Robotics and Multimodal Biometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents a review on a new subfield of security research which transforms and expands the domain of biometrics beyond biological entities to include virtual reality entities, such as avatars, which are rapidly becoming a part of society. Artimetrics research at Cybersecurity Lab, University of Louisville, USA, and Biometric Technologies Lab, University of Calgary, Canada, builds on and expands such diverse fields of science as forensics, robotics, virtual worlds, computer graphics, biometrics, and security. Analyzing the visual properties and behavioral profiling can ensure verification and recognition of avatars. This chapter introduces a multimodal system for artificial entities recognition, simultaneously profiling multiple independent physical and behavioral characteristic of an entity, and creating a new generation multimodal system capable of authenticating both biological (human being) and non-biological (avatars) entities. At the end, this chapter focuses on some future research directions by discussing robotic biometrics beyond images and text-based communication to intelligent software agents that can emulate human intelligence. As artificial intelligence and virtual reality domains evolve, they will in turn give rise to new generation security solutions to identity management spanning both human and artificial entity worlds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".