MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414463382 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2025.3613234

BrainAuth: A Neuro-Biometric Approach for Personal Authentication

2025· article· en· W4414463382 on OpenAlexaff
Shahid Mumtaz, Ahmed Farouk, Houbing Song, Zhanpeng Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersGuangdong Science and Technology Department
KeywordsAuthentication (law)BiometricsIdentification (biology)Spoofing attackProcess (computing)Data modelingDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature repeatedly reports that the unique nature of individual brainwave patterns makes them suitable for identification and authentication, because they are difficult to replicate or forge. Therefore, many researchers have utilized brainwaves for authentication by training traditional deep learning and machine learning models. However, the internal decision processes of these black-box models have not been evaluated in terms of biases, overfitting, large training data requirements, and handling complex data structures, which keep them in a fuzzy state. To address these limitations, a smart system is needed to be develop that could be capable of making the authentication process user-friendly, robust, and reliable. In this paper, we present a deep reinforcement learning-based biometric authentication framework known as "BrainAuth" for personal identification using the gamma ($\gamma$) and beta ($\beta$) brainwaves. This approach improves the accuracy of authentication by using the (i) Dyna framework and a dual estimation technique. Both these technique helps to maintain the integrity of brainwave patterns, which are needed for authentication and understanding of spoofing activities. (ii) We also introduce a layered structure architecture in the proposed model to reduce the time needed for exploration using two deep neural networks. These networks work together to handle the complex data while making decisions in delay sensitive environment. (iii) We evaluate the model on seen and unseen data to verify its robustness. During analysis, the model achieved an equal error rate (EER) of $\approx$ 0.07% for seen data and $\approx$ 0.15% for unseen data, respectively. Furthermore, the analysis metrics such as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), and false negative (FN) followed by false acceptance rate (FAR), false rejection rate (FRR), true acceptance rate (TAR) revealed significant improvements compared to existing schemes.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207