Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Predicting 3D Motion from 2D Video for Behavior-Based VR Biometrics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that 2D body joints extracted from external video can be used to predict the 3D trajectory of a VR controller, and that the predicted trajectory is a stronger biometric signature than the controller's own 3D track.

desk verdict A novel 2D-video-to-3D motion pipeline for VR biometrics, but the headline EER gain is potentially confounded by an unstated use of original 3D data in the authentication model. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04361 v1 pith:OBXWT3UL submitted 2025-02-05 cs.CV cs.AIcs.HC

Mingjun Li , Natasha Kholgade Banerjee , Sean Banerjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.HC
keywords virtualrealitybehavioralbiometricsuserauthentication2Dposeestimation3DmotionpredictiontransformerequalerrorrateVRsecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the body articulation visible in an external 2D video of a person in virtual reality carries identity information that the VR system's own sparse 3D controller tracking throws away. The authors propose to extract six 2D body joints (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, ankle) from side-view video, feed them into a transformer-based network that predicts the 3D trajectory of the right hand controller including future motion, and use that predicted trajectory for authentication. On a ball-throwing dataset, the method reports a minimum equal error rate of 0.025 and an average EER of 0.039, compared to 0.064 for prior work that uses only 3D device trajectories. If correct, this means everyday video can be used to make VR login and continuous authentication more accurate without changing the headset hardware.

What carries the argument

The pipeline has two trained components: a trajectory prediction network and an authentication network. The prediction network is a transformer of the Informer family, modified so that the decoder takes the complete 2D multi-joint sequence as input rather than a partial overlap, and outputs the full 3D controller trajectory of length w from a shorter 2D window of length win. The authentication network is a fully convolutional time-series classifier that maps the predicted 3D trajectory to a genuine/impostor label. The two are trained jointly with a weighted sum of mean-squared-error trajectory loss and binary cross-entropy authentication loss.

What would settle it

Take a single session from the Miller dataset, shift the 2D joint tracks by one, two, or three frames relative to the controller tracks, and re-run the trained pipeline; if the reported EER around 0.025–0.039 degrades sharply under a one-frame shift, the result depends on the untested synchronization assumption; if it does not, the assumption is not the source of the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that uncalibrated 2D image coordinates of joints not tracked by the VR device (elbow, shoulder, hip, knee, ankle, plus the wrist near the controller) contain enough information to predict the 3D trajectory of the right controller over a full window including future frames, and that this predicted trajectory is a better biometric signature than the raw 3D controller track. The authors show that using all six joints outperforms using only the wrist or only the upper-body joints, and that predicting 3D output beats predicting 2D output. Across all 20 window combinations, the proposed 3Dfrom2D_WESHKA method has the lowest average equal error rate at 0.039, and the largest single improvement over the 3D-only baseline is an EER drop of 0.040 (from 0.070 to 0.030 at w=70, win=40).

