Short Training Techniques to Enhance Usability of System-Assigned PINs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) are widely used for authentication on mobile devices such as smartphones, which act as gateways to many important accounts (e.g., financial, email, etc.). Unfortunately, people tend to choose easy-to-recall PINs involving birthdays, anniversaries, or keypad patterns that are vulnerable to guessing attacks. System-assigned PINs can improve PIN security in this regard; however, they have usability problems such as feeling the need to store the assigned PIN, longer login times, and difficulty remembering. In this paper, we propose, design, and evaluate a set of short training techniques (16-34 seconds) inspired by implicit learning techniques, to improve the usability of system-assigned PINs. We evaluated our designs in a two-session user study with 184 university students. Our results show that some designs offer significant improvements in the login success rate, login times, and user perceptions. These advantages are in addition to our design’s short single-session training, making it more compatible with typical registration workflows than previously proposed multisession training techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".