ICFHR 2012 Competition on Automatic Forensic Signature Verification (4NsigComp 2012)

Liwicki, Marcus; Malik, Muhammad Imran; Alewijnse, Linda; Heuvel, Elisa van den; Found, Bryan

doi:10.1109/icfhr.2012.217

Cited by 28 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Imitation of the performance and appearance of [140] SigComp2009 [28] On-and offline aspect to take into account is the way to label the types of forged signatures in the databases. As previously mentioned, depending on the research project, the forgeries can be referred to as skilled forgeries [16], deliberate forgeries [75], disguise [150] or random or impostor signatures [101], or simulated or highly skilled forgeries [191]. This nomenclature suggests a categorization of the degree of closeness to genuine signatures.…”

Section: Most Popular Publicly Available Handwritten Signature Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Perspective Analysis of Handwritten Signature Technology

Diaz¹,

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handwritten signatures are biometric traits at the center of debate in the scientific community. Over the last 40 years, the interest in signature studies has grown steadily, having as its main reference the application of automatic signature verification, as previously published reviews in 1989, 2000, and 2008 bear witness. Ever since, and over the last 10 years, the application of handwritten signature technology has strongly evolved and much research has focused on the possibility of applying systems based on handwritten signature analysis and processing to a multitude of new fields. After several years of haphazard growth of this research area, it is time to assess its current developments for their applicability in order to draw a structured way forward. This perspective reports a systematic review of the last 10 years of the literature on handwritten signatures with respect to the new scenario, focusing on the most promising domains of research and trying to elicit possible future research directions in this subject. CCS Concepts: • General and reference → Surveys and overviews; • Security and privacy → Biometrics; Access control; • Theory of computation → Pattern matching; • Applied computing → Document analysis; System forensics;

show abstract

Section: Most Popular Publicly Available Handwritten Signature Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Perspective Analysis of Handwritten Signature Technology

Diaz¹,

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include SigComp2009, 7 4NSigComp2010, 5 SigComp2011, 8 and 4NSigComp2012. 9 All of these datasets are publicly available at the International Association of Pattern Recognition (IAPR), Technical Committee (TC-11) webpage i . Having different automated systems that report results on the same data sets may provide a comparative analysis of their performances.…”

Section: Probable Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Shared Conceptualization for Automatic Signature Verification

Liwicki¹,

Malik²,

Berger³

2014

Advances in Digital Handwritten Signature Processing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is an effort towards the development of a shared conceptualization regarding automatic signature verification especially between the Pattern Recognition (PR) and Forensic Handwriting Examiners (FHEs) communities. This is required because FHEs require state-of-the-art PR systems to incorporate them in forensic casework but so far most of these systems are not directly applicable to such environments. This is because of various differences, right from terminology to evaluation, in how the signature verification problem is approached in the two said communities. This chapter, therefore, addresses three major areas where the two communities differ and suggest possible solutions to their effect. First, it highlights how signature verification is taken differently in the above mentioned communities and why this gap is increasing. Various factors that widen this gap are discussed with reference to some of the recent signature verification studies and probable solutions are suggested. Second, it discusses the state-of-the-art evaluation and its problems as seen by FHEs. The real evaluation issues faced by FHEs, when trying to incorporate automatic signature verification systems in their routine casework, are presented. Third, it reports a standardized evaluation scheme capable of fulfilling the requirements of both PR researchers and FHEs and provides a practical exemplar of its usage.

show abstract

“…These algorithms are a valuable source of knowledge because the description of these algorithms and preprocessing techniques are published and accessible [20]. In recent years, there were more competitions such as SigComp2011 [34], 4NSigComp2012 [35], and SigWiComp2013 [36]. The organizers of these competitions publish benchmark databases that allow one to compare obtained results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%