Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research integrates structured light and deep learning to determine ink sequence in handwriting, suggesting a new method for document authenticity verification.
In the field of forensic document examination, accurately determining the chronological sequence of intersecting lines between seal ink and handwriting is a crucial technical step for verifying document authenticity, identifying contract tampering, and detecting forged signatures. This technique analyzes the physical superimposition relationship formed by the deposition of the two media on the paper substrate to provide objective scientific evidence for judicial practice. Although traditional methods such as microscopic imaging and mass spectrometry analysis have achieved some progress, they still suffer from common limitations including high equipment costs, complex operation, and potential damage to samples. This study proposes and validates an innovative non-destructive determination method that integrates structured light 3D reconstruction technology with deep learning algorithms. The research captures the microscopic 3D morphological features of the ink intersection area using a high-precision structured light scanning system and effectively eliminates noise interference caused by paper substrate undulation through Gaussian flattening technology. Subsequently, a multimodal fusion strategy combines 2D texture images with 3D depth information to construct a dataset rich in features. On this basis, a deep learning model based on an improved Residual Neural Network (ResNet) is designed, incorporating the ELU activation function and an EMA mechanism to enhance the model’s feature extraction capability and convergence stability. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves a recognition accuracy of 94.39% on the test set, fully validating its effectiveness and application potential in the non-destructive determination of ink stroke sequencing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: