Vision Graph Convolutional Network for
Writer-Independent Offline Signature Verification
Chengkai Ren1† , Jian Zhang1† , Hongwei Wang1∗ , Shuguang Shen2
1
ZJU-UIUC Institute, Zhejiang University, Haining, China
2
Research Institute of Nuclear Power Operation, Wuhan, China
{chengkai.21,jianzhang,hongweiwang}@intl.zju.edu.cn, shensg@cnnp.com.cn
Abstract—As a biometric feature, handwritten signatures have
various applications in finance, law, and business. The existing
signature verification methods are mostly based on convolutional
2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) | 978-1-6654-8867-9/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/IJCNN54540.2023.10192006
neural networks or Transformer based models. In this paper,
we aim to implement writer independent offline handwritten
signature verification by proposing an end-to-end method, Sig-
nature Verification Graph Convolutional Network (SigGCN). In
SigGCN, signature images are first transformed into graph-
structured data with additional position embedding to retain
spatial information. The reason for this is that we expect graph-
structured data to perform better in the capture of complicated
relationships than CNN-based and Transformer based networks.
We then use a multi-layer graph convolutional network to ag-
gregate node information while updating the graph information.
After obtaining the graph representation of signatures, efficient
model training is performed using our proposed margin-based
focal loss function to calculate the loss based on the Euclidean
distance of two signatures. We conduct experiments on the
CEDAR, BHSig260-Bengali, and BHSig260-Hindi datasets, and
results obtained show that the proposed approach achieves
remarkable performance and demonstrates great potential in
solving real-world verification problems.
Index Terms—biometric, graph nerual network, signature
verification, offline, writer-independent
I. I NTRODUCTION
Handwritten signatures as a kind of biological information
are used worldwide daily. The signature remains the most
social and legal authentication, unlike other biometrics such
as fingerprint, iris, and face. For example, paper contracts,
legal documents, and financial checks require a handwritten
signature to identify their validity. Given the significant and
widespread use of handwritten signatures, it is necessary
to develop an efficient, accurate, and automated signature
verification technique to reduce human involvement in the
signature verification phase.
There are typically two types of signature verification:
online and offline. The signature in online signature veri-
fication will be a sequence of stylus positions written on
an electronic tablet. In contrast, in offline signature verifi-
cation, the signature is essentially an image scanned from
the original document. We’ll concentrate on offline signature
verification (OSV). Offline handwritten signature verification
systems employ two approaches: writer-dependent (WD) and
† Co-first authors
∗ Corresponding author
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sungkyunkwan University. Downloaded on August 28,2023 at 02:57:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
writer-independent (WI). In the case of WD, the system must
be retrained for each new user signature added. It makes
maintaining the verification system more complicated. The
main difference in the WI case is that the WI approach creates
a generic model for testing on any writer.
In this paper, We propose a novel model, Signature Veri-
fication Graph Convolutional Network (SigGCN), in writer-
independent offline signature verification. Different network
architectures have different ways of handling image input.
CNNs are used to partition an image into a grid of numerous
blocks. The architecture based on transformers treats an image
as a series of blocks. Our method converts various signature
images into graph structure data with an equivalent number of
nodes and weights. After the graph has been structured, the
signature image is forwarded through numbers of the layers
of the graph convolutional network(GCN) to create an em-
bedding that can represent the entire graph, aka the signature.
Finally, we train an accurate signature feature extractor using
this embedding for metric learning. We evaluated our method
on three different public datasets: CEDAR [1], BHSig260-
Bengali [2], and BHSig260-Hindi [2]. To the best of our
knowledge, our work is the first to successfully use graph
neural networks for offline handwritten signature verification
and achieve competitive performance. The main contributions
of this work are summarized as follows:
• In contrast to most existing advanced approaches that
use convolution and transformer, we propose a graph
convolutional network-based framework for handwritten
signature verification.
• A novel marginal-based focal loss function for model
training is proposed to help the model learn handwritten
signature features.
• We explore which components are critical to perfor-
mance through comprehensive experiments and analyze
the working mechanisms of our proposed method.
