MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094680994 · doi:10.47116/apjcri.2020.10.04

Thick Data Analytics through Ensemble Techniques: Identifying Personalized EEG Biometrics based on Eye State Prediction

2020· article· en· W3094680994 on OpenAlexafffund
Tejas Wadiwala, Jinan Fiaidhi, Mohammed Sabah

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research Interchange · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiometricsComputer scienceAnalyticsElectroencephalographyData analysisArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Data miningData sciencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thick data analytics are being pursued to break the barriers of using the big data predictive analytics for small datasets. The main objective of this paper is to improve the performance of the EEG for biometric authentication using eye blinking brain signals through the use of ensembles techniques. Biometric identification differs largly from the other EEG eye movement analytics applications such as detecting epileptic seizure, identification of stress feature or detecting driving drowsiness as it requires high model rubstness and accuracy. A perfect biometric should be unique, universal and permanent over time. Previous analytical approaches on eye movement failed to show the reliability of the the brain signals to distinguish individuals based on the properties of eye-movements seen as time-signals and for this reason the eye movement have not been considered as a possible solution for a biometric system. This paper's primary focus is on the use of ensemble methods to secure the robustness of the person identification from the EEG eye movement waves. Our approach is a multitier one and it start with training notable binary classification models for biometic identification using eye movement. The training tier is followed by ensemble learning (boosting, bagging, and stacking algorithms) to narrow the differences of accuracy gap among classifiers. The classifier's robustness has been measured with the help of variety of accuracy measures including the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). The third tier is guage the person prediction model stability using the AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics) metric. The results obtained in this study proves that it is possible to use an eye tracking based biometric for detection of person identity with reasonably high sensitivity and specificity.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.361
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research InterchangeSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207