(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Pattern Recognition Letters 32 (2011) 1139–1144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Pattern Recognition Letters

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/patrec

A supervised algorithm with a new differentiated-weighting scheme for

identifying the author of a handwritten text
Edith C. Herrera-Luna, Edgardo M. Felipe-Riveron ⇑, Salvador Godoy-Calderon
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Center for Computing Research, National Polytechnic Institute, Juan de Dios Batiz and Miguel Othon de Mendizabal, P.O. 07738,
Gustavo A Madero, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper a new approach is presented for tackling the problem of identifying the author of a hand-
Received 15 December 2009 written text. This problem is solved with a simple, yet powerful, modification of the so called ALVOT fam-
ily of supervised classification algorithms with a novel differentiated-weighting scheme. Compared to
Communicated by L. Heutte
other previously published approaches, the proposed method significantly reduces the number and com-
plexity of the text-features to be extracted from the text. Also, the specific combination of line-level and
Keywords: word-level features used introduces an eclectic paradigm between texture-related and structure-related
Author identification
approaches.
Handwritten text
Differentiated-weighting
Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Supervised pattern recognition
ALVOT algorithm

1. Introduction In general, two types of characteristics (referred to as features)

Within the scope of computer aided analysis of handwritten
text, two main areas are generally identified: Optical Character Rec-
ognition (OCR) and Writing Identification and Verification (WIV). OCR
has been widely studied and consists of recognizing characters
within a digital image in such a way that the writing may be inter-
preted word by word. The WIV area recognizes the author of a
handwritten text, verifies and relates the authors to different doc-
uments, finds possible changes, etc.
This paper focuses on the identification of authors of handwrit-
ten texts, required in forensic control situations as well as by crim-
inalistic and criminology security institutions.
Studies regarding handwriting identification and verification
through computer methods date back to the 1950’s and continue
until the present time, recently having the most reliable results
in (Bensefia et al., 2005; Pecharromán-Balbás, 2007; Srihari,
1993, 2001; Pervouchine and Leedham, 2007; Said et al., 2000).
Nonetheless, the wide range of writing implements and sup-
ports used in those studies have originated several procedures to
characterize handwriting, differentiated among themselves by
their way of capturing data, their level of dependence on the
semantics of the written text and the methodology used to obtain
the main features that correspond to each text.
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +52 55 57296000/56607.
E-mail addresses: edith.hluna@gmail.com (E.C. Herrera-Luna), edgardo@
cic.ipn.mx (E.M. Felipe-Riveron), sgodoyc@cic.ipn.mx (S. Godoy-Calderon).
can be identified in handwriting (Srihari et al., 2002): the so-called
conventional features, extracted by a graphology/graphoscopy ex-
pert, and the computer-related features, automatically obtained
from digital images of the text in order to eliminate subjectivity
at the time of their extraction. When a specific device is used for
this purpose, the text features are extracted at the very moment
its writing is carried out and they are called dynamic in-line fea-
tures. On the other hand, if these features are extracted from a pre-
viously scanned digital image, they are called static off-line features.
In some WIV approaches it is necessary to know the semantic con-
tents of the words that make-up the text (text-dependent methods),
and in others, the method does not depend on semantic contents
(text-independent methods) (Pecharromán-Balbás, 2007).
Computer-related features extracted from the text may be tex-
ture-related or structure-related (Bensefia et al., 2005). When
extracting texture features, the document is seen as an image
and not as text, but when structural characteristics are extracted,
a description similar to that given by a graphology expert is sought
because the distinctive characteristic properties of the author’s
writing are desired.
This paper introduces a new supervised algorithm that is inde-
pendent of the handwritten text to be identified. The method is
based on off-line static features. The working methodology fol-
lowed in this research, poses and exemplifies the possibility of
identifying handwritten texts by using a new intermediate ap-
proach between texture and structural features. The exact method-
ology followed is shown in Fig. 1. The first three stages correspond
to activities specifically designed to put together a supervision

