Traditionally, the accuracy of signature verification systems has been evaluated following a protocol that considers two independent impostor scenarios: random forgeries and skilled forgeries. Although such an approach is not necessarily incorrect, it can lead to a misinterpretation of the results of the assessment process. Furthermore, such a full separation between both types of impostors may be unrealistic in many operational real-world applications. The current article discusses the soundness of the random-skilled impostor dichotomy and proposes complementary approaches to report the accuracy of signature verification systems, discussing their advantages and limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galbally et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: