<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>A Novel Metric Combination Approach for Verification Problems</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Proceedings of the XX International Conference “Data Analytics and Management in Data Intensive Domains” (DAMDID/RCDL'2018)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Moscow</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="RU">Russia</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Archil Maysuradze Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia © Bharathi Pilar University College</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Mangalore</addr-line>
          ,
          <country>India © B.</country>
          <institution>H. Shekar Mangalore University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Mangalore</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="IN">India</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>63</fpage>
      <lpage>67</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>In this paper we propose and test a novel approach, namely Supervised Asymmetric Metric Extraction (SAME), that learns from the supervised metric data and extracts the best single metric from a given set of metrics. It takes up large space to represent the metric-based descriptions, so the approach is specifically crafted to allow for a computationally effective solution. The proposed learning model is scaleindependent and hence rescaling of any metric does not affect the learning. Another advantage of metric extraction is the way of training set annotation which specifically suits verification problems. In this metric extraction approach, we separate intraclass and interclass distances, simplifying the metric extraction problem to linear programming problem which can use optimization techniques effectively. Here, the number of variables needed in the computation remains small and hence it eliminates the need of any soft constraint extension resulting in reduced computational time complexity. The experimental results on offline and online signature data demonstrate that the proposed approach yields better performance and time complexity compared to other metric extraction technique as computational complexity in the proposed approach depends mainly on the calculation of original distances.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1 Introduction</title>
      <p>Due to the rapid development in electronics,
communication and hardware technology, there is a high
demand for the design of automated intelligent systems
in industrial works, medical imaging, defense, data
analytics and biometrics. In machine learning theory and
data mining applications, there are increasingly frequent
situations when different ways to measure similarity are
set on the same objects. Such situations are typical in
information retrieval, computer vision, biology, social
systems, finance, etc. In many of these domains,
similarity engineering is an important way to incorporate
expert knowledge and similarity learning is a way to
produce a similarity function based on some constraints.
The performance of such automated intelligent systems
depends upon suitable choice of similarity/dissimilarity
function over the input space. Hence there is a increasing
need of an extraction mechanism which can learn a best
metric for a given set of data from the given set of several
metrics. In this context, in this work we have presented
metric extraction technique wherein the actual distance
learning is performed only on a finite set of supervised
training data, whereas the best metric learnt can be
applied to the whole population of objects.</p>
      <p>The conventional machine learning approaches focus
on feature extraction and feature learning, here we have
adopted a novel approach of metric extraction from
several metrics. The idea here is, even if the individual
metrics fail to discriminate classes accurately, their
combination will definitely improve the quality of the
discrimination. Hence, there is a need for aggregating
original multimetric information. In this context, in this
work we recognize a notion of metric dimension
reduction methods which produces a best metric for a
given population from a set of original metrics applied
on a small set of labelled samples from the population.
The theoretical properties of the problem are provided
along with experimental results to exhibit the
performance of the proposed approach. The
computational complexity will be low as it is mainly due
to calculation of original distances.</p>
      <p>In automated intelligent systems, specifically
biometrics, there are mainly two types of classification
problems. First, identification systems that recognizes
the subject by its description. Second, verification
systems that test whether the given description relates to
the given subject. In this paper, we focus on the
verification systems, namely biometric systems that
verify a person by his/her signatures.</p>
      <p>In certain applications like mobile banking, as we
need to deal with an intensive stream of verification
queries, the update of the system with new information
must be simple. This is met by means of specific
annotation and classification techniques.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2 Related Work</title>
      <p>
        In the state of art literature there are ample number of
distance metric learning approaches applied to machine
learning problems such as computer vision, biometrics,
information retrieval and data analytics [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref7">2,7</xref>
        ]. All these
methods can be broadly categorized into two main
categories, one is eigenvalue optimization and the other
is convex or non-convex optimization. Most of the
popular methods are based on the ideas of Large-Margin
nearest neighbor [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] and Information-theoretic metric
learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. The formulations of metric learning are
similar to multiple kernel learning which is very popular
in the field of machine learning. It is theoretically proved
in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref11">10,11</xref>
        ] that the metric investigation approaches are
computationally effective when the derived metric is a
linear combination of the original ones compared to
nonnegative linear or convex combinations of original
metric.
