The Modified DTW Method for On-Line Automatic Signature Verification

Cho, Dong Uk; Bae, Young Lae; Ko, Il Seok

doi:10.1007/11577188_48

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Majority Classifier (MC) accepts a test signature as a genuine one if the number of feature values which pass a predetermined test is larger than half the total number of tested features. Function-based approach treats the signing process as a set of one-dimensional discrete time functions and performs the matching process based on an elastic measure such as DTW [7,9,14,15,17,18,31,36,44,45,51,54,67,71,72,79,81,84,85,86,93,96,98,99,101,104,106,112,122,124,126,129,140,142,143,146,163,167,200,221,222] or HMM [2,5,21,29,30,32,58,…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Signature Verification: State of the art

El-Henawy¹,

Rashad²,

Nomir³

et al. 2005

IJCT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACTonline or Dynamic signature verification (DSV) is one of the most acceptable, intuitive, fast and cost effective tool for user authentication. DSV uses some dynamics like speed, pressure, directions, stroke length and pen-ups/pen-downs to verify the signer's identity. The state of the art in DSV is presented in this paper. several approaches for DSV are compared and the most influential techniques in this field are highlighted. We concentrate on the relationship between the verification approach used (the nature of the classifier) and the type of features that are used to represent the signature. Literature ReviewThe signing process can be described at two levels: at the high level, the signing method is recovered from long-term memory; parameters are then specified such as size, shape, timing; finally, at a peripheral level, commands are generated for the biophysical muscles. So, the signing process is believed to be a reflex action (ballistic action), rather than a deliberate action. Ballistic handwriting is characterized by a spurt of activity, without positional feedback, whereas deliberate handwriting is characterized by a conscious attempt to produce a visual pattern with the aid of positional feedback [25]. The problem arises here is that many signers can produce their signatures both ballistically and deliberately based on the nature and importance of the task. The process of Signature verification is a two-class problem where the input signature is classified as genuine or forged (i.e. belonging to an impostor). The simplest approach to compare two signatures is to compute correlations between the test signature values and the reference signature values. Such point-topoint comparison usually does not work well since there are a large number of variations between the two signatures and the correlation can be affected by the translation, rotation or scaling of the signature . The decision is made by comparing the similarity score between the input and the enrolled signatures with a predetermined threshold. A tablet device is used to capture dynamic information of a signature. Such dynamic information is a set of sequences of sampled points over time. Each sequence depicts an action performed during the signing process. Signatures from the same person may have different trajectory lengths due to local stretching, compression, omission or additional parts, and hence they are represented by feature vectors of differing lengths. Therefore, straight forward methods, such as the Euclidian distance or autocorrelation, are not very useful in calculation of the dissimilarity value between two signatures [6]. Such point-to-point comparison usually does not work because some portions of any two genuine signatures of the same person may vary significantly. To overcome the problem, non-linearly approaches such as Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) algorithm and Hidden Markov Models (HMM) are commonly used in aligning two signatures. Plamondon and Lorette [141] categorized the various signature verification methods int...

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Signature Verification: State of the art

El-Henawy¹,

Rashad²,

Nomir³

et al. 2005

IJCT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Modified Dynamic Time Warping for Stroke-Based On-line Signature Verification

Chang

Shin

2007

Ninth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2007) Vol 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online Signature Verification Based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov Distribution Distance

Griechisch

Malik

Liwicki

2014

2014 14th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online signature verification methods examine the dynamics of the handwriting process to decide whether a signature is probably genuine or forged. Most of the previously proposed methods for online signature verification apply Neural Networks, Dynamic Time Warping, or Hidden Markov Model for classification and they consider several aspects, like planar coordinates, pressure, velocity, and acceleration with respect to time. Here we apply a non-parametric statistical test for a comparison of features and the verification of signatures.

show abstract

The Modified DTW Method for On-Line Automatic Signature Verification

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Online Signature Verification: State of the art

Online Signature Verification: State of the art

Modified Dynamic Time Warping for Stroke-Based On-line Signature Verification

Online Signature Verification Based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov Distribution Distance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About