Online Signature Verification

Based on Dynamic Regression

Signature Verification Group @Cedar 11/06/2003

Signature verification

->Basic Procedure

• 1. Template generation

In real application, the number of given genuine signatures is very

few (usually less than 6) and no forgery is provided.

• 2. Matching based on the template. Input one signature, output a confidence(0%-100%) that the

signature is genuine.

Signature verification

->1. Template generation

• The challenges are:

1).Very limited signatures for training.

Usually we can not expect more than 6 genuine signatures for training for each subject. This is unlike handwriting recognition.

2). Decide the consistent features.

There are over 100 features for signature[2], such as Width, Height, Duration, Orientation, X positions, Y positions, Speed, Curvature, Pressure, so on.

Signature verification

->1. Template generation• We have following experience: 1). The most reliable feature is the shape of the signature.

2). The second reliable feature is the speed of writing.3). No other features are consistent.

To represent shape and speed, each signature is a 3-D sequence: Sigi=[Xi, Yi, Vi], where Vi is the sequence of speed magnitude. Then we use Dynamic Regression to match two signatures and return a Confidence of similarity (0%-100%).

Template Generation

• Features we choose Sequence of X & Y

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Genuine Sig.

X positions Y positions

Template Generation

• Features comparison

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

X from genuine sig. X from forgery sig.

Genuine sig. Forgery sig.

Template Generation

• More featuresX, Y positions are not enough. We need spatial features that describe the shape of the signature curve. Torques, Curvature-ellipse are candidates

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Torques of genuine sig. Torques of forgery sig.

Now we can distinguish them !

Template Generation

• More features: Curvature Ellipse

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1800.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180-1

-0.95

-0.9

-0.85

-0.8

-0.75

-0.7

-0.65

-0.6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1800.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

S1 of Curvature Ellipse (genuine)

S2 of Curvature Ellipse (genuine)

S1 of Curvature Ellipse (forgery)

S2 of Curvature Ellipse (forgery)

Template Generation

• Curve Matching & Segmentation

Signature verification

->2. Matching

• Traditional Simple Regression

-2 0 0 0

-1 5 0 0

-1 0 0 0

-5 0 0

0

5 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0-2 0 0 0

-1 0 0 0

0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0-2 0 0 0

-1 0 0 0

0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

-5 0 0

0

5 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 0

3 0 0 0

3 5 0 0

4 0 0 0

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0-5 0 0

0

5 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 0

3 0 0 0

3 5 0 0

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0-5 0 0

0

5 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 0

3 0 0 0

3 5 0 0

4 0 0 0

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Similarity: 91%

Similarity: 31%

Signature verification

->2. Matching

• Traditional Simple Regression Advantages: Invariant to scale and translation; Similarity (Goodness-

of-fit) makes sense.

Disadvantages: One-one alignment, brittle.

S1

S2

S1

S2

One-One alignment Dynamic alignment

Signature verification

->2. Matching

• Dynamic Regression

The DTW warping path in the n-by-m matrix is the path which has minimum average cumulative cost. The unmarked area is the constrain that path is allowed to go.

],...,,[ 221 myyyyY

],...,,[ 321 nxxxxX

),(Re XYgressionSimilarity

( y2 is matched x2, x3, so we extend it to be two points in Y sequence.)

Signature verification

->Demo System

Enroll two or more genuine signatures

Signature verification

->Demo System

Verifying signature. Similarity is output and Accept/Reject is recommended

Signature verification

->Remarks• Segmentation?

Signature is an art of drawing, not limited to some kind language. Segments by Perceptually Important Points[7] are by no means consistent during genuine signature of one subject.

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Signature verification

->Remarks

• User-dependent distance threshold?

Distance (Euclidean, DTW, etc.) for similarity measure is so embarrassing. In real applications, users tends to ask: how similar is the two signatures? Or, what is the confidence that this signature is genuine? It is nature and friendly to answer: their similarity confidence is 90%! (instead of saying their distance of dissimilarity is 5.8). Our demo system shows that the answer by Dynamic Regression really makes sense.

References

• [1] Rejean Plamondon, Guy Lorette. Automatic Signature Verification and Writer identification-the state of the art. Pattern Recognition, Vol.22, No.2, pp.107-131, 1989.

• [2] F. Leclerc and R. Plamondon. Automatic signature verification: the state of the art 1989-1993. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 8(3):643-660, 1994.

• [3] Luan L. Lee, Toby Berger, Erez Aviczer. Reliable On-line Human Signature Verifications Systems. IEEE trans. On Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 18, No.6, June 1996.

• [4] R. Plamondon. The Design of On-line Signature Verification System: From Theory to Practice. Int’l J. Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 795-811, 1994.

• [5] Mario E. Munich, Pietro Perona. Visual Identification by Signature Tracking. IEEE Trans. On Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 200-216, February 2003.

References

• [6] Vishvjit S. Nalwa. Automatic On-line Signature Verification. Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 215-239, February 1997.

• [7] Jean-Jules Brault and Rejean Plamondon. Segmenting Hanwritten Signatures at Their Perceptually Important Points. IEEE Trans. On Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol, 15, No. 9, pp. 953-957, September 1993.

• [8] Taik H. Rhee, Sung J. Cho, Jin H. Kim. On-line Signature Verification Using Model-Guided Segmentation and Discriminative Feature Selection for Skilled Forgeries. Sixth International Conference on Document Analysis and

Recognition (ICDAR '01), September, Seattle, Washington, 2001.

• [9] Thomas B. Sebastian, Philip N. Klein, Bejamin B. Kimia. On Aligning Curves. IEEE Trans. On Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 25, No. 1, January 2003.

• [10] A.K. Jain, Friederike D. Griess and Scott D. Connell. On-line Signature Verification. Pattern Recognition, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 2963--2972, Dec 2002.

References

• [11] K. Huang and H. Yan, “On-Line Signature Verification Based on Dynamic segmentation and Global and Local Matching,” Optical Eng., vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 3480-3487, 1995.

• [12] G. Lorette and R. Plamondon, “Dynamic Approaches to Hand-written Signature Verification,” Computer Processing of Hand-writing, pp. 21-47, 1990.

• [13] R. Martens and L. Claesen, “On-Line Signature Verification by Dynamic Time-Warping,” Proc. 13th Int’l Conf. Pattern Recognition, pp. 38-42, 1996.

• [14] B. Wirtz, “Stroke-Based Time Warping for Signature Verification,” Proc. Int’l Conf. Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 179-182, 1995.