0167-8655/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2011.03.002
 Author's personal copy
1140 E.C. Herrera-Luna et al. / Pattern Recognition Letters 32 (2011) 1139–1144
Fig. 1. General methodology to identify the author of a handwritten text.
sample, that is, to undertake the traditional pre-processing feature
extraction and classification tasks of every pattern recognition sys-
tem. On the other hand, the last stage presents a non-classic treat-
ment of the classification task.
In the following sub-sections some specific data regarding each
of the stages of this methodology are briefly described.
2. Background
The analysis of handwritten text for the purpose of verification
and author identification is a tool that allows researchers to study
text from many different points of view according to the number of
authors, the type and quantity of characteristics extracted from the
texts, the best classification algorithms, and so on. The analysis of
handwritten text is at the core of graphoscopic analysis techniques.
The criteria set for feature extraction and the specific processing of
resulting data patterns, proposed in this paper, provide a general
framework that allows researches to study handwritten text from
many different perspectives.
Graphoscopic analysis plays an important role in a number of
practical problems, included, but not limited to, forensic and crim-
inalistic processing of evidence, validation of legal documents, his-
toriography, psychological profiling, etc.
Recently, amongst already published papers are Srihari (1993)
and Srihari et al. (2002), where the identification efficiency is con-
siderably reduced due to the high number of authors in the super-
vision sample. The algorithms proposed in (Said et al., 2000)
analyze the text image texture with Gabor’s filters and gray-scale
co-occurrence matrices (GSCM) using the weighted Euclidean dis-
tance and the K-NN classifier (Cover and Hart, 1967) to identify 40
different authors. Zois and Anastassopoulos (2000) propose the use
of horizontal projections and morphological operators together
with the texture features of English and Greek words, using a mul-
tilayer perceptron and a Bayesian classifier. Bensefia et al. (2005)
split words into graphemes, and at the same time combine the lo-
cal features extracted from regions of text. Finally they employ a
commonly used model for information retrieval, known as vector
space model, in the task of identifying the author of the text. Per-
vouchine and Leedham (2007) present an algorithm that extracts
structural features from characters and a grapheme, by means of
a genetic algorithm to look for optimal features after extracting
Fig. 2. (a) Original spanish-text image in color, (b) Otsu-thresholding over the green plane, (c) Khashman–Sekeroglu thresholding and (d) final noise-free binary image.
31 features from each selected word and using a neural network
classifier. In the doctoral thesis of Pecharromán-Balbás (2007) tex-
tural characteristics are extracted to be used within probability
functions and use the K-NN classifier with Euclidean and Hamming
distances to identify and verify the author. Hertel and Bunke
(2003) extract a set of structural characteristics from text lines,
as well as a set of fractal-based characteristics, resulting in a 90%
plus efficiency with a K-NN classifier. In (Plamondon and Srihari,
2000) a study can be found about handwritten text recognition,
taking into account methodologies for working in-line as well as
off-line. Zimmermann and Bunke (2002) describe the IAM database
in a general way and also analyze the way in which images in-
cluded were segmented. Both papers include references that detail
recent research work on handwritten texts analysis.
3. Image pre-processing
For the purpose of this research an ad hoc sample database was
created composed, amongst other things, by the texts written by
50 adult fellows and friends. The texts were written in English
and Spanish and with contents selected arbitrarily from books with
the only condition that they have an interesting sense. Images of
handwritten text were scanned in color at 300 dpi with a conven-
tional scanner. In the way used to collect the sample, the writer
copies two paragraphs, one text in English and the other one in
Spanish, always using print-type letters, without overwriting let-
ters, in different lines, with the same black ink pen and on a white
paper also of the same type.
Image processing includes page alignment; the binary image is
obtained by thresholding the more detailed and less noisy green
plane of the text color image by the Otsu method (1979) and also
the Khashman and Sekeroglu (2007) method. Once images have
been thresholded, a geodesic reconstruction is obtained by erosion
using the Otsu-processed image as a marker (Fig. 2).
4. Feature extraction
Both line-level and word-level features are extracted from text
images (see Table 1). At the line-level the space percentage used by
the left margin, the right margin, the separation between
 Author's personal copy
E.C. Herrera-Luna et al. / Pattern Recognition Letters 32 (2011) 1139–1144
Table 1
Features representing a line of text.
Level Description
Line-level Space percentage occupied by left and right margins
Features Current line/(previous line, next line) ratios
Average inter-word space
General direction of writing
Word- Average (upper-zone/middle-zone) and (lower-zone/middle-
level zone) ratios
Features Average inclination of words
Number of words in the line
subsequent lines, the general direction of the writing and the inter-
word space are considered (see Fig. 3).
Features extracted at the word level include the proportions of
the middle zone of the writing compared to that of the upper and
lower zones, word inclination as well as the presence of crest and/