II. R ELATED W ORK
For a long time, CNNs dominated the modern computer
vision field. Transformer [3] has recently been gradually and
competitively applied to the area of computer vision as a
consequence of the proposed attention mechanism in natural
language. Similarly, some recent work in computer vision has
used graph neural networks with promising results. The GCN’s
Fig. 1. Framework of SigGCN. Given a pair of test signature images, SigGCN first transforms the images into graph structure data using CNN networks
separately and then inputs them into a multilayer GCN for graph representation learning to obtain the two signature graph representations individually and then
measures the distance between the two representations according to the defined metric function, and then compares it with the threshold value for verification.

Fig. 2. Demonstration of Graphical Image. The signature image is passed through CNN to get N feature vectors of dimension D and the position encoding
with the same shape. Then the K nearest neighbors algorithm finds the K nearest vectors and adds an undirected edge to form a graph with N vertices.

layers can get deeper because DeepGCNs [4] utilizes residual
structures. Han et al. [5] Use Graph Neural Network model to
outperform representative CNN(ResNet [6]), MLP(CycleMLP
[7]), Transformer(Swin-T [8]) on the vision tasks like image
classification and object detection. There appears to be no
work based on graph neural networks for writer-independent
offline handwritten signature verification. The only article
[9] we found using graph neural networks for handwritten
signature verification was following a writer-dependent set up.
While the bulk of studies [1], [2], [10] in this domain are
based on handcrafted feature analyses, various deep learning-
based approaches have been proposed. Dey et al. [11]proposed
SigNet, which can be said to have opened the door to deep
learning in the OSV task. In SigNet, a Siamese neural network
was used to extract the latent presentation of a signature.
This framework computes a similarity metric involving the
Euclidean distance between two signatures, trained by the
contrastive loss function. Following SigNet, a large amount
of research based on deep learning was published. One of the
most notable works is IDN [12], which outperformed other
methods of the time by a wide margin with a model containing
only about 3 millions of parameters. The number of model
parameters is cleverly reduced by using multiplexing, while
the identification accuracy is greatly improved by using a four-
way attention mechanism. To further improve model perfor-
mance, MA-SCN [13] also employs a multiplexed attention
mechanism and increases the multi-scale nature of the inputs
by sampling the same signature 3 times according to different
scales. Unlike the previous two CNN-based approaches, 2C2S
[14] is a Transformer-based model architecture that merges
two signatures on the channel before the input model, avoiding
the need for multiple attention mechanisms to achieve ground
feature fusion like any CNN-based model and thus reducing
model parameters. As we have seen, since no GNN-based OSV
work has been published, we propose our SigGCN model to
fill the gap in OSV research on graph neural networks.
III. T HE P ROPOSED M ETHOD
This section details the proposed SigGCN method. The
SigGCN framework is shown in Fig. 1, which consists of CNN
for graphical image, multi-layer GCN for graph representation
learning, and metric function for measurements.
A. Graphical Image
The blank background of the signature image accounts for
much of the image, so if a spatial division-based grid is
applied as input, the model must process a lot of redundant
information. As shown in Fig. 2, Transforming images into

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sungkyunkwan University. Downloaded on August 28,2023 at 02:57:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
graph-structured data can significantly reduce the redundant
information from blank backgrounds.
Giving a signature image with the shape of (C, H, W ), we
use CNNs to encode into h × w blocks of fixed dimension
D, treating each block as an independent graph vertex. Define
N = h × w, we obtain a (N, D) tensor, which means N
vertexes, and each vertex has a dimension of D. Fig. 2 demon-
strates the entire procedure. For each vertex, there will not be
edges connected to all N nodes. Considering the primarily
blank background of the signature image, each vertex in the
graph will be connected to only a few vertices with undirected
edges. We directly use the KNN algorithm to take out the K
vertices with the closest in latent space with a dimension of
D to the current vertex and add an undirected edge drawn in
red in the figure. After processing all the vertices, we will get
a graph representation of the signature.
By converting the image into graph structure data through
CNN, we can use GNN to obtain a representation of the whole
image. We add trainable position embedding to the graph
vertices that have been encoded in order to prevent the loss of
spatial information.
B. Graph Convolutional Network
The so-called graph convolution [18] is to update its node
information by aggregating, for each vertex, its information
with neighboring nodes. The propagation rules between layers
of a multi-layer GCN are as follows:
Gl+1 = σ(F (Gl , W l )),
Here, W l are trainable parameters. σ denotes the activation
function. Gl is the graph of layer l, and Gl+1 is the graph of
next layer. By combining the features of neighboring nodes,
the aggregation function F computes a node’s representation,
and the update operation further combines the aggregated
feature:
xl+1
i = h(xli , g(xli , N (xli ), Waggregate ), Wupdate ),
where xli represents the ith node in Gl , and N (xli ) is the set
of neighbor nodes of xli . A mean aggregator [18], a max-
pooling aggregator [19], an attention aggregator [20] are a
few examples of aggregation functions. In this paper, we
adopt parameters-free max-relative graph convolution [4] for
simplicity and efficiency:
g(·) = max({xlj − xli |j ∈ N (xli )}),
A multi-layer perceptron, a gated network [21], etc., can serve
as the update function. We use MLP as update function h:
h(·) = xli Wupdate ,
It is worth noting that as the number of layers of the GCN
network increases, the values of all nodes will become closer
and closer and finally lose diversity due to the over-smoothing
phenomenon [22], [23]. To alleviate this, we add a fully
connected layer and an activation layer, e.g., gelu [24] between
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sungkyunkwan University. Downloaded on August 28,2023 at 02:57:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
each layer of the graph convolution. As DeepGCNs [4], we
introduce residual connections to the GCNs:
Gl+1 = σ(F (Gl , Win
l
))Wout + Gl , (5)
C. Loss Function
During the training, a sample is a pair of signature images
(x1 , x2 ) and a ground-truth label y, which 1 represents it is
a genuine-genuine signature pair, 0 represents it is a genuine-
forgery signature pair. Because the signature’s output, encoded
into graph-structured data and passed through the GCN, is a
representation of the signature, we need to define a function
that measures the feature distance between two signatures.
In this case, we use the Euclidean distance d straightfor-
wardly. Then all that remains is to define a margin-based focal
loss function for model training. Inspired by focal loss [25],
we use a similar approach: margin-based focal loss function.
The following is the definition of the loss function:
loss = y · σ(s(d − a)) · max(0, d − ma)2 +
(6)
(1 − y) · σ(s(b − d)) · max(0, mb − d)2 .
Here, σ is the Sigmoid function, s is a scalar to adjust loss
weight, a, ma, b, mb denote the margins for avoiding over-
fitting during the training phase. y is the ground-truth label,
which is mentioned above. d represents the distance of two
signature embeddings.
IV. E XPERIMENT A ND A NALYSIS
We have validated our method on these three datasets:
(1) CEDAR, BHSig260-Bengali, and BHSig260- Hindi. The se-
lection of these three datasets was made for two reasons. First,
they are all completely open to the public, free to download,
and do not even call for a signed license. Second, compared
to other publicly available datasets, there is more experimental
work to be done on these three datasets, and there are more
options for comparative work.
All our experiments are done on a single workstation with
(2) Intel Xeon Gold 6126 CPU @2.6GHz, RTX3090 24GB GPU
and 256GB RAM. For parameters, we set s = 10, a =
0.3, ma = 0.3, b = 0.6, mb = 0, 9 in loss function, and
we adopt AdamW optimizer with lr = 0.01 using Cosine
Annealing learning rate schedule.
We set up the network with different layers for experi-
mentation and selected the best results for reporting. The
results are reported on the CEDAR and Bengalis datasets for
a 12-layer GCN network and the Hindi dataset for a 6-layer
(3)
GCN network. The training time for 20,000 iterations on each
dataset is approximately 5 GPU hours.
A. Datasets and Protocol
(4) CEDAR: Each of the 55 samples in this dataset contains
24 genuine signatures and 24 forged signatures. Each sample
can be constructed with 276 genuine-genuine pairs and 276
genuine-forged pairs. And we randomly select 5 samples for
testing and the rest of the samples for training.
BHSig260-Bengali: Each of the 100 samples in this dataset
contains 24 genuine signatures and 30 forged signatures. Each
 TABLE I
C OMPARISON OF R ESULTS O BTAINED FROM E XPERIMENTS ON T HREE DATASETS (%).

