Chapter 45

Chapter 4
Result and Discussion
Result
5 real signatures and 20 fake signatures are used in the experiment, with 5 real
signatures serving as the reference signatures.
Here are some potential results and findings of a signature verification and detection
process using Siamese Networks.
Accuracy: Siamese networks have been shown to achieve high accuracy rates in
signature verification tasks. The specific accuracy achieved will depend on the
quality and size of the dataset used for training and validation. Accuracy: The
percentage of accurately classified data samples over all the data is known as
accuracy. Accuracy can be calculated by the following equation. [43]
Accuracy = (TP+TN)/(TP+FP+TN+FN)
Speed: Siamese networks can be relatively fast for signature verification, as they
only need to compare pairs of signatures rather than analyzing entire signature
images. However, the speed may be impacted by the size and complexity of the
Siamese network architecture.
Sensitivity to quality: The performance of a Siamese network for signature

verification may be impacted by the quality of the input signatures. Poorly scanned
or low-quality signatures may be more difficult for the system to compare
accurately.
Potential for bias: Siamese networks may be susceptible to bias if the training data
is not diverse enough. For example, if the training data is heavily skewed towards
1
signatures from one demographic, the system may not perform as well on signatures
from other demographics.
Interpretability: Siamese networks can be more difficult to interpret than other

machine learning models, as they are based on a complex neural network
architecture. This may make it harder to identify the specific features of a signature
that are most important for verification.
Overall, the effectiveness of a signature verification and detection process using

siamese networks will depend on many factors, including the quality and diversity
of the training data, the specific Siamese network architecture used, and the specific
use case for the system.
Here is the outlook of our project’s output
Fig 6.1:Verified Signature Image
We have gained the verified signature by applying the above algorithms. In this
output, our project shows a message like “Signature is verified” if the signature
image of user is matched with the image that was stored on the database. Besides
the verified message we have also gained the identification information of the user
like User’s name, Age and email address.
2
Fig 6.2: Unverified Signature Image
When the user’s signature doesn’t match with the signature stored on the database
then the project shows a message that is “Signature is not verified”.
Here is an illustration of the user’s interface of signature verification and detection

project.
Fig 6.3: User interface
Discussion
Throughout the last thirty years, numerous approaches for verifying signatures
have been proposed. The two methods utilized to extract the pertinent data/features
from the signatures are global features based and local features. These
characteristics are covered. The system must be tested using the available 5
authentic and 20 fake signatures during implementation to obtain the performance
curves. Testing with each test signature and storing the score values took hours.
3
This grew to be a serious issue. Hence, a Deep Learning is built with all of the test
signatures to tackle this problem. Once created, it was simple to compute the
performance curves by just clicking the run button.
Table 6.1: Comparison of various offline signature verification

techniques.
SI. No Approach FRR FAR Accuracy

1 SVM 4.8% 5.3% 97.54%
2 CNN 12% 23% 98.12%
3 Siamense Network 11.8% 13.1% 98.96%
4 Hough Transform 14% 2.8% 94.25%
5 KNN 1.5% 2.5% 97.9%
4
Chapter 5
Conclusion and Future Work
Conclusion
The TS model, which incorporates structural characteristics in its exponential

membership function, models an off-line signature verification and forgery
detection system. Angle-based features are retrieved using the box technique.
Because to the variances in handwritten signatures, each characteristic produces a
fuzzy set when its values are collected from all samples. Each rule in this
formulation is made up of just one characteristic. A sizable database of signatures
has been used to assess the effectiveness of this approach. The verification method
can precisely identify all varieties of forgeries, including random, skilled, and
unskilled ones. The initial parameter selection is vital but not absolutely necessary.
But, we only need to make the right decision once, and it applies to all forms of
signatures. Due to the lack of simplicity at the implementation stage, we have not
utilized global learning methodologies.
5
Future work
We provide a state-of-the-art for the most recent techniques utilized in offline

signature verification systems in this study. Although various methods are employed
in this field, accuracy has to be improved, particularly for sophisticated forgeries. In
this project, accuracy of several on-hand techniques are described and compared.
The accuracy achieved so far by the current technologies is not particularly high,
necessitating more study into off-line signature verification.
Future work might possibly combine various classifiers to produce better
verification outcomes.

Chapter 45

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 45

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 45

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

Result and Discussion

Sensitivity to quality: The performance of a Siamese network for signature

Interpretability: Siamese networks can be more difficult to interpret than other

Overall, the effectiveness of a signature verification and detection process using

Here is the outlook of our project’s output

Fig 6.1:Verified Signature Image

Here is an illustration of the user’s interface of signature verification and detection

Fig 6.3: User interface

Table 6.1: Comparison of various offline signature verification

SI. No Approach FRR FAR Accuracy

2 CNN 12% 23% 98.12%

3 Siamense Network 11.8% 13.1% 98.96%

4 Hough Transform 14% 2.8% 94.25%

5 KNN 1.5% 2.5% 97.9%

Conclusion and Future Work

The TS model, which incorporates structural characteristics in its exponential

We provide a state-of-the-art for the most recent techniques utilized in offline

You might also like