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
Various techniques have been proposed in different literature to analyze biometric samples collected from individuals. However, not a lot of attention has been paid to the inverse problem, which consists of synthesizing artificial biometric samples that can be used for testing existing biometric systems or protecting them against forgeries. In this paper, we present a framework for mouse dynamics biometrics synthesis. Mouse dynamics biometric is a behavioral biometric technology, which allows user recognition based on the actions received from the mouse input device while interacting with a graphical user interface. The proposed inverse biometric model learns from random raw samples collected from real users and then creates synthetic mouse actions for fake users. The generated mouse actions have unique behavioral properties separate from the real mouse actions. This is shown through various comparisons of behavioral metrics as well as a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. We also show through a two-fold cross-validation test that by submitting sample synthetic data to an existing mouse biometrics analysis model we achieve comparable performance results as when the model is applied to real mouse data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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