Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Learning features for offline handwritten signature verification using deep convolutional neural networks

Open access
Hafemann, Luiz G., Sabourin, Robert, Oliveira, Luiz S.·2017·Pattern Recognition

Abstract

We propose formulations for learning features for Offline Signature Verification.A novel method that uses knowledge of forgeries from a subset of users is proposed.Learned features are used to train classifiers for other users (without forgeries).Experiments on GPDS-960 show a large improvement in state-of-the-art.Results in other 3 datasets show that the features generalize without fine-tuning. Verifying the identity of a person using handwritten signatures is challenging in the presence of skilled forgeries, where a forger has access to a persons signature and deliberately attempt to imitate it. In offline (static) signature verification, the dynamic information of the signature writing process is lost, and it is difficult to design good feature extractors that can distinguish genuine signatures and skilled forgeries. This reflects in a relatively poor performance, with verification errors around 7% in the best systems in the literature. To address both the difficulty of obtaining good features, as well as improve system performance, we propose learning the representations from signature images, in a Writer-Independent format, using Convolutional Neural Networks. In particular, we propose a novel formulation of the problem that includes knowledge of skilled forgeries from a subset of users in the feature learning process, that aims to capture visual cues that distinguish genuine signatures and forgeries regardless of the user. Extensive experiments were conducted on four datasets: GPDS, MCYT, CEDAR and Brazilian PUC-PR datasets. On GPDS-160, we obtained a large improvement in state-of-the-art performance, achieving 1.72% Equal Error Rate, compared to 6.97% in the literature. We also verified that the features generalize beyond the GPDS dataset, surpassing the state-of-the-art performance in the other datasets, without requiring the representation to be fine-tuned to each particular dataset.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.patcog.2017.05.012

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
Hafemann, L. G., Sabourin, R., & Oliveira, L. S.
Venue
Pattern Recognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
70
Pages
163-176
ISSN
0031-3203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2614376571
Cited by
391
References
53
FWCI
13.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning features for offline handwritten signature verification using deep convolutional neural networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.patcog.2017.05.012
The paper
Hafemann, L. G., Sabourin, R., & Oliveira, L. S. (2017). Learning features for offline handwritten signature verification using deep convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2017.05.012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.