Load-bearing premise

The approach depends on the assumption that the video of the user's body and the VR device's controller readings are precisely synchronized after simply dropping video frames to match the device's frame rate, and that the raw image positions of six joints contain enough information to reconstruct the controller's 3D motion; the paper provides no check of this synchronization or of the reliability of the joint detections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VR authentication systems can incorporate body articulation without changing the headset or controllers, using only an external camera.
  • Using six joints (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, ankle) gives lower equal error rates than using only the wrist or upper-body joints, so lower-body motion contributes to identity.
  • Predicting 3D controller trajectories from 2D joints outperforms predicting 2D trajectories, so the 3D representation retains useful information for classification.
  • Forecasting future controller motion from a short 2D window improves authentication compared with using only the observed portion, consistent with the prior 3D-only finding.
  • The best configuration (window 90, prediction length 60) reaches an EER of 0.025, and for some window choices the EER drops by 0.040 relative to the 3D-only baseline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the result transfers beyond ball-throwing, the same 2D-to-3D prediction scheme could be applied to other VR activities such as pointing, reaching, or object manipulation, where the coupling between torso and controller may differ.
  • The paper does not isolate how much of the gain comes from the video joints versus from the future-forecasting architecture; an ablation that feeds the same transformer with 3D-only input under identical window settings would separate these contributions.
  • Because the approach uses a single uncalibrated side-view camera, a natural stress test is viewpoint change: a front-facing or top-down camera would likely change the 2D joint distributions and may require retraining, suggesting the method as presented is viewpoint-specific.
  • The reliance on OpenPose detections without confidence filtering means the reported EER could be sensitive to pose-estimation failures during occluded poses such as the arm crossing the torso during a throw; filtering low-confidence detections is a testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a VR authentication pipeline that takes 2D body-joint tracks (wrist, elbow, shoulder, hip, knee, ankle) extracted by OpenPose from an external side-view GoPro video, feeds them into a Transformer-based trajectory forecasting model Mtraj to predict a window of right-controller 3D motion (including future frames), and then uses a convolutional authentication network Mauth on the predicted 3D trajectory. Evaluation uses the Miller et al. dataset with HTC VIVE right-handed throwers, training on session 1 and testing on session 2. The proposed 3Dfrom2D_WESHKA method is reported to achieve an average EER of 0.039 across 20 (w, win) combinations versus 0.064 for Li et al. [40], with a best EER of 0.025 at w=90, win=60. The paper claims this demonstrates that body articulation visible in external 2D video, which is not tracked by the VR device, improves behavior-based authentication in VR.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution to behavior-based VR biometrics: it is, to my knowledge, the first attempt in this literature to use external video-derived 2D body joints to augment 3D controller-track authentication. The cross-session evaluation design is a genuine strength, and the quantitative claim is falsifiable because the dataset is public and the paper reports EERs over all 20 window combinations. The paper should also be credited for being explicit about the forecasting component and for comparing against a prior method with the same forecasting idea. However, the main comparison is currently undercut by an ambiguous passage in Section VI.B that appears to admit ground-truth 3D data into the authentication model, and by the absence of any statistical uncertainty quantification. These issues are fixable but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI.B] The central comparison in Table II is confounded by the statement: 'It is worth noting that the approach of Li et al. uses 3D data at the input, and we incorporate part of the original 3D data in the authentication method to retain a signature of the user's original performance.' This is in direct tension with Section IV and Fig. 1, where Mauth is described as consuming only the 3D trajectory predicted by Mtraj from 2D OpenPose joints. If Mauth receives any ground-truth right-controller 3D samples, then the Table II comparison is not between '2D video predicts 3D' and '3D device trajectory only'; it is between a hybrid 2D-plus-partial-3D input and a 3D-only input, and the abstract's claim that non-tracked 2D body joints provide the benefit is unsupported. Please specify precisely which original 3D samples (e.g., the observed prefix used in the Li et al. protocol) enter Mauth, and provide an ablation comparing (a) predicted-3D-only input, (b) predicted 3D plus the original 3D portion actually used, and (c) the Li et al. [40] protocol.
  2. [Section III.b] The temporal alignment between the GoPro video and the VR device clock is an untested load-bearing assumption. The paper states that the 60 FPS video is uniformly downsampled to 45 FPS to 'align' with the VR device data, but no synchronization validation is reported. Because Mtraj is trained on 2D joint coordinates paired with 3D controller coordinates, any clock drift or frame offset propagates directly into the predicted 3D trajectories and then into the EER. In addition, OpenPose detection confidence is not thresholded, and occluded or misdetected joints (e.g., the arm crossing the body during a throw) are not filtered. Please report the synchronization error between the two recordings, the distribution of OpenPose confidence scores for the six joints, and an analysis with and without confidence-based filtering.