      </p>
      <p>From the literature we can notice, the conventional
machine learning algorithms are based on feature
learning and metric learning. The metric learning
produces new metric from conventional feature-based
object descriptions. Our paper focuses on metric
extraction technique which is a kind of dimensionality
reduction of metric-based descriptions. The approach
does not focus on object features but only takes specific
annotations for pairs of objects. The conventional
machine learning approaches ensembles the different
classifiers at feature level or decision level, thus
combining several distances obtained by various metrics
in order to have consensus decision, whereas distance
extraction technique aggregates original multimetric
information giving rise to the best metric. In addition,
most of the conventional machine learning approaches
use non-negative linear or convex combinations of
multiple metrics making it computationally expensive,
whereas our approach is computationally efficient as the
derived metric is a linear combination of original metric
with a scalar value.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3 Proposed Approach</title>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>3.1 Distance combination model</title>
        <p>
          We consider a multimetric object space with 
pseudo-metrics. Let  1,  2, ...,   be the original metrics
on this object space. Let  be the new derived metric
which is linear combination of original metrics defined
as follows,
 ( ,  ) =  1 1( ,  ) +  2 2( ,  ) + ⋯ +     ( ,  )
where  1,  2,...,   are the weights. The derived
distance  ( ,  ) can be calculated for any pair ( ,  )
from the whole population. The combination model is
rather popular in the literature [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>
          It is guaranteed that  is a pseudo-metric if the
weights are non-negative [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ]. The guarantee is
important for theoretical correctness of many metric
methods of machine learning and artificial intelligence.
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>3.2 Annotation model</title>
        <p>Let  be the finite sample of size  , and  1,  2,...,  
be the objects of the sample. There are two sets of
unordered pairs from the sample of training objects: the
first set is annotated as must-link pairs, the other as
cannot-link pairs. In the conventional case when each
training object is annotated with its class label, the
mustlink set contains all the pairs of the same class training
objects and the cannot-link set contains all the pairs of
training objects from different classes.</p>
        <p>But for verification problems we propose to use
another approach to annotation. In case of signature
verification systems, we expect that for each person there
will be genuine signatures and skilled forgeries.
Accordingly, must-link pairs will represent pairs of
genuine signatures, whereas cannot-link pairs will
represent pairs of genuine signatures and skilled
forgeries. Notice that we do not include the pairs of
skilled forgeries to the training at all.</p>
        <p>This annotation model is more expressive than
labelling individual objects. Moreover, when we will use
the extracted (derived) metric for verification we will
have several options to prototype selection. One of the
crucial advantages is that we will be able to add new
people to the verification system without prototyping any
forgeries.</p>
        <p>One of the important challenges for training an
automated signature verification system is the presence
of partial knowledge during training. In a realistic
scenario, during training we only have access to genuine
signatures for the users enrolled to the system. During
operations, however, we want the system not only to be
able to accept genuine signatures, but also to reject
forgeries. This is a challenging task, since during training
a classifier has no information to learn what exactly
distinguishes a genuine signature and a forgery for the
users enrolled in the system. The proposed approach
directly addresses this problem as our approach just takes
only must link pair between samples of genuine class.
We do not need forgery class.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>3.3 Recognition model</title>
        <p>As mentioned above, recognition process must deal
with people without known forgeries. For that reason, we
utilize the property of scale-independence which we are
going to discuss in the following section. Our learning
method automatically rescales the derived metric, so we
can calculate the distances to genuine prototypes only.
Then the distance to the nearest genuine prototype may be
used as a score for classification.</p>
        <p>We need forgeries for metric extraction, but later we
can add a new person to our verification system without
any forgery samples.</p>
        <p>Conventional performance metrics for verification
problems are FAR (false acceptance rate) and FRR (false
rejection rate). As our recognition model produces a
score, we can use ROC-analysis and calculate EER
(equal error rate) which is an informative integral
performance metric for the problem in hand.</p>
        <p>At recognition phase, all the original metrics to all the
prototypes can be calculated in parallel, so the decision
can be made quickly.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>3.4 Learning model</title>
        <p>follows</p>
        <p>Let  be the set of must-link pairs, let  be the set of
cannot-link pairs. Here, the reflexive pairs ( ,  ) are not
considered. Let  1, …,</p>
        <p>be the actual labels (Genuine
or Forgery), then we can set  = {( ,  ) ∣   =   =  }
and</p>
        <p>= {( ,  ) ∣   =  and   =  }, where  and  are
intraclass and interclass pairs respectively. The metric
extraction problem</p>
        <p>here is to minimize the average
intraclass derived distance provided all interclass derived
distances are not less than 1 and the weights  1,  2,...,
are non-negative. The problem is formalized as</p>
        <p>(  ,   ) → min
( , )∈
s.t.  (  ,   ) ≥ 1, for ( ,  ) ∈ 
 
≥ 0, for  ∈
{1, … ,  }
.</p>
        <p>.

