2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.imavis.2007.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Handwriting verification – Comparison of a multi-algorithmic and a multi-semantic approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The multi-algorithm approach only led to some slight improvements on the decision level, whereas on the other levels even worse results than without any fusion at all were obtained. This contrasts to the biometrics domain, where also for multi-algorithm approaches improved results occur [12].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The multi-algorithm approach only led to some slight improvements on the decision level, whereas on the other levels even worse results than without any fusion at all were obtained. This contrasts to the biometrics domain, where also for multi-algorithm approaches improved results occur [12].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Handwritten data can be either textual and use some specially developed simple alphabets, a standard alphabet of a language or a cursive. Other types are gestures to give commands to the computer, symbols and drawings, or signatures, which are used in biometrics for the authentication of persons [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The weights are selected such that to satisfy condition w X + w Y + w Z = 1. Previously, in other biometric studies, computing weights based on EER values of individual modalities shown to be useful [36,37]. For the four aforementioned combinations, weights were also computed using EER values as follow 1.…”
Section: Results With Fusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The weights of matching scores are determined by dividing the single EER with sum of all EER (see equation 3). A property of this weighting scheme is that the matching scores of the system, which received the highest EER are multiplied with the smallest weight and vice versa.…”
Section: Linear Weighted Fusionmentioning
confidence: 99%