MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294905891 · doi:10.1145/2046684.2046703

Categorizing CAPTCHA

2011· article· en· W2294905891 on OpenAlex
Sajad Shirali-Shahreza, Mohammad Shirali-Shahreza

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
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCAPTCHAComputer scienceTuring testCategorizationObject (grammar)The InternetHuman–computer interactionCharacter (mathematics)User interfaceInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CAPTCHA (Completely Automatic Public Turing Test to Tell Computer and Human Apart) systems are used to distinguish human users from computer programs automatically. The goal of them is to ask questions which human users can easily answer, but current computers cannot. Most current CAPTCHA methods are based on the weak points of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) systems. In this paper, a new CAPTCHA method is presented on the basis of object categorization. In this method, a number of objects are chosen randomly and the pictures of these objects are searched in the Internet and downloaded. The pictures are then shown to the user and the user is asked to mark the objects which belong to a specific category. If the user marks the right objects, it can be assumed that the user is a human being and not a computer program. The main advantage of this method is that it enables the human user pass even if makes a few mistakes, without compromising the security for that.

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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207