MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110372543 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2011.6030421

Using cyclic redundancy check to eliminate key storage for revocable iris templates

2011· article· en· W2110372543 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBiometric Identification and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiometricsComputer scienceData deduplicationRedundancy (engineering)ShufflingTemplateIris recognitionComputer securityCyclic redundancy checkDatabaseKey (lock)Data miningInformation retrievalOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, with the increased use of biometrics for user authentication, an increase in the demand for the security of the biometric databases has occurred. Public concerns about safety of their biometric templates if the database is compromised as well as fears of cross-referencing among databases had to be addressed to ensure public acceptance of the use of biometric systems in large scale applications. In this paper, we propose a template protection system for iris- based biometric systems. A shuffling algorithm ensures revocability, while a combined Hadamard and Reed Solomon error correction coding ensures security, and as an improvement over previous research, cyclic redundancy check is introduced to eliminate the need to store user keys along with the templates in the database.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiometric Identification and SecurityFrench-language works237,207