Abstract

We present MOBISIG, a pseudosignature dataset containing finger-drawn signatures from 83 users captured with a capacitive touchscreen-based mobile device. The database was captured in three sessions resulting in 45 genuine signatures and 20 skilled forgeries for each user. The database was evaluated by two state-of-the-art methods: a function-based system using local features and a feature-based system using global features. Two types of equal error rate computations are performed: one using a global threshold and the other using user-specific thresholds. The lowest equal error rate was 0.01% against random forgeries and 5.81% against skilled forgeries using user-specific thresholds that were computed a posteriori. However, these equal error rates were significantly raised to 1.68% (random forgeries case) and 14.31% (skilled forgeries case) using global thresholds. The same evaluation protocol was performed on the DooDB publicly available dataset. Besides verification performance evaluations conducted on the two finger-drawn datasets, we evaluated the quality of the samples and the users of the two datasets using basic quality measures. The results show that finger-drawn signatures can be used by biometric systems with reasonable accuracy.

Highlights

  • One of the oldest ways of proving your identity is giving your signature

  • While off-line systems work with images, only the shape of the signature is available, but online systems use information related to the dynamics of the signature

  • Biometric systems can produce two types of errors: false rejections of genuine signatures (false rejection rate (FRR)) and false acceptance of forged signatures (false acceptance rate (FAR)). e overall system error is usually reported in terms of EER, which is defined as the system error rate when FAR and FRR are equal

Read more

Summary

Introduction

One of the oldest ways of proving your identity is giving your signature. Many official documents require signatures from agreeing parties. Signature recognition can be divided into off-line (static) and online (dynamic) methods. While off-line systems work with images, only the shape of the signature is available, but online systems use information related to the dynamics of the signature. Due to this additional information, online systems outperform off-line systems [1]. Biometric systems can produce two types of errors: false rejections of genuine signatures (false rejection rate (FRR)) and false acceptance of forged signatures (false acceptance rate (FAR)). E overall system error is usually reported in terms of EER (equal error rate), which is defined as the system error rate when FAR and FRR are equal Biometric systems can produce two types of errors: false rejections of genuine signatures (false rejection rate (FRR)) and false acceptance of forged signatures (false acceptance rate (FAR)). e overall system error is usually reported in terms of EER (equal error rate), which is defined as the system error rate when FAR and FRR are equal

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call