MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387265173 · doi:10.3390/s23198197

Human Micro-Expressions in Multimodal Social Behavioral Biometrics

2023· article· en· W4387265173 on OpenAlexafffund
Zaman Wahid, A. S. M. Hossain Bari, Marina L. Gavrilova

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiometricsIdentification (biology)Computer scienceRank (graph theory)Benchmark (surveying)Expression (computer science)TraitMachine learningArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of Social Behavioral Biometrics (SBB) in the realm of person identification has underscored the importance of understanding unique patterns of social interactions and communication. This paper introduces a novel multimodal SBB system that integrates human micro-expressions from text, an emerging biometric trait, with other established SBB traits in order to enhance online user identification performance. Including human micro-expression, the proposed method extracts five other original SBB traits for a comprehensive representation of the social behavioral characteristics of an individual. Upon finding the independent person identification score by every SBB trait, a rank-level fusion that leverages the weighted Borda count is employed to fuse the scores from all the traits, obtaining the final identification score. The proposed method is evaluated on a benchmark dataset of 250 Twitter users, and the results indicate that the incorporation of human micro-expression with existing SBB traits can substantially boost the overall online user identification performance, with an accuracy of 73.87% and a recall score of 74%. Furthermore, the proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art SBB systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207