Smartphone gait fingerprinting models via genetic programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of using the gait of a walking person as a biometric identification method has been seen in a number of proposed authentication methods, yet previous works focus on the addition of other authentication methods along with the gait, or require a stationary sensor attached to the hip of the user. This paper uses Genetic Programming to model an identification gait fingerprint for two users, whose walking data was recorded from the accelerometer in a commercially available phone. With the phone freely placed within a pocket, users moved without a fixed protocol at a normal, nonuniform pace. This design of data collection more closely matches the real world applications of such a method. The highly specialized Genetic Programming system with multiple modular enhancements was implemented to perform symbolic regression. The system was demonstrated to be robust to noise and was able to effectively model each dataset with high accuracy. It was also determined that a model could be generated for a subject's whole dataset from only a single step's worth of data. Top models were applied to other subject's data in order to evaluate the uniqueness of these mathematical models.
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) | 0.001 | 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".