A dual-staged classification-selection approach for automated update of biometric templates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the emerging field of adaptive biometrics, systems aim to adapt enrolled templates to variations in samples observed during operations. However, despite numerous advantages, few commercial vendors have adopted auto-update procedures in their products. This is due to limitations associated with existing adaptation schemes. This paper proposes a dual-staged template adaptation scheme that allows to capture `informative' operational samples with significant variations but without increasing the vulnerability to impostor intrusion. This is achieved through a two staged classification-selection approach driven by the harmonic function and risk minimization technique, over a graph based representation of (enrolment and operational) samples. Experimental results on the DIEE fingerprint data set, explicitly collected for evaluating adaptive biometric systems, demonstrate that the proposed scheme results in 67% reduction in error over the baseline system (without adaptation), outperforming state-of-the-art methods
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it