MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591206973 · doi:10.1109/lsens.2017.2673551

Wireless Biometric Individual Identification Utilizing Millimeter Waves

2017· article· en· W2591206973 on OpenAlexafffund
Kailtyn Diederichs, Amy Qiu, George Shaker

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBiometric Identification and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoogle
KeywordsBiometricsComputer scienceTransmitterExtremely high frequencyRadarIdentification (biology)WirelessAuthentication (law)Feature (linguistics)SIGNAL (programming language)Signal processingReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsComputer securityChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biometrics offer a personal and convenient way of keeping our identities and our data secure. Here, we introduce a method of using mm-wave sensors to identify various individuals. In our system prototype, the compact radar sensor has two transmit antennas and four receive ones. The transmitter(s) send a sequence of signals which are reflected and scattered from a nearby part of the body of a user (a hand in our demo case). Different signal processing algorithms are applied to the received signals in order to create a rich feature dataset. In our demo system, the resulting dataset is classified using a random forest machine learning model, which is shown to facilitate identifying a group of individuals with high accuracy. This technology has promising implications in terms of using mm-wave radars as an independent or an auxiliary tool for biometric authentication.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors LettersSame topicBiometric Identification and SecurityFrench-language works237,207