MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982447515 · doi:10.1109/ccst.2019.8888418

Generating Off-line and On-line Forgeries from On-line Genuine Signatures

2019· article· en· W2982447515 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel A. Ferrer, Moises Díaz, Cristina Carmona-Duarte, Réjean Plamondon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLine (geometry)TrajectorySignature (topology)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)KinematicsArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Line segmentSingle lineComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningAlgorithmMathematicsEngineering drawingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving the ability of forgery detection in Automatic Signature Verifiers requires databases with an extensive and realistic set of skilled forgeries. However, collecting skilled professional copies is not always possible in many studies, and most the publicly available databases are limited from that point of view. Recently, the Kinematic Theory of Rapid Movements has been used to improve the skillfulness from a given on-line skilled forgery. This paper proposes a method based on the Kinematic Theory of Rapid Movements to generate both on-line and off-line skilled synthetic forgeries from a single on-line genuine specimen. The method consists of three steps: 1. The genuine on-line signature is decomposed as a sum of overlapped lognormal strokes, 2. The trajectory is modified by distorting the virtual target points and the lognormal parameters, and 3. A new velocity profile is automatically synthetized from the 8-connected modified trajectory. Experiments with multiple on-line and off-line signature verifiers show that this method can generate skilled forgeries harder to detect.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207