Dataset Method Source FAR FRR EER Acc

Surroundedness features [15] PRL’2012 8.33 8.33 8.33 91.67
IDN [12] CVPR’2019 5.87 2.17 3.62 96.77
MA-SCN [13] ICCDE’2022 19.21 18.35 18.92 80.75
CEDAR
ILNNeck+TCI [16] IJCNN’2022 9.21 9.21 9.21 90.79
2C2S [14] EAAI’2023 0 0 0 100
Ours - 0 0 0 100
Texture Feature [2] IAPR’2016 33.82 33.82 33.82 66.18
Correlated Feature [17] ICPR’2016 15.78 14.43 14.81 84.90
SigNet [11] PRL’2017 13.89 13.89 13.89 86.11
IDN [12] CVPR’2019 4.12 5.24 4.41 95.32
BHSig260-Bengali
MA-SCN [13] ICCDE’2022 9.96 5.85 8.18 92.86
ILNNeck+TCI [16] IJCNN’2022 5.72 5.72 5.72 94.28
2C2S [14] EAAI’2023 5.37 8.11 6.75 93.25
Ours - 4.06 3.95 4.00 95.99
Texture Feature [2] IAPR’2016 24.47 24.47 24.47 75.53
Correlated Feature [17] ICPR’2016 13.10 15.09 13.98 85.90
SigNet [11] PRL’2017 15.36 15.36 15.36 84.64
IDN [12] CVPR’2019 8.99 4.93 7.11 93.04
BHSig260-Hindi
MA-SCN [13] ICCDE’2022 5.73 4.86 5.32 94.99
ILNNeck+TCI [16] IJCNN’2022 4.21 4.21 4.21 95.79
2C2S [14] EAAI’2023 8.66 9.98 9.32 90.68
Ours - 12.96 11.27 12.17 87.88

sample can be constructed with 276 genuine-genuine pairs and TABLE II

720 genuine-forged pairs. And we randomly select 20 samples C OMPARISON OF R ESULTS O BTAINED FROM A BLATION S TUDY OF
P OSITION E MBEDDING (%).
for testing and the rest of the samples for training. Consistent
with previous work, we randomly select 276 genuine-forged Dataset Position Embedding FAR FRR EER Acc
pairs for every sample.
W 0 0 0 100
BHSig260-Hindi: Each of the 160 samples in this dataset CEDAR
W/O 4.35 5.14 4.82 95.25
contains 24 genuine signatures and 30 forged signatures. Each
W 4.06 3.95 4.00 95.99
sample can be constructed with 276 genuine-genuine pairs and Bengali
W/O 7.72 7.05 7.45 92.61
720 genuine-forged pairs. And we randomly select 60 samples W 12.96 11.27 12.17 87.88
for testing and the rest of the samples for training. Consistent Hindi
W/O 14.05 12.99 13.56 86.48
with previous work, we randomly select 276 genuine-forged
pairs for every sample.
After splitting the training and test sets, we grayscale the
C. Comparison on Various Models
images and then resize them to a fixed size (224, 224) as the
data preprocessing part. We only compare the performance of various methods cross-
sectionally on the three datasets using the metrics of FAR,
B. Evaluate Metric FRR, EER, and Accuracy because most works do not provide
the AUC values of their methods. The experiment results
We evaluate the performance of the method on 5 metrics:
are summarized in Table I, Our SigGCN outperforms other
false acceptance rate (FAR), false rejection rate (FRR), Equal
methods on CEDAR and BHSig260-Bengali datasets. Only on
Error Rate (EER), Accuracy (ACC), and Area Under the Curve
BHSig260-Hindi, SigGCN is inferior compared to others. Still,
(AUC). These metrics are used to evaluate the error rate of
SigGCN Obtain a good performance on CEDAR, BHSig260-
the method. The lower the value the better the performance.
Bengali, and BHSig260-Hindi datasets.
The AUC is the area under ROC and like ACC measures the
correctness of the model, the higher the value the better. FAR, D. Ablation Study
FRR, ACC are definded by: We keep or remove the position embedding respectively and
FP then do the test on the same data set division. From the result
F AR = (7) listed in Table II, We can conclude that the spatial location
FP + TN
information is lost when the signature images are converted
FN into graph structure data and can be effectively retrieved
F RR = (8)
FN + TP by adding trainable position embedding. As we expected
TP + TN before, data that should be graph-structured cannot retain
ACC = (9) spatial relationships. Just as the relationship between hands
TN + FN + FP + TP

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sungkyunkwan University. Downloaded on August 28,2023 at 02:57:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 3. The ROC curve of Different Combination Loss function on Three Datasets.

Fig. 4. Kernel Density Estimate of Cross-language Evaluation Result. X-axis is the distance metric between each test pair, Y-axis is the probability density.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sungkyunkwan University. Downloaded on August 28,2023 at 02:57:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE III for cross-language signature verification tasks in all cases.