  3. [Tables I and II] All results are reported as point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The impostor sampling in Section III.c is random but no seed or repeated runs are described, and the EERs are averages over test samples without a per-user distribution. The headline claim that the proposed method outperforms Li et al. [40] in all 20 window combinations rests on point differences such as 0.039 versus 0.064, which with 41 users could be affected by sampling noise. Please report variance across random seeds or participant splits, and provide paired significance tests or bootstrap confidence intervals for the key EER comparisons. Also state how ties are handled in the Table I claim that 3Dfrom2D_WESHKA achieves the lowest MSE in 18 of 20 cases, since several cells contain tied minima.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI.B] The sentence beginning 'These aspects of using and encapsulating full 3D information enable their method...' has an unclear referent; it should be rewritten to state explicitly whether 'our method' or 'Li et al.' is being discussed.
  2. [Table I] The statement that 3Dfrom2D_WESHKA achieves the lowest MSE in 18 of 20 cases is ambiguous because several columns contain tied minimum values (e.g., w=70, win=60; w=80, win=60; w=90, win=70; w=100, win=70). Please specify the tie-breaking convention.
  3. [Section IV.c] The loss weight lambda in Equation (1) is set to 0.5 without any sensitivity analysis. Since lambda controls the balance between trajectory reconstruction and authentication, a brief sensitivity scan would strengthen the claim that the architecture is robust to this choice.
  4. [Section IV.d] The description of the Informer-based decoder is incomplete for reproduction: it is not clear how the decoder cross-attends to encoder outputs when the input modality (2D joints) differs from the output modality (3D trajectory), nor what masking is applied. A detailed layer-by-layer specification or released code would be needed to reproduce Mtraj.
  5. [Section III.a] The paper says 41 of 46 participants are right-handed and the analysis uses the right-hand controller, but it does not state explicitly how the five non-right-handed participants are excluded from the 41-user evaluation set; please clarify the participant count per VR system.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the 2D-to-3D pipeline is learned and externally benchmarked, though the original-3D-data passage in Sec. VI.B is a confound that needs an ablation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional: Mtraj learns a mapping from 2D OpenPose joints to 3D controller trajectories via the MSE loss in Eq. (2), and Mauth is trained with the BCE loss in Eq. (3); no equation defines the predicted trajectory as equal to a fitted parameter, and the EER is measured on held-out sessions of the external Miller et al. dataset. The main circularity-adjacent concerns are: (1) the baseline, Li et al. [40], is the authors' own prior work, but the comparison is an experimental protocol with reported EER numbers, not a theorem imported from self-citation, so it is not load-bearing circularity; and (2) Sec. VI.B states 'we incorporate part of the original 3D data in the authentication method,' which conflicts with Fig. 1's statement that 'The 3D predicted trajectory serves as the direct input for the authentication model.' If the authentication model receives ground-truth 3D samples, the claimed EER improvement over Li et al. is not cleanly attributable to 2D-video prediction without an ablation that isolates the predicted-only 3D input. This is a significant missing-ablation confound, but it is not a circular derivation: the predicted 3D trajectory is not defined in terms of the authentication output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation and the unresolved protocol ambiguity, not construction-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the reliability of OpenPose detections and their temporal alignment with device data, the learnability of 3D controller motion from uncalibrated 2D joints, and the stability of behavior across sessions. The only hand-chosen numeric parameters are the loss weight, the selected joint set, and the choice of the best window sizes for the headline result; none of these are fitted constants in a derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss weight lambda = 0.5
    Balances trajectory reconstruction loss and authentication loss in Eq. (1); chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis.
  • Joint set = right wrist, elbow, shoulder, hip, knee, ankle
    Hand-selected as biomechanically relevant to ball throwing; the paper tests subsets but does not search over all joints.
  • Headline window sizes (w, win) = (90, 60)
    The minimum EER 0.025 is the best among 20 combinations; reporting the selected best cell as the headline is a form of selection over experimental conditions.
  • Impostor sampling seed = not fixed
    Impostors and their sessions are chosen at random per genuine user; without a fixed seed the reported EER may not be exactly reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption OpenPose 2D joint detections are accurate and temporally aligned with the VR device tracks after downsampling.
    Invoked in Section III.b; no occlusion filtering or synchronization validation is reported.
  • domain assumption 2D image coordinates of six joints, without camera intrinsics or extrinsics, contain enough information to predict the 3D controller trajectory.
    This is the core learnability assumption for the Transformer-based trajectory prediction model in Section IV.a.
  • domain assumption Training on session 1 and testing on session 2 of the same participants yields a valid authentication scenario.
    Standard cross-session evaluation, but it assumes the user's behavior is stable across days and that no session-specific confounds exist.
  • domain assumption Randomly selected users at the same timestamp serve as a representative impostor distribution.
    Used in Section III.c to create balanced training data; the random choice is not stratified or repeated to estimate variance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting 3D Motion from 2D Video for Behavior-Based VR Biometrics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBXWT3UL

@misc{pith2026250204361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting 3D Motion from 2D Video for Behavior-Based VR Biometrics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBXWT3UL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04361}
}
read the original abstract

Critical VR applications in domains such as healthcare, education, and finance that use traditional credentials, such as PIN, password, or multi-factor authentication, stand the chance of being compromised if a malicious person acquires the user credentials or if the user hands over their credentials to an ally. Recently, a number of approaches on user authentication have emerged that use motions of VR head-mounted displays (HMDs) and hand controllers during user interactions in VR to represent the user's behavior as a VR biometric signature. One of the fundamental limitations of behavior-based approaches is that current on-device tracking for HMDs and controllers lacks capability to perform tracking of full-body joint articulation, losing key signature data encapsulated by the user articulation. In this paper, we propose an approach that uses 2D body joints, namely shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle, acquired from the right side of the participants using an external 2D camera. Using a Transformer-based deep neural network, our method uses the 2D data of body joints that are not tracked by the VR device to predict past and future 3D tracks of the right controller, providing the benefit of augmenting 3D knowledge in authentication. Our approach provides a minimum equal error rate (EER) of 0.025, and a maximum EER drop of 0.040 over prior work that uses single-unit 3D trajectory as the input.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We extract 6 body joints, i.e., right shoulder (solid red), elbow (solid green), wrist (solid blue), hip (hollow red), knee [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Trajectory Prediction Model. a) Trajectory Prediction Model: The trajectory predic￾tion model Mtraj takes a 2D body joint trajectory sequence with length win as input and predicts the 3D trajectory of length w as output. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Authentication Model. b) Authentication Model: The authentication model Mauth, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    Using motion forecasting for behavior-based virtual reality (vr) authentication,

    M. Li, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Using motion forecasting for behavior-based virtual reality (vr) authentication,” in IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & extended and Virtual Reality . IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Augmented and virtual reality in surgery,

    M. R. Desselle, R. A. Brown, A. R. James, M. J. Midwinter, S. K. Powell, and M. A. Woodruff, “Augmented and virtual reality in surgery,” Computing in Science & Engineering , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 18–26, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Immersive virtual reality exergames for persons living with dementia: User-centered design study as a multistakeholder team during the covid-19 pandemic,

    J. Mu ˜noz, S. Mehrabi, Y . Li, A. Basharat, L. E. Middleton, S. Cao, M. Barnett-Cowan, J. Boger et al., “Immersive virtual reality exergames for persons living with dementia: User-centered design study as a multistakeholder team during the covid-19 pandemic,” JMIR Serious Games, vol. 10, no. 1, p. e29987, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Immersive virtual reality exergames to promote the well-being of community-dwelling older adults: Protocol for a mixed methods pilot study,

    S. Mehrabi, J. E. Mu ˜noz, A. Basharat, J. Boger, S. Cao, M. Barnett- Cowan, L. E. Middleton et al., “Immersive virtual reality exergames to promote the well-being of community-dwelling older adults: Protocol for a mixed methods pilot study,” JMIR Research Protocols , vol. 11, no. 6, p. e32955, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Canoe vr: An immersive exergame to support cognitive and physical exercises of older adults,

    S. Karaosmanoglu, L. Kruse, S. Rings, and F. Steinicke, “Canoe vr: An immersive exergame to support cognitive and physical exercises of older adults,” in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. New York, NY: ACM, 2022, pp. 1–7

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Classesinvr: An immersive vr-based classroom,

    J. Minnekanti, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Classesinvr: An immersive vr-based classroom,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and eXtended and Virtual Reality (AIxVR) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 310–314

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Digital transformations of classrooms in virtual reality,

    H. Gao, E. Bozkir, L. Hasenbein, J.-U. Hahn, R. G ¨ollner, and E. Kasneci, “Digital transformations of classrooms in virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2021, pp. 1–10

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Exploiting object-of-interest information to understand attention in vr classrooms,

    E. Bozkir, P. Stark, H. Gao, L. Hasenbein, J.-U. Hahn, E. Kasneci, and R. G ¨ollner, “Exploiting object-of-interest information to understand attention in vr classrooms,” in 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 2021, pp. 597–605

    work page 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Hasenbein, P

    L. Hasenbein, P. Stark, U. Trautwein, A. C. M. Queiroz, J. Bailenson, J.-U. Hahn, and R. G¨ollner, “Learning with simulated virtual classmates: Effects of social-related configurations on students’ visual attention and learning experiences in an immersive virtual reality class...

    2022

  2. [9]

    Factors affecting the effectiveness of military training in virtual reality environment,

    M. Gawlik-Kobyli ´nska, P. Maciejewski, J. Lebied´z, and A. Wysoki´nska- Senkus, “Factors affecting the effectiveness of military training in virtual reality environment,” in Proceedings of the 2020 9th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology, 2020, ...

    2020

  3. [10]

    Use of virtual reality simulators for training programs in the areas of security and defense: a systematic review,

    C. de Armas, R. Tori, and A. V . Netto, “Use of virtual reality simulators for training programs in the areas of security and defense: a systematic review,” Multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 79, pp. 3495–3515, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Application on virtual reality for enhanced education learning, military training and sports,

    K. Ahir, K. Govani, R. Gajera, and M. Shah, “Application on virtual reality for enhanced education learning, military training and sports,” Augmented Human Research , vol. 5, pp. 1–9, 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Defuse the training of risky tasks: Collab- orative training in xr,

    M. Rettinger and G. Rigoll, “Defuse the training of risky tasks: Collab- orative training in xr,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 695–701

    2022

  6. [13]

    Uses of virtual reality for communication in financial services: A case study on comparing different telepresence interfaces: Virtual reality compared to video conferencing,

    A. G. Campbell, T. Holz, J. Cosgrove, M. Harlick, and T. O’Sullivan, “Uses of virtual reality for communication in financial services: A case study on comparing different telepresence interfaces: Virtual reality compared to video conferencing,” in Future of Information and Com...

    2019

  7. [14]

    Virtual reality and the banking experience,

    S. Weise and A. Mshar, “Virtual reality and the banking experience,” Journal of Digital Banking , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 146–152, 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    Virtually secure: A taxonomic assessment of cybersecu- rity challenges in virtual reality environments,

    B. Odeleye, G. Loukas, R. Heartfield, G. Sakellari, E. Panaousis, and F. Spyridonis, “Virtually secure: A taxonomic assessment of cybersecu- rity challenges in virtual reality environments,” Computers & Security , vol. 124, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Three-dimensional password for more secure authentication,

    F. A. Alsulaiman and A. El Saddik, “Three-dimensional password for more secure authentication,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and measurement, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 1929–1938, 2008

    1929

  10. [17]

    A novel 3d graphical password schema,

    ——, “A novel 3d graphical password schema,” in 2006 IEEE Sympo- sium on Virtual Environments, Human-Computer Interfaces and Mea- surement Systems. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2006, pp. 125–128

    2006

  11. [18]

    Leveraging 3d benefits for authentication,

    J. Gurary, Y . Zhu, and H. Fu, “Leveraging 3d benefits for authentication,” International Journal of Communications, Network and System Sciences, vol. 10, no. 08, p. 324, 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    Gazeroomlock: Using gaze and head-pose to improve the usability and observation resistance of 3d passwords in virtual reality,

    C. George, D. Buschek, A. Ngao, and M. Khamis, “Gazeroomlock: Using gaze and head-pose to improve the usability and observation resistance of 3d passwords in virtual reality,” inIntl. Conf. on Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics , 2020, pp. 61–81

    2020

  13. [20]

    An exploration of usable authentication mechanisms for virtual reality systems,

    Z. Yu, H.-N. Liang, C. Fleming, and K. L. Man, “An exploration of usable authentication mechanisms for virtual reality systems,” in IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems , 2016, pp. 458–460

    2016

  14. [21]

    Seamless and secure vr: Adapting and evaluating established authentication systems for virtual reality,

    C. George, M. Khamis, E. von Zezschwitz, M. Burger, H. Schmidt, F. Alt, and H. Hussmann, “Seamless and secure vr: Adapting and evaluating established authentication systems for virtual reality,” in NDSS. San Diego, CA: NDSS, 2017, pp. 1–1

    2017

  15. [22]

    Exploring the vulnerabilities and advantages of swipe or pattern authentication in virtual reality (vr),

    I. Olade, H.-N. Liang, C. Fleming, and C. Champion, “Exploring the vulnerabilities and advantages of swipe or pattern authentication in virtual reality (vr),” in Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality Simulations . New York, NY: A...