or axis in all words (see Fig. 4).
Each text line is represented by a 22-tuple (pattern) composed
by word-level and line-level features. Word-level features are ex-
tracted for words with and without upper-zone, as well as for
words with and without lower-zone. All features result in posi-
tive-real or integer numbers, except for the average inclination of
words, which takes values in the interval [1, 1] of real numbers.
5. Recognition process
Once the text features have been extracted, and an adequate
supervision sample has been put together, it only rests to solve a
supervised pattern classification problem. The text whose author
is to be recognized is pre-processed by the exact procedures de-
scribed above and several line and paragraph patterns are formed.
Using slight conceptual and operative modifications of the classic
ALVOT classification-algorithm, each of those patterns is indepen-
dently classified and a final decision is issued about the authorship
of the text. Next sections describe the classification process in
detail.
5.1. Comparison between patterns
For direct comparison between patterns a function (f) that com-
pares by difference, with a weighted syntactic-distance of the two
patterns is used, that is, the arithmetic average of the pair-wise dif-
ference between the corresponding values that make up two data
tuples. Let {x1, x2, . . ., xr} be a set of r descriptive features or charac-
teristics that form the patterns (in this case r = 22 ), so that:
X
r
f ðoi ; oj Þ ¼ Pr ½Ccs ðoi ; oj Þ
s¼1
where oi, oj are the objects (lines of text) whose patterns will be
compared; Ccs(oi, oj) is a comparison criterion for the values of
feature s; and Pr is a real value in the [0, 1] interval, assigned as
weight for feature s.
Fig. 3. Features extracted on the line-level.
1141
Fig. 4. Features extracted on the word-level.
The comparison criterion for values within the same feature
may be the same for all the features or we can use different expres-
sions for comparing values from each feature. In the results re-
ported below, experiments made with both modalities are
included. As an example of this, consider that in the case in which
all features are compared with the same criterion, the following
expression is used:
jxs ðoi Þ  xs ðoj Þj
Ccs ðoi ; oj Þ  xs ðoj Þ ¼ 1  ð2Þ
j maxfxs g  minfxs gj
where jxs(oi)  xs(oj)j is the absolute value of the difference between
the values corresponding of the xs feature, adopted by the objects oi
and oj; max{xs}, min{xs} are the maximum and minimum values,
respectively, observed in feature xs.
5.2. Calculating the weighting factors
One of the most relevant elements for the recognition process is
the measurement of the relative importance of each feature to be
considered. In order to measure this importance there is a range
of algorithms, the most notable one being the Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) as well as several criteria within Testor Theory
(Ruiz-Shulcloper and Abidi, 2002; Lazo-Cortés et al., 2001; Ruiz-
Shulcloper et al., 1999; Santiesteban-Alganza and Pons-Porrata,
2003). Although the methodology shown in this paper is indepen-
dent of the algorithm used for calculating feature-relevance, the
specific way of doing so, during the experiments reported herein
is described below:
1. Select a set of m representative patterns from each class. These
ideal objects from each class, called holotypes (defined as the
patterns whose average similarity to all other patterns in the
same class is optimal), are selected to make-up a reduced
supervision sample to guide the classification process.
2. For each holotype, calculate its average feature-by-feature sim-
ilarity with respect to the rest of the patterns in the same class.
3. For each class and for each holotype, calculate its average fea-
ture-by-feature similarity with respect to all other non-holo-
type patterns in the other classes.
4. With the result of step 3, calculate a normalized weight for each
feature and specific to each class.
ð1Þ
Finding and using the specific weighting for each feature consti-
tutes the most original element in the proposed algorithm. When
experimenting with large text samples, extracting the same
features mentioned in Table 1, and comparing patterns using sim-
ilarity function f shown in (1), the great similarity between pat-
 Author's personal copy
1142 E.C. Herrera-Luna et al. / Pattern Recognition Letters 32 (2011) 1139–1144
terns representing the handwritings of different authors becomes
evident. This similarity complicates the recognition process con-
siderably. In order to be able to solve the problem, a differenti-
ated-weighting scheme was used. This scheme allows the
association of a different weight to each feature, depending on
the class to which a new pattern is to be compared. The differenti-
ated-weighted scheme allows the comparison of writing patterns
focusing on the distinctive aspects of each author’s handwriting.
Given the fact that each author is modeled as a class when all
the text lines are written by the same author, differentiated-
weighting results in a more efficient classification of new patterns
and therefore, also in the correct identification of the author of the
text.
A traditional non-differentiated weighting scheme assigns a
weight value to each pattern’s feature (each characteristic), so that
this weighting can be considered while calculating similarity or
difference between patterns with Eq. (1). On the contrary, a differ-
entiated-weighting scheme assigns a different feature weight-va-
lue depending on the class being tested. This mechanism
provides enough flexibility to accurately discriminate patterns
belonging to classes where the same sub-set of features is relevant
but with a different proportion in each case. When referring to the
differentiated-weighting scheme one should fill a k  r matrix (k
classes by r pattern features), which stores the specific feature
weight-value to be considered when testing membership to each
class in the supervision sample.
5.3. Classification algorithm
ALVOT is a well known family of supervised classification algo-
rithms (Ruiz-Shulcloper et al., 1986; Zhuravliov Yu and Nikiforov,
1971; Zhuravliov Yu, 1978). All algorithms within this family share
two main properties: they calculate the similarity of two patterns
by means of several partial comparisons and they synthesize all the
learned information about the pattern to be classified in one single
quantity for each class (a vote). After doing so, each instance of this
algorithm family applies a different solution rule to issue the final
decision about in which class assign the pattern, the membership
degree of the pattern to that class and, of course, how to handle
voting ties.
Using a simple, yet powerful modification to the ALVOT general
classification technique, the task of identifying the author of a
handwritten text was satisfactorily resolved. First the general iden-
tification process will be explained and later a brief reflection
about the modifications required will be carried out.
The author identification process is based on the classification
of the patterns representing each one of the lines of text under
study. An ALVOT algorithm based on holotypes is used to classify
each pattern. Each pattern is independently classified and then a
general solution rule is applied, which, based on the classification
of all the lines that make up the text, issues a final decision regard-
ing the authorship of the text.
This final decision may be one of the authors included in the
supervision sample or an unknown author not included in the sam-
ple, if certain similarity thresholds previously established are not
met. The specific procedure is as follows:
1. For each and every pattern in the supervision sample, deter-
mine its representativeness in the class to which it belongs.
The representativeness T of each pattern is calculated as
follows:
P
os 2C j f ðoi ; os Þ
os –oi
T C j ¼ ðoj Þ ¼
jC j j  1
2. Select the m most representative patterns (holotypes) in each
class and make up a reduced supervision sample with them.
3. By using Eq. (1) compare each pattern to be classified with all
the patterns of the reduced supervision sample formed in step
2.
4. Calculate the average similarities of each pattern to be classified
with all the representative patterns of each class, as a vote func-
tion, in the reduced supervision sample.
5. (Solution rule) Allocate the pattern to be classified to the class in
which the vote function has the highest value (this means in the
class in which the representative objects have the highest aver-
age similarity with the pattern to be classified).
6. If it is deemed to be convenient, add the recently identified pat-
terns to the supervision sample and recalculate the objects that
are representative of each class.
The classification of text is a collective decision based on the
lines contained in a given text. Its classification is as follows:
1. Create a pattern for each line in the text with a minimum length
of n words and classify it using the above procedure.
2. (Solution rule) The whole text is labeled as the class which con-
tains the majority of its line-patterns, allowing a maximum of k
classes. If a text is classified in more than k classes the label
unknown author is assigned.
After reviewing the above process it seems worthwhile to re-
view the specific ways in which the proposed algorithm consti-
tutes a novel modification to the classic ALVOT family of
supervised classification algorithms. As all algorithms in this fam-
ily, our proposal combines the information of several partial com-
parisons to determine the global similarity between two patterns,
but the specific way in which each text object to be recognized is
represented by several text-line patterns enforces a drastically dif-
ferent way of calculating the global similarity. This multiple-pat-
tern representation of each text, along with the collective
decision criteria used by the solution rule, establishes a new and
not previously explored facet of this type of classification algo-
rithms. The resulting impact over the precision and general effi-
ciency of the identification process can be seen on the next section.
6. Experimental results
In order to undertake the experiments reported herein, a data-
base with three equal handwritten texts and 50 different signa-
tures is used. Each text contains from 5 to 9 lines, giving closely
a total of 600 lines. Three supervision and control samples were
built with an 80/20 ratio. In the first group the supervision sample
contains the most representative patterns in each class. In the sec-
ond group the total texts are randomly divided between the super-
vision sample and the control sample. The supervision sample
from the third group contains the least representative patterns in
each class. In each one of these experiments, the objects from the
control sample are classified taking the supervision sample objects
as a reference in each one of these experiments. Three class-repre-
sentative patterns were selected from each class within the super-
vision sample, according to the previously described procedure.
First, in order to demonstrate the relevance of the weighting
scheme, percentages of efficiency per group are shown when clas-
sifying the texts without the use of any weighting for the descrip-
tive features (see Table 2). Three rules are proposed to evaluate the
efficiency of the text classification.
1. (Rule 1) The author of a text is correctly identified (1 point), if
ð3Þ
and only if it is classified into the corresponding correct class.
 Author's personal copy

E.C. Herrera-Luna et al. / Pattern Recognition Letters 32 (2011) 1139–1144 1143

Table 2
Results of applying the weighting-less similarity functions.

Experiment Group % of Lines classification % of Text classification % of Text classification % of Text classification
(Rule 1) (Rule 2) (Rule 3)
1 1 42.28 50.00 61.11 55.56
2 2 52.76 66.67 83.33 75.00
3 3 46.46 55.56 66.67 61.11

Table 3
Results when the classification use different weightings and similiarity criteria.

Experiment Group % of Lines classification % of Text classification % of Text classification % of Text classification
(Rule 1) (Rule 2) (Rule 3)
4 1 60.16 61.11 72.22 65.62
5 1 61.79 66.67 72.22 69.44
6 2 67.72 88.89 88.89 88.89
7 2 64.57 83.33 94.44 88.89
8 3 65.35 88.89 88.89 88.89
9 3 62.99 83.33 83.33 83.33

Table 4
Results of classification by using the centroids of the classes.

Experiment Group % of Lines classification % of Text classification % of Text classification % of Text classification
(Rule 1) (Rule 2) (Rule 3)
10 1 73.17 83.33 94.44 88.89
11 2 70.08 88.89 88.89 88.89
12 3 72.44 88.89 94.44 91.67

Table 5
Comparison of the efficiency and testing conditions for identifying the author of a hadwritten text.