=1</p>
        <p>When we use the linear form of the derived metric 
and change the order of summation in the objective
function, we get the conventional linear programming
problem</p>
        <p>(  ,   ) → min
( , )∈
s.t.</p>
        <p>∑=1     (  ,   ) ≥ 1, for ( ,  ) ∈ 
(1)
 
≥ 0, for  ∈</p>
        <p>{1, … ,  }</p>
        <p>
          The formalization makes it possible to consider the
result as metric selection by positive weights. As the
scales are ignored in the approach, so the weight rank has
no semantics. The approach selects relevant metrics. To
get rid of redundant metrics, it is advised to use
unsupervised metric extraction in advance [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ]. This is a
linear programming problem, hence there is a wide range
of methods and software to find the global optimum. In
fact, we solve the dual problem to (1).
        </p>
        <p>Definition 1. A pair of objects from D is conflicting,
if for all the original metrics the distance between the
objects is zero.</p>
        <p>Theorem 1. In the linear programming problem,
there is always an admissible solution, unless there are
conflicting objects in the sample.</p>
        <p>It follows from the theorem that we can do without
slack variables customary for SVM. A soft-margin
extension is not required at all. Consequently, the
number of variables and the size of the optimization
problem remains small which is crucial to maintain the
computational complexity at low levels.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-5">
        <title>3.5 Scale-independence</title>
        <p>The important feature of the proposed learning model
is its scale-independence. This means that any rescaling
of any original metric does not affect the learning. This
is unlike many conventional feature-based techniques
where changing the scale or units of a feature - e.g. from
meters to
kilometers –
may
dramatically. Also, any derived
change
metric
the</p>
        <p>results
will have a
standard scaling for the threshold from the learning
model. That is why distances produced by any derived
metric may be used as coherent scores for classification.
Hence, we do not need samples of forgeries for
recognition.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4 Applications</title>
      <p>Let
us
consider
automatic
online
signature
verification problem in Biometric domain which is used
to prevent identity fraud by verifying the authenticity of
signatures. The dataset consists of both genuine and
forged signatures. Although, there are plethora of metrics
for computer vision applications such as online signature
verification, devising an efficient and accurate metric is
still a challenging issue. Hence, we are motivated to
develop a computationally efficient metric extraction
approach that can find linear combinations of the original
metrics such that the resulting classification error is
reduced compared to that of the original metric.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5 Datasets and Original Metrics</title>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>5.1 Offline signature verification</title>
        <p>For the offline signature verification problem, we
used Centre of Excellence for Document Analysis and
Recognition (CEDAR) dataset. The CEDAR at SUNY
Bualo has built the offline signature dataset with 55
signers, a total of 2640 signature samples. 24 genuine
signature samples were collected from each signer and
later, to obtain the forgeries (skilled), 20 arbitrary chosen
signers skilfully forged the signature in the dataset each
with 24 samples. Hence for each signer, 24 genuine and
24 skilled forge samples, a total of 48 signature samples
were collected. Each signature image was labelled, i.e. it
was known which person it had been taken from and
whether it is genuine or forged.</p>
        <p>
          In our experiment, we have partitioned each signature
image into eight vertical partitions of equal width. The
morphological
pattern
spectrum-based
features
are
extracted from the signature partitions as explained in
our earlier paper [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ]. The dominant features of each
partition in a signature image is represented in the form
of histogram. There are eight histograms corresponding
to 8 partitions of each signature. All these feature vectors
are stored in the dataset. The Earth Mover’s Distance
(EMD) metric is used to compare the histograms. This
produced a set of eight
metrics, each comparing
characteristics of an individual and small part of the
whole image.
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>5.2 Online signature verification</title>
        <p>
          For the online signature verification problem, we
used two datasets: SVC2004 [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
          ] and a rather new
MOBISIG [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ]. The use-case scenario for MOBISIG may
be quite data intensive as it assumes that many people
will be querying the verification system at the same time
and fraudsters may attack the system with many images.
Again, the samples were divided into training set and test
set.
        </p>
        <p>
          We used 8 original distance functions. All of them are
known to have been state-of-the-art for the problem
when used individually.
15. DTW for (x; y) – DTWxy [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ];
16. DTW for (vx; vy) – DTWv [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ];
17. ER2 for (x; y) – ER2xy [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ];
18. ER2 for (vx; vy) – ER2v [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ];
19. EMD for angles – EMDth [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ];
20. EMD for vx – EMDvx [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ];
21. EMD for vy – EMDvy [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ];
22. SumMinxy(x; y)
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6 Experimental Results</title>
      <p>The Table 1 and Table 2 below show the equal error
rates for each of the original metrics and for the learned
metric for offline and online signature verification
problems respectively.</p>
      <p>The Table 1 shows EER for 8 individual original
metrics and derived metrics for the offline dataset. EER
is averaged over people. As one can expect, none of the
original metrics can be good for classification separately,
as each one contains only one eighth of information
about the signature. At the same time, the combination of
these metrics can result in a considerably good
discriminative function.</p>
      <p>
        The Table 2 shows EER for 8 individual original
metrics and derived metrics for both online datasets. EER
is averaged over people. MMC [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref7">3,7</xref>
        ] is the most cited
metric learning technique. We converted it to be a metric
extraction technique as a competitor.
