Analysis of Human Electrocardiogram for Biometric Recognition
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
Security concerns increase as the technology for falsification advances. There are strong evidences that a difficult to falsify biometric trait, the human heartbeat, can be used for identity recognition. Existing solutions for biometric recognition from electrocardiogram (ECG) signals are based on temporal and amplitude distances between detected fiducial points. Such methods rely heavily on the accuracy of fiducial detection, which is still an open problem due to the difficulty in exact localization of wave boundaries. This paper presents a systematic analysis for human identification from ECG data. A fiducial-detection-based framework that incorporates analytic and appearance attributes is first introduced. The appearance-based approach needs detection of one fiducial point only. Further, to completely relax the detection of fiducial points, a new approach based on autocorrelation (AC) in conjunction with discrete cosine transform (DCT) is proposed. Experimentation demonstrates that the AC/DCT method produces comparable recognition accuracy with the fiducial-detection-based approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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