Biometric Identification from Human Aesthetic Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, human-machine interactions encompass many avenues of life, ranging from personal communications to professional activities. This trend has allowed for person identification based on behavior rather than physical traits to emerge as a growing research domain, which spans areas such as online education, e-commerce, e-communication, and biometric security. The expression of opinions is an example of online behavior that is commonly shared through the liking of online images. Visual aesthetic is a behavioral biometric that involves using a person's sense of fondness for images. The identification of individuals using their visual aesthetic values as discriminatory features is an emerging domain of research. This paper introduces a novel method for aesthetic feature dimensionality reduction using gene expression programming. The proposed system is capable of using a tree-based genetic approach for feature recombination. Reducing feature dimensionality improves classifier accuracy, reduces computation runtime, and minimizes required storage. The results obtained on a dataset of 200 Flickr users evaluating 40,000 images demonstrate a 95% accuracy of identity recognition based solely on users' aesthetic preferences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".