Hybrid writer‐independent–writer‐dependent offline signature verification system
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".