MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Trait Analysis via Machine Learning Techniques for User Authentication

2020· article· en· W3114976675 on OpenAlexaff
Iman I. M. Abu Sulayman, Abdelkader Ouda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningHidden Markov modelArtificial intelligenceIdentification (biology)Field (mathematics)Intrusion detection systemData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning is an extremely important technique that has become heavily used in different types of applications such as detection systems for fraud, intrusion or fault and monitoring systems for health or computer. Human trait analysis and identification is a field of research that needs a strong implementation for machine learning. Human trait analysis provides a tool with which human identification factors can be verified. Currently, detail aspects of human behavior are digitally and continuously logged in Big Data based platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. This continuous flow of high-volume data requires sophisticated data analysis to examine huge amounts of behavioral evidence so that human traits can be modeled. This paper proposes an innovative technique for human trait analysis that fits the needs for user's identity verification. The pioneering work of this technique is in the distinction of the normal and abnormal actions of the users, where the focus is given to these abnormal actions to establish security potential profiles. The data analysis and prediction of the proposed technique is based on the concept of machine learning and uses several models based on four techniques; K-means, Hidden Markov Model (HMM), Auto-Encoder Neural Network, and Gaussian Distribution. Experiments have been carried out in four main phases: prediction of rare user actions, filter security potential actions, build/update a user profile, and generate a real-time (i.e. just in time) set of challenging questions. Real-world scenarios are considered to demonstrate the benefits of these challenging questions in building secure knowledge-based user authentication systems.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207