MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032116850 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2010.933

On-Line Signature Verification Using 1-D Velocity-Based Directional Analysis

2010· article· en· W2032116850 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Ibrahim, Matthew Kyan, M. Aurangzeb Khan, Ling Guan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignature (topology)TrajectoryCurvatureComputer scienceLine (geometry)Support vector machineBoundary (topology)Basis (linear algebra)Line segmentFeature (linguistics)Flexibility (engineering)AlgorithmArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a novel approach for identity verification based on the directional analysis of velocity-based partitions of an on-line signature. First, inter-feature dependencies in a signature are exploited by decomposing the shape (horizontal trajectory, vertical trajectory) into two partitions based on the velocity profile of the base-signature for each signer, which offers the flexibility of analyzing both low and high-curvature portions of the trajectory independently. Further, these velocity-based shape partitions are analyzed directionally on the basis of relative angles. Support Vector Machine (SVM) is then used to find the decision boundary between the genuine and forgery class. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our approach in on-line signature verification in comparison with other techniques.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207