Approaching the intra-class variability in multi-script static signature evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an emerging issue, multi-script signature verification is a recent challenge for current Automatic Signature Verification (ASV) systems. Relevant differences are presented in the morphology and lexicon of the signature images written in different scripts, such as used symbols, shape of the signatures, legibility, etc. These peculiarities could reduce the success of ASV systems, especially those which were originally designed for only one kind of script. However, one common feature among scripts in ASV is the fact that the greater the number of signatures that are used for training, the better the expected performance. In this work, we propose a method inspired by observations from the neuromotor equivalence theory to artificially enlarge the signature images used to train a state-of-the-art static signature classifier. Experimental results are obtained by using three static signature datasets derived from completely different scripts: Western, Bengali and Devanagari. Our results suggest that the cognitive-inspired model, which aims to duplicate static signatures, tends toward intra-class variability of signatures written in different scripts; the model's beneficial impact is seen in signature verification tests.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".