    2020

  16. [23]

    Lookunlock: Using spatial-targets for user-authentication on hmds,

    M. Funk, K. Marky, I. Mizutani, M. Kritzler, S. Mayer, and F. Micha- helles, “Lookunlock: Using spatial-targets for user-authentication on hmds,” in Ext. Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . New York, NY: ACM, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  17. [24]

    Investigating the third dimension for authentication in immersive virtual reality and in the real world,

    C. George, M. Khamis, D. Buschek, and H. Hussmann, “Investigating the third dimension for authentication in immersive virtual reality and in the real world,” in IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, 2019, pp. 277–285

    2019

  18. [25]

    Unsure how to authenticate on your vr headset? come on, use your head!

    T. Mustafa, R. Matovu, A. Serwadda, and N. Muirhead, “Unsure how to authenticate on your vr headset? come on, use your head!” in Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Workshop on Security and Privacy Analytics . New York, NY: ACM, 2018, pp. 23–30

    2018

  19. [26]

    Task-driven biometric authentication of users in virtual reality (vr) environments,

    A. Kupin, B. Moeller, Y . Jiang, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Task-driven biometric authentication of users in virtual reality (vr) environments,” in MultiMedia Modeling: 25th International Conference, MMM 2019, Thessaloniki, Greece, January 8–11, 2019, Proceedings, Part ...

    2019

  20. [27]

    Behavioural biometrics in vr: Identifying people from body motion and relations in virtual reality,

    K. Pfeuffer, M. J. Geiger, S. Prange, L. Mecke, D. Buschek, and F. Alt, “Behavioural biometrics in vr: Identifying people from body motion and relations in virtual reality,” in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2019, pp. 1–12

    2019

  21. [28]

    Combining pairwise feature matches from device trajectories for biometric authentication in virtual reality environments,

    A. Ajit, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Combining pairwise feature matches from device trajectories for biometric authentication in virtual reality environments,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR) . Piscataway, NJ:...

    2019

  22. [29]

    Realtime behavior- based continual authentication of users in virtual reality environments,

    R. Miller, A. Ajit, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Realtime behavior- based continual authentication of users in virtual reality environments,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR) . Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2019, pp. 253–2531

    2019

  23. [30]

    Knowledge-driven biometric authentication in virtual reality,

    F. Mathis, H. I. Fawaz, and M. Khamis, “Knowledge-driven biometric authentication in virtual reality,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2020, pp. 1–10

    2020

  24. [31]

    Rubikauth: Fast and secure authentication in virtual reality,

    F. Mathis, J. Williamson, K. Vaniea, and M. Khamis, “Rubikauth: Fast and secure authentication in virtual reality,” in Ext. Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . New York, NY: ACM, 2020, pp. 1–9

    2020

  25. [32]

    Fast and secure authentication in virtual reality using coordinated 3d manipulation and pointing,

    F. Mathis, J. H. Williamson, K. Vaniea, and M. Khamis, “Fast and secure authentication in virtual reality using coordinated 3d manipulation and pointing,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–1, Jan 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    Within-system and cross- system behavior-based biometric authentication in virtual reality,

    R. Miller, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Within-system and cross- system behavior-based biometric authentication in virtual reality,” in IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops. IEEE, 2020, pp. 311–316

    2020

  27. [34]

    Biomove: Biometric user identification from human kinesiological movements for virtual reality systems,

    I. Olade, C. Fleming, and H.-N. Liang, “Biomove: Biometric user identification from human kinesiological movements for virtual reality systems,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 10, p. 2944, 2020

    2020

  28. [35]

    Personal identifiability of user tracking data during observation of 360- degree vr video,

    M. R. Miller, F. Herrera, H. Jun, J. A. Landay, and J. N. Bailenson, “Personal identifiability of user tracking data during observation of 360- degree vr video,” Scientific Reports, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2020

    2020

  29. [36]

    Using siamese neural networks to perform cross-system behavioral authentication in virtual reality,

    R. Miller, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Using siamese neural networks to perform cross-system behavioral authentication in virtual reality,” in IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces . IEEE, 2021, pp. 140–149

    2021

  30. [37]

    Understanding user identification in virtual reality through behavioral biometrics and the effect of body normal- ization,

    J. Liebers, M. Abdelaziz, L. Mecke, A. Saad, J. Auda, U. Gruenefeld, F. Alt, and S. Schneegass, “Understanding user identification in virtual reality through behavioral biometrics and the effect of body normal- ization,” in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ...

