Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce a new form of behavioral biometrics based on mouse dynamics, which can be used in different security applications. We develop a technique that can be used to model the behavioral characteristics from the captured data using artificial neural networks. In addition, we present an architecture and implementation for the detector, which cover all the phases of the biometric data flow including the detection process. Experimental data illustrating the experiments conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed detection technique are presented and analyzed. Specifically, three series of experiments are conducted. The main experiment, in which 22 participants are involved, reproduces real operating conditions in computing systems by giving participants an individual choice of operating environments and applications; 284 hours of raw mouse data are collected over 998 sessions, with an average of 45 sessions per user. The two other experiments, involving seven participants, provided a basis for studying the confounding factors arising from the main experiment by fixing the environment variables. In the main experiment, the performance results presented using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and a confusion matrix yield at the crossover point (that is, the threshold set for an equal error rate) a false acceptance rate (FAR) of 2.4649 percent and a false rejection rate (FRR) of 2.4614 percent.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".