MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394913992 · doi:10.3390/computers13040103

Continuous Authentication in the Digital Age: An Analysis of Reinforcement Learning and Behavioral Biometrics

2024· article· en· W4394913992 on OpenAlexafffund
Priya Bansal, Abdelkader Ouda

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiometricsReinforcementReinforcement learningAuthentication (law)Computer scienceInternet privacyComputer securityArtificial intelligencePsychologyHuman–computer interactionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research article delves into the development of a reinforcement learning (RL)-based continuous authentication system utilizing behavioral biometrics for user identification on computing devices. Keystroke dynamics are employed to capture unique behavioral biometric signatures, while a reward-driven RL model is deployed to authenticate users throughout their sessions. The proposed system augments conventional authentication mechanisms, fortifying them with an additional layer of security to create a robust continuous authentication framework compatible with static authentication systems. The methodology entails training an RL model to discern atypical user typing patterns and identify potentially suspicious activities. Each user’s historical data are utilized to train an agent, which undergoes preprocessing to generate episodes for learning purposes. The environment involves the retrieval of observations, which are intentionally perturbed to facilitate learning of nonlinear behaviors. The observation vector encompasses both ongoing and summarized features. A binary and minimalist reward function is employed, with principal component analysis (PCA) utilized for encoding ongoing features, and the double deep Q-network (DDQN) algorithm implemented through a fully connected neural network serving as the policy net. Evaluation results showcase training accuracy and equal error rate (EER) ranging from 94.7% to 100% and 0 to 0.0126, respectively, while test accuracy and EER fall within the range of approximately 81.06% to 93.5% and 0.0323 to 0.11, respectively, for all users as encoder features increase in number. These outcomes are achieved through RL’s iterative refinement of rewards via trial and error, leading to enhanced accuracy over time as more data are processed and incorporated into the system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputersSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207