to expand these debates, both theoretically and methodologically, to consider the logics of extraction and exploitation inherent in the politics of artificial intelligence. Critical data scholars are called to interrogate how dominant narratives around the materiality of contemporary datafication either obscure or reveal its environmental impacts, along other key questions such as who benefits from these logics. To illustrate this, this chapter brings two case studies from Spain and Chile and explores how the infrastructure of contemporary datafication intersects with existing power structures, influencing which social and environmental consequences are recognized, addressed, and neglected. Finally, it invites critical data scholars to keep exploring the politics of data, infrastructure, and the Anthropocene by blending discipline boundaries between science and technology studies, media, geography, and political ecology.

cs.CY↗