Evaluation of PPG Biometrics for Authentication in Different States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amongst all medical biometric traits, Photoplethysmograph (PPG) is the easiest to acquire. PPG records the blood volume change with just combination of Light Emitting Diode and Photodiode from any part of the body. With IoT and smart homes' penetration, PPG recording can easily be integrated with other vital wearable devices. PPG represents peculiarity of hemodynamics and cardiovascular system for each individual. This paper presents nonfiducial method for PPG based biometric authentication. Being a physiological signal, PPG signal alters with physical/mental stress and time. For robustness, these variations cannot be ignored. While, most of the previous works focused only on single session, this paper demonstrates extensive performance evaluation of PPG biometrics against single session data, different emotions, physical exercise and time-lapse using Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) and Direct Linear Discriminant Analysis (DLDA). When evaluated on different states and datasets, equal error rate (EER) of 0.5%-6% was achieved for 45-60s average training time. Our CWT/DLDA based technique outperformed all other dimensionality reduction techniques and previous works.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".