MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890206858 · doi:10.1145/3243734.3243764

Reinforcing System-Assigned Passphrases Through Implicit Learning

2018· article· en· W2890206858 on OpenAlexafffund
Zeinab Joudaki, Julie Thorpe, Miguel Vargas Martín

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUsabilityComputer sciencePasswordLoginRecallImplicit learningSet (abstract data type)Vulnerability (computing)Authentication (law)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionNatural language processingComputer securityCognitionProgramming languageCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People tend to choose short and predictable passwords that are vulnerable to guessing attacks. Passphrases are passwords consisting of multiple words, initially introduced as more secure authentication keys that people could recall. Unfortunately, people tend to choose predictable natural language patterns in passphrases, again resulting in vulnerability to guessing attacks. One solution could be system-assigned passphrases, but people have difficulty recalling them. With the goal of improving the usability of system-assigned passphrases, we propose a new approach of reinforcing system-assigned passphrases using implicit learning techniques. We design and test a system that implements this approach using two implicit learning techniques: contextual cueing and semantic priming. In a 780-participant online study, we explored the usability of 4-word system-assigned passphrases using our system compared to a set of control conditions. Our study showed that our system significantly improves usability of system-assigned passphrases, both in terms of recall rates and login time.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207