MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133942072 · doi:10.1109/imtc.2011.5944015

Combining cryptography and watermarking to secure revocable iris templates

2011· article· en· W2133942072 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
KeywordsComputer scienceDigital watermarkingCryptosystemBiometricsKey (lock)Iris recognitionCryptographyFingerprint (computing)Discrete wavelet transformShufflingAlgorithmTheoretical computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceComputer securityWavelet transformImage (mathematics)Wavelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biometric cryptosystems have recently evolved as a means for solving key management issues as well as protecting biometric templates. In this paper, we propose the combination of cryptography with Least Significant Bit — Discrete Wavelet Transform (LSB-DWT) watermarking to secure iris templates. The key-binding bio-cryptosystem is based on fuzzy sketches that handle intra-class variability by using error correction codes. Hadamard and Reed-Solomon codes are used to correct both random and burst errors that occur in iris codes. To achieve revocability a user-specific iris shuffling algorithm is used. We used the CASIA iris database in our experiments and were able to retrieve a 210 bit key with 0 False Acceptance Rate (FAR) and 0.07% False Rejection Rate (FRR). The proposed system is also capable of withstanding minor spatial and frequency watermarking attacks without major degradation in the performance.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiometric Identification and SecurityFrench-language works237,207