Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional methods of identity recognition are based on the knowledge of a password or a PIN, or possession factors such as tokens and ID cards. Such strategies usually afford low level of security, and can not meet the requirements of applications with high security demands. Biometrics refer to the technology of recognizing or validating the identity of an individual based on his/her physiological and/or behavioral characteristics. It is superior to conventional methods in both security and convenience since biometric traits can not be lost, forgotten, or stolen as easily, and it is relatively difficult to circumvent. However, although biometrics based solutions provide various advantages, there exist some inherent concerns of the technology. In the first place, biometrics can not be easily changed or reissued if compromised due to the limited number of biometric traits that humans possess. Secondly, since biometric data reflect the user's physiological or behavioral characteristics, privacy issues arise if the stored biometric templates are obtained by an adversary. To that end, changeability and privacy protection of biometric templates are two important issues that need to be addressed for widespread deployment of biometric technology. \n \nThis dissertation systematically investigates random transformation based methods for addressing the challenging problems of changeability and privacy protection in biometrics enabled recognition systems. A random projection based approach is first introduced. We present a detailed mathematical analysis on the similarity and privacy preserving properties of random projection, and introduce a vector translation technique to achieve strong changeability. To further enhance privacy protection as well as to improve the recognition accuracy, a sorted index number (SIN) approach is proposed such that only the index numbers of the sorted feature vectors are stored as templates. The SIN framework is then evaluated in conjunction with random additive transform, random multiplicative transform, and random projection, for producing reissuable and privacy preserving biometric templates. The feasibility of the introduced solutions is well supported by detailed theoretical analyses. Extensive experimentation on a face based biometric recognition problem demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".