MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anchor-Guided Contrastive Learning for User Identification Based On Video Preferences

2025· article· W7125947914 on OpenAlexaff
Fariha Iffath, Gee-Sern Hsu, Marina Gavrilova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationPreferenceIdentification (biology)GeneralizationBiometricsEncoderSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User identification through aesthetic preferences has gained attention as a promising direction in social behavioral biometrics, offering a non-invasive and privacy-conscious alternative to traditional physiological identifiers. Unlike still images or single-modal inputs, video-based aesthetic preferences provide richer, temporally-aware insights into user behavior, enabling a deeper understanding of personal taste and style. Despite this potential, existing approaches often treat preference items independently and fail to capture the interrelationships within a user’s preference set. To address these limitations, this paper introduces Preference-Aware Set Encoding with Contrastive Personalization (PASE), a novel deep learning framework designed to model user identity based on structured preferred video sets. The proposed method integrates a Cross-Video Attention Encoder to learn co-preference patterns across videos, a User-Anchor Contrastive Loss to align personalized embeddings, and a Cross-Set Mixup Regularization technique to improve generalization by simulating diverse preference scenarios. Evaluation on a curated aesthetic dataset demonstrates that PASE achieves 98.38% identification accuracy, outperforming unimodal and multi-modal baselines. These findings highlight the unique advantages of leveraging video-based aesthetic information for biometric identification, particularly in applications demanding both accuracy and user-friendly privacy safeguards.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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 topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207