Publication Number of writers Sample size Lexicon dependency Performances (%)

Said et al. (2000) 40 Few lines of handwritten text No 95.0
Zois and Anastassopoulos (2000) 50 Forty-five examples of the same word Yes 92.48
Marti et al. (2001) 20 Five examples of the same text Yes 90.00
Bensefia et al. (2005) 88 Paragraphs/3–4 words No 93.0/90.0
Our methodology 30 Three examples of the same text No Rule 1 88.89
Rule 2 94.44
Rule 3 91.67

2. (Rule 2) Identification is correct if and only if the text is classi-
fied in less than q classes and one of them is the correct one.
3. (Rule 3) Same as Rule 2 but assigning just a proportional hit
instead of a complete hit.
Results shown by this type of experiment are notoriously unsat-
isfactory low because they correctly identify the author of the text
only in 50% of the cases. In order to correct this situation the differ-
entiated-weighting scheme for each class, for each descriptive fea-
ture is added. In the second series of experiments three ideal
objects from each class are selected to conform a reduced supervi-
sion sample containing only the selected holotypes of each class, to
make the classification with respect to it. Results obtained in these
experiments are shown in Table 3.
Two aspects are worthwhile to consider: first, the correct clas-
sification percentage is increased at the text level, reaching levels
higher than 80% in several cases. Second, although the classifica-
tion at a line level was substantially modified, the impact of the
differentiated-weighting becomes evident in the results at a text
level. A third set of experiments was carried out, taking advantage
of the best weighting scheme resulting from these experiments,
considering the centroid of each class as the holotype pattern. This
pattern is formed by the arithmetic mean of all the values in each
feature. Surprisingly enough, this raised the effectiveness of the
algorithm even more in the percentage of the efficiency of the algo-
rithm for the lines and to a lesser degree in the classification by
text, with the most stringent rule (Rule 1) (see Table 4).
Lastly, our proposed methodology and algorithms ought to be
compared with those previously obtained by other authors. Unfor-
tunately this comparison cannot be a precise, objective one, be-
cause the drastically different type of samples database, the
distinct pre-processing techniques and, the diverse properties of
the classification algorithms used by other authors make it impos-
sible to compare their results on a fair base. Nevertheless, we think
that the reader can benefit from a not-strict comparison that shows
all the context details.
Table 5 shows results obtained from this research compared
with those previously obtained by other authors, taken from
Bensefia et al. (2005). The comparison is summarized and some de-
tails are added on the type of methodology applied.
7. Conclusions
A supervised identification algorithm based on the selection of
holotypes and with a differentiated-weighting scheme is used to
 Author's personal copy
1144 E.C. Herrera-Luna et al. / Pattern Recognition Letters 32 (2011) 1139–1144
identify the author of a handwritten text by means of the individ-
ual classification of the lines that are part of the text. The descrip-
tive features or characteristics used to make up the patterns
representing such lines include features extracted at the word-le-
vel as well as at the line-level.
When all the lines that form the text to be identified have been
classified, a rule for the final collective decision regarding the
author of such text is applied.
The largest efficiency percentages regarding identification are
achieved in the experiments in which centroids are used as holo-
types for each class.
The class differentiated-weighting scheme shows an important
difference in the final results. This is due to the great similarity that
the handwritings of several authors sometimes exhibit. Thanks to
the weighting scheme we were able to achieve a more precise
characterization of the relevance of each of the descriptive features
considered in each one of the authors. A relevant aspect of the
weighting process which was observed during experimentation is
that the weighting of the features should never decrease to zero.
In these cases the deterioration of the results is evident.
Comparing with previously published works, the best result of
the reported set of experiments exceed the results previously re-
ported, with the added advantage that the algorithm proposed
herein is not dependent on the semantic content of the text.
Recent research studies suggest the simplification of the auto-
