MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164170294 · doi:10.1145/3448018.3458615

Eye-GUAna: Higher Gaze-Based Entropy and Increased Password Space in Graphical User Authentication Through Gamification

2021· article· en· W3164170294 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Katsini, George E. Raptis, Andrew Jian-lan Cen, Nalin Asanka Gamagedara Arachchilage, Lennart E. Nacke

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasswordComputer scienceGazeHuman–computer interactionEye trackingCognitive passwordAuthentication (law)Entropy (arrow of time)Process (computing)Artificial intelligenceComputer securityPassword strengthOne-time password

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graphical user authentication (GUA) is a common alternative to text-based user authentication, where people are required to draw graphical passwords on background images. Recent research provides evidence that gamification of the graphical password creation process influences people to make less predictable choices. Aiming to understand the underlying reasons from a visual behavior perspective, in this paper, we report a small-scale eye-tracking study that compares the visual behavior developed by people who follow a gamified approach and people who follow a non-gamified approach to make their graphical password choices. The results show that people who follow a gamified approach have higher gaze-based entropy, as they fixate on more image areas and for longer periods, and thus, they have an increased effective password space, which could lead to better and less predictable password choices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and ApplicationsSame topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207