Manual and Machine Learning Approaches for Classifying Real and Forged Signatures-A Comparative Study and Forensic Implications.

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Rakesh Meena, Damini Siwan, Peehul Krishan, Ankita Guleria, Abhik Ghosh, Kewal Krishan
{"title":"Manual and Machine Learning Approaches for Classifying Real and Forged Signatures-A Comparative Study and Forensic Implications.","authors":"Rakesh Meena, Damini Siwan, Peehul Krishan, Ankita Guleria, Abhik Ghosh, Kewal Krishan","doi":"10.1002/bsl.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A handwritten signature is one of the forms of a biometric measure that creates an individual identity of the persons to mark their approval related to any document. The manual examination for determination of the authenticity of the handwritten signatures is a common practice amongst forensic document examiners. This process involves a detailed and thorough analysis of handwriting characteristics of an individual ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the each and every important feature. However, the use of artificial intelligence tools can reduce this manual work of experts for identifying forgery in signatures. The main objective of the present study was to classify the handwritten signatures as forged and genuine, manually as well as using tools of artificial intelligence, especially machine learning (ML) methods. A total of 1400 signatures, consisting of 700 forged and 700 real signatures were obtained. The signatures were obtained from 71 participants; one writer executed 700 signatures (real/genuine signatures) and 70 participants were asked to forge 10 signatures each by observing one genuine signature selected from a pool of 700 real signatures. The study employed two methods to examine the signatures: manual examination and by using machine learning-based models. In the manual examination, thorough comparison between real and forged signatures revealed that all the forged signatures were imitated and falsified that is not created by the original creator. In contrast, the machine learning-based models that is support vector machine (SVM) and random forest classifier (RFC) were utilized for classifying the signatures as either forged or genuine. The RFC and SVM achieved accuracies of 92% and 89.64% respectively for classification of the signatures as real or forged. Accuracy of both the models of the machine learning approach revealed that the approach may be used to reduce the manual work of forensic handwriting experts and allow this examination to be performed more quickly. However, the admissibility of AI-based examination of signatures is still challenged due to the lack of universal standards and a regulatory framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":47926,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Sciences & the Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Sciences & the Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.70000","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A handwritten signature is one of the forms of a biometric measure that creates an individual identity of the persons to mark their approval related to any document. The manual examination for determination of the authenticity of the handwritten signatures is a common practice amongst forensic document examiners. This process involves a detailed and thorough analysis of handwriting characteristics of an individual ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the each and every important feature. However, the use of artificial intelligence tools can reduce this manual work of experts for identifying forgery in signatures. The main objective of the present study was to classify the handwritten signatures as forged and genuine, manually as well as using tools of artificial intelligence, especially machine learning (ML) methods. A total of 1400 signatures, consisting of 700 forged and 700 real signatures were obtained. The signatures were obtained from 71 participants; one writer executed 700 signatures (real/genuine signatures) and 70 participants were asked to forge 10 signatures each by observing one genuine signature selected from a pool of 700 real signatures. The study employed two methods to examine the signatures: manual examination and by using machine learning-based models. In the manual examination, thorough comparison between real and forged signatures revealed that all the forged signatures were imitated and falsified that is not created by the original creator. In contrast, the machine learning-based models that is support vector machine (SVM) and random forest classifier (RFC) were utilized for classifying the signatures as either forged or genuine. The RFC and SVM achieved accuracies of 92% and 89.64% respectively for classification of the signatures as real or forged. Accuracy of both the models of the machine learning approach revealed that the approach may be used to reduce the manual work of forensic handwriting experts and allow this examination to be performed more quickly. However, the admissibility of AI-based examination of signatures is still challenged due to the lack of universal standards and a regulatory framework.

人工和机器学习方法对真实和伪造签名的分类——比较研究和法医学意义。
手写签名是生物识别的一种形式,它创建了个人身份,以标记他们对任何文件的批准。手工检查以确定手写签名的真实性是法医文件审查员之间的常见做法。这个过程包括对一个人的笔迹特征进行详细和彻底的分析,以确保对每一个重要特征进行全面的评估。然而,人工智能工具的使用可以减少专家识别签名伪造的手工工作。本研究的主要目的是将手写签名分为伪造和真实,手工以及使用人工智能工具,特别是机器学习(ML)方法。总共获得了1400个签名,其中伪造签名700个,真实签名700个。签名来自71名参与者;一位作者执行了700个签名(真实/真实签名),70名参与者被要求通过观察从700个真实签名中选出的一个真实签名来伪造10个签名。该研究采用了两种方法来检查签名:人工检查和使用基于机器学习的模型。在人工检查中,通过对真实签名和伪造签名的彻底对比,发现所有伪造的签名都是模仿和伪造的,而不是由原作者创作的。相比之下,基于机器学习的模型即支持向量机(SVM)和随机森林分类器(RFC)被用于将签名分类为伪造或真实。RFC和SVM对签名真伪分类的准确率分别达到92%和89.64%。机器学习方法的两种模型的准确性表明,该方法可用于减少法医笔迹专家的手工工作,并允许更快地执行此检查。然而,由于缺乏通用标准和监管框架,基于人工智能的签名检查的可接受性仍然受到挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
50
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信