Score, Rank, and Decision-Level Fusion Strategies of Multicode Electromyogram-Based Verification and Identification Biometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in biometric research have established surface electromyogram (sEMG) as a potential spoof-free solution to address some key limitations in current biometric traits. The nature of sEMG signals provide a unique dual-mode security: sEMGs have individual-specific characteristics (biometrics), and users can customize and change gestures just like passcodes. Such security also facilitates the use of code sequences (multicode) to further enhance the security. In this study, three levels of fusion, score, rank, and decision were investigated for two biometric applications, verification and identification. This study involved 24 subjects performing 16 hand/finger gestures, and code sequences with varying codelengths were generated. The performance of the verification and identification system was analyzed for varying codelength (M: 1-6) and rank (K: 1-4) to determine the best fusion scheme and desirable parameter values for a multicode sEMG biometric system. The results showed that the decision-level fusion scheme using a weighted majority voting resulted in an average equal error rate of 0.6% for the verification system when M = 4. For the identification system, the score-level fusion scheme with score normalization based on fitting a Weibull distribution resulted in a minimum false rejection rate of 0.01% and false acceptance rate of 4.7% using a combination of K = 2 and M = 4. The results also suggested that the parameters M and K could be adjusted based on the number of users in the database to facilitate optimal performance. In summary, a multicode sEMG biometric system was developed to provide improved dual-mode security based on the personalized codes and biometric traits of individuals, with the combination of enhanced security and flexibility.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".