MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376869521 · doi:10.18280/isi.280211

A Proposed Framework for Identity Verification in Passport Management Using Model Scaling and Semantic Similarity

2023· article· en· W4376869521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rishita Khurana, Madhulika Bhatia, Manika Battan, Nripendra Narayan Das

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Computer scienceIdentity (music)ScalingSemantic similarityNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceMathematicsImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dependence on images for face detection and identity verification was at odds with broad assessment which showed that coordinating with sets of non-similar images was profoundly inclined to make mistakes.The current passport management lacks security of data and requires more manpower and time, manual calculations, and verification of documents as well as the photographs.Additionally, the computerized passport examination requires accurate processing in order to carry out crucial tasks like identifying passport forgeries, looking for wanted criminals, or finding those who are ineligible for immigration, among other things because the utilization of fake passports addresses a huge danger to the security of the nation.Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to enhance the identity verification process in passport management.The paper comprises implementation of various technologies and technology driven models for serving its purpose by using the latest and efficient techniques that includes neural networks, face detection, image similarity, ROI (region of interest) and model scaling.The dataset utilized in the paper was self-prepared by the authors and consisted of 5 images each for 10 different individuals.It had been trained from scratch on different models based on CNN architecture.Out of all the three models used for training, the model that resulted in highest accuracy was further considered for research.EfficientNetB0 resulted in 82% accuracy being the highest out of all the three models.The threshold for the model was thereby calculated using z-score which compared the similarity scores and classified the images as similar or non-similar.Therefore, it can be concluded that the techniques utilized in the paper are efficient enough to determine the similarity of an image with its corresponding image.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207