      </p>
      <p>EMDvy
SumMinxy</p>
      <p>MMC
SAME</p>
      <p>The metric extraction phase could be done once for a
set of people. Metric combination and verification are
extremely quick - in fact, it is negligible in comparison
with image or time series transfer and preprocessing.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>7 Conclusion</title>
      <p>In this paper we presented a novel metric extraction
method which produces best metric for a given
population from a linear combination of several original
metrics applied on a finite set of supervised training
samples. In this approach the intraclass and interclass
distances are treated separately resulting in linear
optimization problem with reduced computational time
complexity. The experimental results on offline
signature as well as online Signature verification
demonstrated the significant reduction in the error rate
compared to the individual metrics. In addition, it is also
shown that the metric extraction procedure is
computationally effective taking only seconds to
calculate coefficients of the linear combination.
Acknowledgments. This research is partially supported
by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (projects
1601-00196 and 17-01-00917) and Lomonosov Moscow
State University (project 5.1.16).</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Antal</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Szabo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L. Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tordai</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Online Signature Verification on MOBISIG FingerDrawn Signature Corpus</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Mobile Information Systems</source>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ) doi: 10.1155/
          <year>2018</year>
          /3127042
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bellet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Habrard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sebban</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A Survey on Metric Learning for Feature Vectors and Structured Data</article-title>
          .
          <source>CoRR abs/1306</source>
          .6709 (
          <year>2013</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bellet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Habrard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sebban</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Metric Learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning</source>
          . Morgan &amp; Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berndt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Clifford</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series</article-title>
          . In: KDD workshop, V. 10, N.
          <volume>16</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>359</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>370</lpage>
          (
          <year>1994</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Davis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kulis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jain</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sra</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dhillon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Information-theoretic metric learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>209</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>216</lpage>
          . ACM (
          <year>2007</year>
          ) doi: 10.1145/1273496.1273523
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jang</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S.-J.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lim</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T.-B.:
          <article-title>Distance combination for content identification system</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 1st International Conference on Communications, Signal Processing, and their Applications (ICCSPA)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>6</lpage>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ) doi: 10.1109/ICCSPA.
          <year>2013</year>
          .6487261
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kulis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Metric learning: a survey</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>5</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>4</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>287</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>364</lpage>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <source>doi: 10.1561/2200000019</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lei</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Palla</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Govindaraju</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>ER/sup 2: an intuitive similarity measure for on-line signature verification</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>191</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>195</lpage>
          . IEEE (
          <year>2004</year>
          ) doi: 10.1109/IWFHR.
          <year>2004</year>
          .38
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maysuradze</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Suvorov</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Aggregation of multiple metric descriptions from distances between unlabeled objects</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: J. Comput. Math. Math. Phys</source>
          .
          <volume>57</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>350</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>361</lpage>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          ) doi: 10.1134/S0965542517020105
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maysuradze</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Homogeneous and rank bases in spaces of metric configurations</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: J. Comput. Math. Math. Phys</source>
          .
          <volume>46</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>330</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>344</lpage>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          ) doi: 10.1134/S096554250602014X
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maysuradze</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>On optimal decompositions of finite metric configurations in pattern recognition problems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: J. Comput. Math. Math. Phys</source>
          .
          <volume>44</volume>
          (
          <issue>9</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>1615</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1624</lpage>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rubner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tomasi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guibas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L. J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A metric for distributions with applications to image databases</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Computer Vision</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>59</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>66</lpage>
          . IEEE (
          <year>1998</year>
          ) doi: 10.1109/ICCV.
          <year>1998</year>
          .710701
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shekar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B. H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. K.</given-names>
            <surname>Bharathi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Bharathi Pilar:
          <article-title>Local morphological pattern spectrum based approach for off-line signature verification</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence</source>
          . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (
          <year>2013</year>
          ) doi: 10.1007/978-3-
          <fpage>642</fpage>
          -45062-4_
          <fpage>45</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Weinberger</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.Q.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Saul</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Distance metric learning for large margin nearest neighbor classification</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: J. Mach. Learn. Res</source>
          .
          <volume>10</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>207</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>244</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yeung</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D. Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al.:
          <article-title>SVC2004: First international signature verification competition</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Biometric Authentication</source>
          , pp
          <fpage>16</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>22</lpage>
          . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>