Authorship verification using deep belief network systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper explores the use of deep belief networks for authorship verification model applicable for continuous authentication (CA). The proposed approach uses Gaussian units in the visible layer to model real‐valued data on the basis of a Gaussian‐Bernoulli deep belief network. The lexical, syntactic, and application‐specific features are explored, leading to the proposal of a method to merge a pair of features into a single one. The CA is simulated by decomposing an online document into a sequence of short texts over which the CA decisions happen. The experimental evaluation of the proposed method uses block sizes of 140, 280, 500 characters, on the basis of the Twitter and Enron e‐mail corpuses. Promising results are obtained, which consist of an equal error rate varying from 8.21% to 16.73%. Using relatively smaller forgery samples, an equal error rate varying from 5.48% to 12.3% is also obtained for different block sizes.
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 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 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 it