ICFHR 2020 Competition on Short answer ASsessment and Thai student SIGnature and Name COMponents Recognition and Verification (SASIGCOM 2020)

This paper describes the results of the competition on Short answer ASsessment and Thai student SIGnature and Name COMponents Recognition and Verification (SASIGCOM 2020) in conjunction with the 17th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (ICFHR 2020). The competition was aimed to automate the evaluation process short answer-based examination and record the development and gain attention to such system. The proposed competition contains three elements which are short answer assessment (recognition and marking the answers to short-answer questions derived from examination papers), student name components (first and last names) and signature verification and recognition. Signatures and name components data were collected from 100 volunteers. For the Thai signature dataset, there are 30 genuine signatures, 12 skilled and 12 simple forgeries for each writer. With Thai name components dataset, there are 30 genuine and 12 skilfully forged name components for each writer. There are 104 exam papers in the short answer assessment dataset, 52 of which were written with cursive handwriting; the rest of 52 papers were written with printed handwriting. The exam papers contain ten questions, and the answers to the questions were designed to be a few words per question. Three teams from distinguished labs submitted their systems. For short answer assessment, word spotting task was also performed. This paper analysed the results produced by their algorithms using a performance measure and defines a way forward for this subject of research. Both the datasets, along with some of the accompanying ground truth/baseline mask will be made freely available for research purposes via the TC10/TC11

Investigating the Common Authorship of Signatures by Off-line Automatic Signature Verification without the Use of Reference Signatures

In automatic signature verification, questioned specimens are usually compared with reference signatures. In writer-dependent schemes, a number of reference signatures are required to build up the individual signer model while a writer-independent system requires a set of reference signatures from several signers to develop the model of the system. This paper addresses the problem of automatic signature verification when no reference signatures are available. The scenario we explore consists of a set of signatures, which could be signed by the same author or by multiple signers. As such, we discuss three methods which estimate automatically the common authorship of a set of off-line signatures. The first method develops a score similarity matrix, worked out with the assistance of duplicated signatures; the second uses a feature-distance matrix for each pair of signatures; and the last method introduces pre-classification based on the complexity of each signature. Publicly available signatures were used in the experiments, which gave encouraging results. As a baseline for the performance obtained by our approaches, we carried out a visual Turing Test where forensic and non-forensic human volunteers, carrying out the same task, performed less well than the automatic schemes

ICFHR 2018 Competition on Thai student signatures and name components recognition and verification (TSNCRV2018)

© 2018 IEEE. This paper summarises the results of the competition on the 1st Thai Student Signature and Name Components Recognition and Verification (TSNCRV 2018). It was organised in the context of the 16th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (ICFHR 2018). The aim of this competition was to record the development and gain attention on Thai student signatures and name component recognition and verification. Two different types of datasets were used for the competition: The first dataset contains Thai student signatures and the second dataset contains Thai student name components. Signatures and name components from 100 volunteers each were included in the competition datasets. For Thai signature dataset, there are 30 genuine signatures, 12 skilled and 12 simple forgeries for each writer. For Thai name components, there are 30 genuine and 12 skilfully forged name components for each writer. For both the datasets the individuals were asked to write their name/signature in the given space on a white piece of paper for number of time (with a pause between each 10 samples). The skilled forgers were asked practice emitting the original signature for certain number of times till they fill skilled to forge. Five teams from distinguish labs submitted their systems. This paper analysed the results produced by these algorithms/systems using a performance measure and defined a way forward for this subject of research. Both the datasets along with some of the accompanying ground truth/baseline mask will be made freely available for research purposes via the TC10/TC11