On the Security and Usability Implications of Providing Multiple Authentication Choices on Smartphones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The latest smartphones have started providing multiple authentication options including PINs, patterns, and passwords (knowledge based), as well as face, fingerprint, iris, and voice identification (biometric-based). In this article, we conducted two user studies to investigate how the convenience and security of unlocking phones are influenced by the provision of multiple authentication options. In a task-based user study with 52 participants, we analyze how participants choose an option to unlock their smartphone in daily life. The user study results demonstrate that providing multiple biometric-based authentication choices does not really influence convenience, because fingerprint had monopolistic dominance in the usage of unlock methods (111 of a total of 115 unlock trials that used a biometric-based authentication factor) due to users’ habitual behavior and fastness in unlocking phones. However, convenience was influenced by the provision of both knowledge-based and biometric-based authentication categories, as biometric-based authentication options were used in combination with knowledge-based authentication options—pattern was another frequently used unlock method. Our findings were confirmed and generalized through a follow-up survey with 327 participants. First, knowledge-based and biometric-based authentication options are used interchangeably. Second, providing multiple authentication options for knowledge-based authentication may influence convenience—both PINs (55.7%) and patterns (39.2%) are quite evenly used. Last, in contrast to knowledge-based authentication, providing multiple authentication choices for biometric-based authentication has less influence on choosing unlock options—fingerprint scanner is the most frequently used option (134 of 187 unlock methods used among biometric-based authentication options).
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 | 0.014 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".