    2021

  31. [38]

    Who is alyx? a new behavioral biometric dataset for user identification in xr,

    C. Rack, T. Fernando, M. Yalcin, A. Hotho, and M. E. Latoschik, “Who is alyx? a new behavioral biometric dataset for user identification in xr,” Frontiers in Virtual Reality, vol. 4, p. 1272234, 2023

    2023

  32. [39]

    Identifying users by their hand tracking data in augmented and virtual reality,

    J. Liebers, S. Brockel, U. Gruenefeld, and S. Schneegass, “Identifying users by their hand tracking data in augmented and virtual reality,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction , vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 409–424, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Kinetic signatures: A systematic investigation of movement-based user identification in virtual reality,

    J. Liebers, P. Laskowski, F. Rademaker, L. Sabel, J. Hoppen, U. Gruene- feld, and S. Schneegass, “Kinetic signatures: A systematic investigation of movement-based user identification in virtual reality,” 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Security and privacy in virtual reality–a literature survey,

    A. Giaretta, “Security and privacy in virtual reality–a literature survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00208 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Sok: Authentication in augmented and virtual reality,

    S. Stephenson, B. Pal, S. Fan, E. Fernandes, Y . Zhao, and R. Chat- terjee, “Sok: Authentication in augmented and virtual reality,” in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy . IEEE, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,

    Z. Cao, T. Simon, S.-E. Wei, and Y . Sheikh, “Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vvision and Pattern Recognition , 2017, pp. 7291–7299

    2017

  37. [45]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    A. K. Jain, P. Flynn, and A. A. Ross, Handbook of biometrics . Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  39. [47]

    Combining real-world constraints on user behavior with deep neural networks for virtual reality (vr) biometrics,

    R. Miller, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Combining real-world constraints on user behavior with deep neural networks for virtual reality (vr) biometrics,” in 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2022, pp. 409–418

    2022

  40. [48]

    Using gaze behavior and head orientation for implicit identification in virtual reality,

    J. Liebers, P. Horn, C. Burschik, U. Gruenefeld, and S. Schneegass, “Using gaze behavior and head orientation for implicit identification in virtual reality,” in ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 2021, pp. 1–9

    2021

  41. [49]

    Evaluating deep networks for detecting user familiarity with vr from hand interactions,

    M. Li, N. Zafar, N. K. Banerjee, and S. Banerjee, “Evaluating deep networks for detecting user familiarity with vr from hand interactions,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and eXtended and Virtual Reality (AIxVR) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 226–230

    2024

  42. [50]

    Pinchkey: A natural and user-friendly approach to vr user authentication,

    M. Suzuki, R. Iijima, K. Nomoto, T. Ohki, and T. Mori, “Pinchkey: A natural and user-friendly approach to vr user authentication,” in European Symposium on Usable Security , 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Exploring the stability of behavioral biometrics in virtual reality in a remote field study: Towards implicit and continuous user identification through body movements,

    J. Liebers, C. Burschik, U. Gruenefeld, and S. Schneegass, “Exploring the stability of behavioral biometrics in virtual reality in a remote field study: Towards implicit and continuous user identification through body movements,” in ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software an...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,

    H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intel- ligence, vol. 35. Washington, DC: AAAI, 2021, pp. 11 106–11 115

    2021

  45. [53]

    Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline,

    Z. Wang, W. Yan, and T. Oates, “Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline,” in IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks , 2017, pp. 1578–1585

    2017

  46. [54]

    Rtmpose: Real-time multi-person pose estimation based on mmpose,

    T. Jiang, P. Lu, L. Zhang, N. Ma, R. Han, C. Lyu, Y . Li, and K. Chen, “Rtmpose: Real-time multi-person pose estimation based on mmpose,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07399 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.