Risk, Trust, and Bias: Causal Regulators of Biometric-Enabled Decision Support
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biometrics and biometric-enabled decision support systems (DSS) have become a mandatory part of complex dynamic systems such as security checkpoints, personal health monitoring systems, autonomous robots, and epidemiological surveillance. Risk, trust, and bias (R-T-B) are emerging measures of performance of such systems. The existing studies on the R-T-B impact on system performance mostly ignore the complementary nature of R-T-B and their causal relationships, for instance, risk of trust, risk of bias, and risk of trust over biases. This paper offers a complete taxonomy of the R-T-B causal performance regulators for the biometric-enabled DSS. The proposed novel taxonomy links the R-T-B assessment to the causal inference mechanism for reasoning in decision making. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Practical details</b> of the R-T-B assessment in the DSS are demonstrated using the experiments of assessing the trust in synthetic biometric and the risk of bias in face biometrics. The paper also outlines the <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">emerging applications</b> of the proposed approach beyond biometrics, including decision support for epidemiological surveillance such as for COVID-19 pandemics.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it