ProtoSig: Enhancing training data for offline handwritten signature verification using prototypical signatures
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
Offline Handwritten Signature Verification (offline HSV) analyzes static images of signatures to distinguish between genuine and forged samples. To create training data for such systems, negative samples, commonly known as random forgeries, are typically drawn from genuine signatures of other users, as real-world datasets often lack actual forgeries. While this strategy helps address the scarcity of forgery data, it faces several challenges. The randomly selected samples may lack the diversity and challenge needed to improve model robustness. Additionally, they can cause redundancy, increasing training time and storage requirements, and may introduce bias across users, leading to unfair training distributions. This paper proposes a novel strategy, called ProtoSig , for generating more informative and diverse negative samples by leveraging prototypical signatures, which are compact, non-identifiable vectors obtained through a data-driven summarization of signature feature vectors. Our experiments demonstrate that ProtoSig enhances skilled forgery detection in a writer-dependent verification approach, eliminating performance variability across runs, while reducing dependence on external user data. We further demonstrate that our method achieves comparable or higher accuracy with a smaller training set, yielding substantial scalability benefits: over 98% reduction in training time and up to two orders of magnitude lower computational cost (in FLOPs), while strengthening data privacy and promoting fairness in offline HSV systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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