Evaluation of a User Authentication Schema Using Behavioral Biometrics and Machine Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount of secure data being stored on mobile devices has grown immensely in recent years. However, the security measures protecting this data have stayed static, with few improvements being done to the vulnerabilities of current authentication methods such as physiological biometrics or passwords. Instead of these methods, behavioral biometrics has recently been researched as a solution to these vulnerable authentication methods. In this study, we aim to contribute to the research being done on behavioral biometrics by creating and evaluating a user authentication scheme using behavioral biometrics. The behavioral biometrics used in this study include touch dynamics and phone movement, and we evaluate the performance of different single-modal and multi-modal combinations of the two biometrics. Using two publicly available datasets - BioIdent and Hand Movement Orientation and Grasp (H-MOG), this study uses seven common machine learning algorithms to evaluate performance. The algorithms used in the evaluation include Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbor, Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, Multilayer Perceptron, and Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Networks, with accuracy rates reaching as high as 86%.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it