Paper detail

Single-sample writers -- "Document Filter" and their impacts on writer identification

The writing can be used as an important biometric modality which allows to unequivocally identify an individual. It happens because the writing of two different persons present differences that can be explored both in terms of graphometric properties or even by addressing the manuscript as a digital image, taking into account the use of image processing techniques that can properly capture different visual attributes of the image (e.g. texture). In this work, perform a detailed study in which we dissect whether or not the use of a database with only a single sample taken from some writers may skew the results obtained in the experimental protocol. In this sense, we propose here what we call "document filter". The "document filter" protocol is supposed to be used as a preprocessing technique, such a way that all the data taken from fragments of the same document must be placed either into the training or into the test set. The rationale behind it, is that the classifier must capture the features from the writer itself, and not features regarding other particularities which could affect the writing in a specific document (i.e. emotional state of the writer, pen used, paper type, and etc.). By analyzing the literature, one can find several works dealing the writer identification problem. However, the performance of the writer identification systems must be evaluated also taking into account the occurrence of writer volunteers who contributed with a single sample during the creation of the manuscript databases. To address the open issue investigated here, a comprehensive set of experiments was performed on the IAM, BFL and CVL databases. They have shown that, in the most extreme case, the recognition rate obtained using the "document filter" protocol drops from 81.80% to 50.37%.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.