Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 26, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Embedding-based verification often calibrates a false-accept threshold from all impostor pairs among $m$ identities, although these pairs share identities. We characterize a worst-case limit: when hub identities score highly against a fraction $ρ$ of the population, a calibration-only threshold with marginal false-accept rate (FAR) at most $α$ under every identity-exchangeable law reaches the hub score on hub-free calibration sets with probability at most $(m+2)α/(2ρ)$. Uniformly accepting near that score at levels well below $ρ/m$ therefore requires trial information. We propose COVE, which ranks the trial pair among all $N=\binom{m+2}{2}$ pairs formed by augmenting the calibration units with the probe and reference. Under identity exchangeability, its marginal FAR is at most $\lfloorαN\rfloor/N$, with first possible acceptance at $1/N=O(1/m^2)$. The rule also retains this guarantee with a fixed symmetric cohort-normalized score using an independent cohort. On 6 benchmarks and 8 frozen encoders, realised FAR was consistent with the exact bound. Where both valid calibration-only baselines accepted nothing, COVE retained a median $100\%$ of the sampled oracle's true-accept rate over reliable comparisons. In contrast, an empirical quantile over dependent pairs reached 2.87$\,α$ FAR, and a binomial upper confidence bound over pairs missed its nominal 95\% conditional-FAR target in up to 55\% of calibration draws. Symmetric CSLS raised COVE's true-accept rate by up to 4.3-fold in the tested settings. The code is available in https://github.com/salimkhazem/Cove.git