matic calculation of the weightings and the determination of the
similarity thresholds that may be more accurate to identify an
author not considered in the supervision sample. Recently, still
undergoing research studies suggest a simplified, more precise
technique for automatic calculation of weightings could be possi-
ble. The implementation of these improvements may be extremely
useful for the identification of authors of handwritten texts, mainly
in forensic control situations as well as in security institutions.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Academic Secretary, COFAA, Postgradu-
ate and Research Secretary, and Center for Computing Research
of the National Polytechnic Institute, CONACyT and SNI, for their
economic support to carry out this work.
References
Bensefia, A., Paquet, T., Heutte, L., 2005. A writer identification and verification
system. Pattern Recognition Lett. 26, 2080–2092.
Cover, T.M., Hart, P.E., 1967. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory IT-13 (1), 21–27.
Hertel, C., Bunke, H., 2003. A set of novel features for writer identification. In: Proc.
4th Internat. Conf. on Audio and Video-based Biometric Person Authentication,
pp. 679–687.
Khashman, A., Sekeroglu, B., 2007. A novel thresholding method for text separation
and document enhancement. In: 11th Panhelenic Conference on Informatics
2007, vol B, Greece, pp. 324–330.
Lazo-Cortés, M., Ruiz-Shulcloper, J., Alba-Cabrera, E., 2001. An overview of the
evolution of the concept of testor. Pattern Recognition 34, 753–762.
Marti, U.V., Messerli, R., Bunke, H., 2001. Writer identification using text line based
features. In: Proc. ICDAR’01, pp. 101–105.
Otsu, N., 1979. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE
Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 9, 62–66.
Pecharromán-Balbás, S., 2007. Reconocimiento de escritor independiente de texto
basado en características de textura. Thesis Doctoral, Escuela Politécnica
Superior, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Pervouchine, V., Leedham, G., 2007. Extraction and analysis of forensic document
examiner features used for writer identification. Pattern Recognition 40 (3),
1004–1013.
Plamondon, R., Srihari, S.N., 2000. On-line and off-line handwriting recognition: A
comprehensive survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 22, 63–84.
Ruiz-Shulcloper, J., Abidi, M., 2002. Logical combinatorial pattern recognition: A
review. In: Pandalai, S.G. (Ed.), Recent Research Developments in Pattern
Recognition Transworld Research Netwrok, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, pp. 133–
176.
Ruiz-Shulcloper, J., Ponce de León-Sentí, E., López-Reyes, N., García-Mesa, N.,
Barros-Barreras, M.A., Cobos-Monzón, E., 1986. ALVOT, Sistema de programas
de algoritmos de votación para la clasificación. Rev. Cien. Mat. VII (1), 41–60.
Ruiz-Shulcloper, J., Guzmán-Arenas, A., Martínez-Trinidad, J.F., 1999. Enfoque
Lógico Combinatorio al Reconocimiento de Patrones. I. Selección de Variables
y Clasificación Supervisada. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Colección de Ciencias
de la Computación, México, D.F.
Said, H., Tan, T., Baker, K., 2000. Personal identification based on handwriting.
Pattern Recognition 33 (1), 149–160.
Santiesteban-Alganza, Y., Pons-Porrata, A., 2003. LEX: Un nuevo algoritmo para el
cálculo de los testores típicos. Revista Ciencias Matemáticas 21 (1), 85–95. Dpto.
de Computación, Universidad de Oriente, Cuba.
Srihari, S.N., 1993. Recognition of handwritten and machine-printed text for postal
address interpretation. Pattern Recognition Lett. 14 (4), 291–302.
Srihari, S.N., 2001. Handwriting identification: Research to study validity of
individuality of handwriting and develop computer-assisted procedures for
comparing handwriting. Tech. Rep. CEDAR-TR-01-1, Center of Excellence for
Document Analysis and Recognition, University of Buffalo, USA.
Srihari, S.N., Cha, Sung-Hyuk, Arora, Hina, Lee, Sangjik, 2002. Individuality of
handwriting. J. Forensic Sci. 47 (4). Paper ID JFS2001227-474.
Zhuravliov Yu, I., 1978. Acerca del enfoque algebraico para la solución de problemas
de reconocimiento o clasificación. Rev. Probl. Kibernet. 33, 5–68.
Zhuravliov Yu, I., Nikiforov, V.V., 1971. Algoritmos de reconocimiento basados en el
cálculo de las evaluaciones. Kivernetika 3, 1–11. en ruso.
Zimmermann, M., Bunke, H., 2002. Automatic segmentation of the IAM off-line
handwritten {English} text database. In: 16th Internat. Conf. on Pattern
Recognition, Canada, vol. 4, pp. 35–39.
Zois, E., Anastassopoulos, V., 2000. Morphological waveform coding for writer
identification. Pattern Recognition 33 (3), 385–398.