Sequential subspace estimator for an efficient multibiometrics authentication and encryption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principal challenge in biometric authentication is to mitigate the effects of any noise while extracting biometric features for biometric template generation. Most biometric systems are developed under the assumption that the extracted biometrics and the nature of their associated interferences are linear, stationary, and homogeneous. When these assumptions are violated due to nonlinear, nonstationary, and heterogeneous noise, the authentication performance deteriorates. As well, demands for biometric templates are on the rise in the field of information technology, leading to an increase in the vulnerability of stored and dynamic information. Thus, the development of a sophisticated authentication and encryption method is necessary to address these challenges. This dissertation proposes a new Sequential Subspace Estimator (SSE) algorithm for biometric authentication. In the proposed method, a sequential estimator is being designed in the image subspace that addresses challenges arising from nonlinear, nonstationary, and heterogeneous noise. The proposed method includes a subspace technique that overcomes the computational complexity associated with the sequential estimator. In addition, it includes a novel MultiBiometrics encryption algorithm that protects the biometric templates against security, privacy, and unlinkability attacks. Unlike current biometric encryption, this method uses cryptographic keys in conjunction with extracted MultiBiometrics to create cryptographic bonds, called “BioCryptoBond”. To further enhance system security and improve authentication accuracy, the development of a biometric database management system is also being considered. The proposed method is being tested on images from three public databases: the “Put Face Database”, the “Indian Face Database”, and the “CASIA Fingerprint Image Database Version 5.1”. The performance of the proposed solution has been evaluated using the Equal Error Rate (EER) and Correct Recognition Rate (CRR). The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method in comparison to its counterparts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".