MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982174979 · doi:10.3390/s19214641

Fusion of Neuro-Signals and Dynamic Signatures for Person Authentication

2019· article· en· W2982174979 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBiometricsSpoofing attackWord error ratePasswordRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceAuthentication (law)Pattern recognition (psychology)Replay attackComputer securityData miningMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many biometric systems based on physiological traits such as ones facial characteristics, iris, and fingerprint have been developed for authentication purposes. Such security systems, however, commonly suffer from impersonation attacks such as obfuscation, abrasion, latent samples, and covert attack. More conventional behavioral methods, such as passwords and signatures, suffer from similar issues and can easily be spoofed. With growing levels of private data readily available across the internet, a more robust authentication system is needed for use in emerging technologies and mobile applications. In this paper, we present a novel multimodal biometric user authentication framework by combining the behavioral dynamic signature with the the physiological electroencephalograph (EEG) to restrict unauthorized access. EEG signals of 33 genuine users were collected while signing on their mobile phones. The recorded sequences were modeled using a bidirectional long short-term memory neural network (BLSTM-NN) based sequential classifier to accomplish person identification and verification. An accuracy of 98.78% was obtained for identification using decision fusion of dynamic signatures and EEG signals. The robustness of the framework was also tested against 1650 impersonation attempts made by 25 forged users by imitating the dynamic signatures of genuine users. Verification performance was measured using detection error tradeoff (DET) curves and half total error rate (HTER) security matrices using true positive rate (TPR) and false acceptance rate (FAR), resulting in 3.75% FAR and 1.87% HTER with 100% TPR for forgery attempts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
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