Feature selection in haptic-based handwritten signatures using rough sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the use of rough set theory for feature selection in high dimensional haptic-based handwritten signatures (exploited for user identification). Two rough set-based methods for feature selection are analyzed, the first is a greedy approach while the second relies on genetic algorithms to find minimal subsets of attributes. Also, to further reduce the haptic feature space while maximizing user identification accuracy, a method is proposed where feature vectors are subsampled prior to the feature selection procedure. Rough set-generated minimal subsets are initially exploited to determine the importance of different haptic data types (e.g. force, position, torque and orientation) in discriminating between different users. In addition, a comparison between rough set-based methods and classical machine learning techniques in the selection of minimal information-preserving subsets of features in high dimensional haptic datasets, is provided. The criteria for comparison are the length of the selected subsets of features and their corresponding discrimination power. Support Vector Machine classifiers are used to evaluate the accuracy of the selected minimal feature vectors. The results demonstrated that the combination of rough set and genetic algorithm techniques can outperform well-established machine learning methods in the selection of minimal subsets of features present in haptic-based handwritten signatures.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".