MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413720571 · doi:10.3390/electronics14173368

NRXR-ID: Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) in VR Using Near-Range Extended Reality and Smartphones

2025· article· en· W4413720571 on OpenAlexaff
Aiur Nanzatov, Lourdes Peña‐Castillo, Oscar Meruvia-Pastor

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)Factor (programming language)Authentication (law)Multi-factor authenticationHuman–computer interactionComputer securityEngineeringAuthentication protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-factor authentication (2FA) has become widely adopted as an efficient and secure way of validating someone’s identity online. Two-factor authentication is difficult in virtual reality (VR) because users are usually wearing a head-mounted display (HMD) which does not allow them to see their real-world surroundings. We present NRXR-ID, a technique to implement two-factor authentication while using extended reality systems and smartphones. The proposed method allows users to complete an authentication challenge using their smartphones without removing their HMD. We performed a user study in which we explored four types of challenges for users, including a novel checkers-style challenge. Users responded to these challenges under three different configurations, including a technique that uses a smartphone to support gaze-based selection without the use of a VR controller. A 4 × 3 within-subjects design allowed us to study all of the proposed variations. We collected performance metrics along with user experience questionnaires containing subjective impressions from thirty participants. Results suggest that the checkers-style visual matching challenge was the most preferred option, followed by the challenge involving entering a digital PIN submitted via the smartphone. Participants were fastest at solving the digital PIN challenge, with an average of 12.35 ± 5 s, followed by the Checkers challenge with 13.85 ± 5.29 s, then the CAPTCHA-style challenge with 14.36 ± 7.5 s, whereas the alphanumeric password took almost twice as long, averaging 32.71 ± 16.44 s. The checkers-style challenge performed consistently across all conditions with no significant differences (p = 0.185), making it robust to different implementation choices.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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