mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Template Ageing and Longitudinal Verification in Fixed-Text Keystroke Dynamics: A Subject-Disjoint Study Across Eight Weeks

arXiv 2609.29851 ↗First posted 24 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Behavioural biometric templates are widely believed to degrade as the gap between enrolment and verification grows, but few studies measure this template ageing effect directly under controlled conditions. We collected a longitudinal dataset of 40 fixed passwords, each typed four times per weekly session over eight consecutive weeks. We compare a scaled-Manhattan matcher (M1), a gradient-boosted classifier (M2), a TypeNet-style recurrent embedding model (M3), and a TypeFormer-style Transformer (M4) under a 5-fold subject-disjoint protocol and a design that jointly varies mechanism and the enrolment-to-query gap, from 0 to 7 weeks. Template ageing proves large and systematic. Error increases monotonically with the gap for every mechanism, from an EER of 14.6-27.2% at a gap of zero to 25.5-37.1% at seven weeks, or 1.7% of decision error per week elapsed (p < 0.001). However, the choice of mechanism matters more than its rate of ageing. Baseline accuracy spans 12.6 percentage points across the four mechanisms, the degradation each accumulates over seven weeks spans only 2.3 points, and ageing never reorders them. A matcher can therefore be chosen on same-session accuracy, with ageing managed by re-enrolment scheduling rather than by matcher selection. The two properties are nonetheless distinct, as M3 is the least accurate mechanism yet ages significantly more slowly than M1 under every specification tested. Training randomness also matters differently by architecture, with 58% of the recurrent model's fold-to-fold variance attributable to seed noise against 19% for the Transformer. Because the smaller ageing-rate differences are sensitive to modelling choices, while the accuracy differences and the ageing effect are not, we recommend that comparative ageing-rate claims be supported by seed-level score fusion, independent replication, and an alternative outcome-model specification.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

Builds on

9 of 36 references.

References · 9

  1. 2020Supervised Contrastive Learningcited by 2,829
  2. 2015The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settingscited by 790
  3. 2017Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visualizing and Interpreting Deep Learning Modelscited by 206
  4. 2021TypeNet: Deep Learning Keystroke Biometricscited by 19
  5. 2020Fast Free-text Authentication via Instance-based Keystroke Dynamicscited by 8
  6. 2022TypeFormer: Transformers for Mobile Keystroke Biometricscited by 7
  7. 2023Keystroke Dynamics: Concepts, Techniques, and Applicationscited by 6
  8. 2022Mouse Dynamics Behavioral Biometrics: A Surveycited by 4
  9. 2023Free-text Keystroke Authentication using Transformers: A Comparative Study of Architectures and Loss Functionscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.