C OMPARISON OF R ESULTS O BTAINED FROM A BLATION S TUDY OF L OSS Anyhow, Our SigGCN achieved the best performance on 5
F UNCTION ON ACCURACY (%).
out of 9 experiments. As the models trained on the other two
Combination CEDAR Bengali Hindi datasets are directly tested on the CEDAR dataset with an
accuracy of over 95%, we can see that the CEDAR dataset
Plain 86.70 92.68 79.59
+Focal 92.93 93.84 83.06 appears to be very easy to distinguish in our model. Our model
+Margin 94.17 94.03 86.24 performs better than existing CNN-based methods in several
+Focal+Margin 100 95.99 87.88 cross-language tests. This also shows that graph-structured
data can capture features that cannot be extracted by CNNs
and deal with complex relationships in images more flexibly.
TABLE IV
ACCURACY OF C ROSS -L ANGUAGE C OMPARISONS W ITH E XISTING
Turning to Fig. 4, the X-axis of each plot is the distance metric
M ETHODS (%). between each test pair, and the Y-axis is the probability density.
We can see that the three plots in the first column are models
Train\Test Method CEDAR Bengali Hindi trained on different datasets doing tests on CEDAR. We find
SigNet [11] 100 55.61 64.15 that the distinction between genuine and forgery distances is
CEDAR
IDN [12] 95.98 50.36 50.01 good, and basically, a clear division can be made. This shows
ILNNeck+TCI [16] 90.79 80.83 84.93
Our 100 80.05 77.87
that CEDAR is relatively simple for our model compared to
BHSig260. From the rest of the figures, we recognize that
SigNet [11] 50.00 86.81 52.78
IDN [12] 50.00 95.32 74.30 cross-language handwritten signature verification is open to
Bengali further research.
ILNNeck+TCI [16] 80.34 94.28 79.21
Our 95.72 95.99 79.21
SigNet [11] 59.57 60.65 84.64 V. C ONCLUSION A ND F UTURE W ORKS
IDN [12] 50.00 95.32 74.30
Hindi In this work, we propose an end-to-end method to perform
ILNNeck+TCI [16] 79.76 87.57 95.79
Our 98.36 84.96 87.88 writer-independent offline handwritten signature verification.
Receiving inspiration from human visual cognition, we trans-
form the signature images into graph-structured data. At the
same time, to retain the original spatial information, we add
and body does not change just because the spatial location has
location encoding to the transformed graph data to retrieve the
changed. However, handwritten signatures have solid spatial
valid location information. Feature extraction is performed on
relationships. For example, the strokes on the right side of
the graph data using a GCN to obtain the graph representation
the signature do not appear on the left side of the signature,
features of the signature. The model is effectively trained to
and because of this, adding spatial position embedding to
extract the signature graph representation with the margin-
the embedded graph-structured data will improve the model
based focal loss function proposed in this paper. Comprehen-
performance.
sive experiments show that the method proposed in this paper
To verify the effectiveness of our proposed training loss
outperforms other known methods in CEDAR and BHSig260-
function, we split the loss function into two parts, one part is
Bengali datasets.
focal loss, and the other part is the margin. Then we perform
Self-supervised Learning and Pre-training have exhibited
4 combinations of ways to test on 3 datasets. The detailed
promising performance in many areas. This will address the
results are listed in Table III and Fig. 3, We can see from the
fact that supervised learning requires a large amount of manu-
results that the combination of focal loss and margin has a
ally labeled data, which is highly costly. This paper shows that
positive return. Removing either of the two parties leads to a
GNNs have the equal capability as attention mechanisms and
decrease in model performance. In Fig. 3, The X-axis and the
CNNs in pairwise verification tasks. It is also shown in the
Y-axis represent FPR and TPR, where the FPR = FRR and the
discussion that models trained based on supervised learning
TPR = 1-FRR. The larger the area under the ROC, the better
perform poorly for cross-language signature verification tasks.
the model’s performance. The results shown in the ROC are
In the future, we consider exploring self-supervised learning
consistent with Table III, and the model performs best only
and pre-training GNN models for cross-language signature
when we use the margin-based focal loss function.
verification tasks.
