Hybrid writer‐independent–writer‐dependent offline signature verification system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard signature verification (SV) systems are writer‐dependent (WD), where a specific classifier is designed for each individual. It is inconvenient to ask a user to provide enough number of signature samples to design his WD classifier. In practice, very few samples are collected and inaccurate classifiers maybe produced. To overcome this, writer‐independent (WI) systems are introduced. A global classifier is designed using a development database, prior to enrolling users to the system. For these systems, signature templates are needed for verification, and the template databases can be compromised. Moreover, state‐of‐the‐art WI and WD systems provide enhanced accuracy through information fusion at either feature, score or decision levels, but they increase computational complexity. In this study, a hybrid WI–WD system is proposed, as a compromise of the two approaches. When a user is enrolled to the system, a WI classifier is used to verify his queries. During operation, user samples are collected and adapt the WI classifier to his signatures. Once adapted, the resulting WD classifier replaces the WI classifier for this user. Simulations on the Brazilian and the GPDS signature databases indicate that the proposed hybrid system provides comparative accuracy as complex WI and WD systems, while decreases the classification complexity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it