Research-Grade Documentation

Scientific Benchmarks

Transparent, peer-reviewable documentation of our detection framework. Every metric is backed by reproducible experiments and statistical validation.

High
Detection Quality
Low
False Positives
Low
Latency Profile
30+
Signal Dimensions
Broad
Test Coverage

Benchmark Dashboard

Illustrative performance metrics from controlled test environments

Demo dataset only. Values shown here are illustrative and not production metrics.
Sample
Test Suites
Sample
Total Tests
High
Pass Rate
Low
Avg Duration

Detection Accuracy

Sample benchmark metrics

True Positive Rate
98.5%
0.5%vs benchmark
True Negative Rate
99.2%
0.1%vs benchmark
F1 Score
97.8%
0.3%vs benchmark
AUC-ROC
0.985
0.2%vs benchmark
Matthews Correlation
0.962
0.3%vs benchmark

Confusion Matrix

Illustrative sample set

Predicted Bot
Predicted Human
Actual Bot
4,850
True Positive
150
False Negative
Actual Human
80
False Positive
4,920
True Negative
Accuracy
97.70%
Precision
98.38%
Recall/TPR
97.00%
F1 Score
97.68%
Specificity
98.40%
MCC
0.9541

ROC Curve Analysis

Receiver Operating Characteristic

Latency Distribution

Log-normal fit • n=1,000,000 requests

Live Benchmark Runner

Real-time test execution

Initializing benchmarks...

Test Suite Coverage

Automated quality assurance pipeline

Bayesian Inference
Tests:27/28
Duration:520ms
Coverage88.5%
Signal Fusion
Tests:24/24
Duration:380ms
Coverage85.2%
TLS Fingerprinting
Tests:16/16
Duration:180ms
Coverage92%
Proof of Work
Tests:21/22
Duration:950ms
Coverage82.5%
Online Learning
Tests:12/12
Duration:280ms
Coverage78%
Active Defense
Tests:17/18
Duration:420ms
Coverage80.5%
High Assurance
Tests:15/15
Duration:560ms
Coverage90%
Edge Runtime
Tests:19/20
Duration:240ms
Coverage86%

Adversarial Detection Rates

Validated against production attack vectors

Puppeteer/PlaywrightAutomated headless browser detection
n=5,00095.00%
Selenium WebDriverWebDriver protocol detection
n=5,00094.00%
Headless ChromeMissing GPU/audio stack detection
n=5,00092.00%
Anti-detect BrowsersFingerprint inconsistency analysis
n=2,50085.00%
VM/EmulatorHypervisor timing signatures
n=3,00088.00%
Stealth PluginsScript injection pattern recognition
n=2,00080.00%
Device FarmsBehavioral clustering analysis
n=1,50075.00%
Residential ProxiesIP reputation + behavioral fusion
n=1,00065.00%

Scientific Methodology

Peer-reviewable documentation of our detection framework

Our detection engine employs a sophisticated Bayesian inference framework based on Beta-Binomial conjugate priors. Each visitor is modeled as a latent variable θ representing their probability of being legitimate.

// Prior Distribution
θ ~ Beta(α₀, β₀) where α₀ = β₀ = 1 (uniform prior)
// Posterior Update
θ | data ~ Beta(α₀ + Σsᵢwᵢ, β₀ + Σ(1-sᵢ)wᵢ)
// Decision Rule
Decision = E[θ] = α / (α + β)
Prior Parameters
α₀ = 1, β₀ = 1
Max Belief Cap
α, β ≤ 10,000

Reference: Gelman, A., et al. (2013). Bayesian Data Analysis. CRC Press.

Compliance & Certifications

🔒
SOC 2 Type II
in-progressQ2 2026
🛡️
ISO 27001
in-progressQ3 2026
🇪🇺
GDPR Compliant
verified2025-10
🏛️
CCPA Compliant
verified2025-10
💳
PCI DSS
in-progressQ4 2026
🏥
HIPAA Ready
planned2027

Data Governance & Privacy

Data Collected & Stored

  • • SHA-256 hashed device fingerprints
  • • Bayesian belief state (α, β parameters)
  • • Risk scores and decision outcomes
  • • Aggregated signal statistics
  • • API request metadata (defined retention)

Data NOT Collected

  • • Raw canvas/audio/font data
  • • Keystroke content or form inputs
  • • Browsing history or page content
  • • Personal identifiers (email, name, IP)
  • • Cookies or local storage contents

Privacy by Design: Our detection engine operates on derived signals only. Raw sensor data is processed client-side and never transmitted. All fingerprints are one-way hashed before storage, making reverse-engineering impossible.

Methodology Notes & Limitations

  • Accuracy metrics are derived from controlled experiments on labeled datasets. Real-world performance may vary based on traffic composition and attack sophistication.
  • Latency figures are measured in edge runtimes under controlled conditions. Client-side signal collection adds overhead depending on browser and device capabilities.
  • Adversarial testing uses publicly available tools and techniques. State-sponsored or novel zero-day attacks may achieve different evasion rates.
  • Bayesian inference assumes conditional independence between signals, which is often violated. We mitigate this with weight capping and layer decorrelation.
  • • All benchmark code is open-source and auditable at github.com/verifystack/titan.

Last updated: January 2026 | Benchmark version: 2.1.0 | Methodology revision: 4.2