E. Cross-Language Test
R EFERENCES
Verification of a handwritten signature is based on the
writing style that the signer should have. To test the efficacy [1] M. K. Kalera, S. Srihari, and A. Xu, “Offline signature verification and
identification using distance statistics,” International Journal of Pattern
of our suggested method on the cross-lingual verification task, Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 18, no. 07, pp. 1339–1360,
the characteristics of human writing should be comparable. We 2004.
used cross-validation on three datasets that were in various [2] S. Pal, A. Alaei, U. Pal, and M. Blumenstein, “Performance of an off-
line signature verification method based on texture features on a large
languages. The experimental results are shown in Table IV, indic-script signature dataset,” in 2016 12th IAPR workshop on document
We can see a degradation in the performance of the model analysis systems (DAS). IEEE, 2016, pp. 72–77.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sungkyunkwan University. Downloaded on August 28,2023 at 02:57:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 [3] A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez,
Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in
neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017.
[4] G. Li, M. Muller, A. Thabet, and B. Ghanem, “Deepgcns: Can gcns
go as deep as cnns?” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international
conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 9267–9276.
[5] K. Han, Y. Wang, J. Guo, Y. Tang, and E. Wu, “Vision gnn: An image
is worth graph of nodes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00272, 2022.
[6] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image
recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision
and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.
[7] S. Chen, E. Xie, C. Ge, D. Liang, and P. Luo, “Cyclemlp: A mlp-
like architecture for dense prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10224,
2021.
[8] Z. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Cao, H. Hu, Y. Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and
B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted
windows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on
Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022.
[9] S. Roy, D. Sarkar, S. Malakar, and R. Sarkar, “Offline signature
verification system: a graph neural network based approach,” Journal
of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pp. 1–11, 2021.
[10] A. K. Bhunia, A. Alaei, and P. P. Roy, “Signature verification approach
using fusion of hybrid texture features,” Neural Computing and Appli-
cations, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 8737–8748, 2019.
[11] S. Dey, A. Dutta, J. I. Toledo, S. K. Ghosh, J. Lladós, and U. Pal,
“Signet: Convolutional siamese network for writer independent offline
signature verification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02131, 2017.
[12] P. Wei, H. Li, and P. Hu, “Inverse discriminative networks for handwrit-
ten signature verification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 5764–5772.
[13] X. Zhang, Z. Wu, L. Xie, Y. Li, F. Li, and J. Zhang, “Multi-path siamese
convolution network for offline handwritten signature verification,” in
2022 The 8th International Conference on Computing and Data Engi-
neering, 2022, pp. 51–58.
[14] J.-X. Ren, Y.-J. Xiong, H. Zhan, and B. Huang, “2c2s: A two-channel
and two-stream transformer based framework for offline signature ver-
ification,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 118,
p. 105639, 2023.
[15] R. Kumar, J. Sharma, and B. Chanda, “Writer-independent off-line
signature verification using surroundedness feature,” Pattern recognition
letters, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 301–308, 2012.
[16] X. Cairang, D. Zhaxi, X. Yang, Y. Hou, Q. Zhao, D. Gao, D. Pubu, and
D. Gesang, “Learning generalisable representations for offline signature
verification,” in 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks
(IJCNN). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–7.
[17] A. Dutta, U. Pal, and J. Lladós, “Compact correlated features for
writer independent signature verification,” in 2016 23rd international
conference on pattern recognition (ICPR). IEEE, 2016, pp. 3422–3427.
[18] T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph
convolutional networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016.
[19] C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on
point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp.
652–660.
[20] P. Veličković, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, and Y. Ben-
gio, “Graph attention networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017.
[21] Y. Li, D. Tarlow, M. Brockschmidt, and R. Zemel, “Gated graph
sequence neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05493, 2015.
[22] Q. Li, Z. Han, and X.-M. Wu, “Deeper insights into graph convolu-
tional networks for semi-supervised learning,” in Thirty-Second AAAI
conference on artificial intelligence, 2018.
[23] K. Oono and T. Suzuki, “Graph neural networks exponentially
lose expressive power for node classification,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1905.10947, 2019.
[24] D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, “Gaussian error linear units (gelus),” arXiv
preprint arXiv:1606.08415, 2016.
[25] T.-Y. Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Dollár, “Focal loss
for dense object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international
conference on computer vision, 2017, pp. 2980–2988.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sungkyunkwan University. Downloaded on August 28,2023 at 02:57:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.