J.S.

S MAHAVIDYAPEETHA

JSS Science and Technology University

Mysuru
Department of Master of Computer Applications
2018-19

Interval Valued Symbolic Representation of

Writer Dependent Features for Online Signature
Verification

Submitted by,
BHUVANA SHREE MS [01JST18PMCL02]
POOJA HR [01JST18PMCL07]

Submitted to,
Prof. Dr. R.K BHARATHI
MCA Department
JSSSTU, Mysuru
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work entitled "Interval Valued Symbolic Representation
of Writer Dependent Parameters for Online Signature Verification “ is a
benefited work carried out by Bhuvana Shree M S (01JST18PMCL02) and Pooja
H R(01JST18PMCL07) in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree in Master
of Computer Applications, under JSS Science and Technology University,
Mysuru during the year 2019. It is certified that all corrections/suggestions
indicated during CIE have been incorporated in the report. The project report has
been approved as it satisfies the academic requirements in respect of project work
prescribed for Master of Computer Applications degree.

----------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------

Signature of Guide Signature of HOD Signature of Principal
Dr R K Bharathi Dr V N Manjunath Aradhya Dr T N Nagabhushan
Associate Professor Associate Professor and Principal
Head
Dept of Computer JSS S&TU, Mysuru
Applications Dept of Computer

JSS S&TU, Mysuru Applications

JSS S&TU Mysuru

Examiners
Signature
Name
1._________________________
1._________________________
2._________________________
2._________________________
Place: Mysore
Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The success of any endeavor depends a lot on the goals set at the onset as
well as the constant guidance and motivation received throughout. It's my duty to
acknowledge and thank the individuals who has contributed in the successful
completion of the project.

I express my deep sense of gratitude and sincere thanks to my guide

Dr. R K Bharathi Associate Professor, Department of Computer Application,
sustaining interest and dynamic guidance shown in aiding me to complete this
project immaculately and impeccably and being the source of my strength and
confidence.

I feel immense pleasure to thank Dr. V N Manjunath Aradhya, Associate

Professor and Head, Department of Master of Computer Applications for his
encouragement and support throughout the project.

I express my heartfelt thanks to our principal Dr.T N Nagabhushan at the

esteemed institution JSS Science and Technology University, Mysuru for
providing me an opportunity to reach my goal.

I sincerely express our thanks and gratitude to our institution JSS Science and
Technology University, Mysuru - 570006 for providing me an opportunity to fulfill
our most cherished desire of reaching my goal and thus helping me to make a
bright career.

I would like to thank all the Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of Department
of MCA for their kind Co-operation during the course of the work. The support
provided by the Departmental library is gratefully acknowledged.

This successful completion of my project would not have been possible without
my parents Sacrifice, guidance and prayers. I take this opportunity to thank
very much for their continuous encouragement. I convey my thankfulness to all my
friends who were with me to share my happiness and agony. They gave
valuable suggestion which was the solution that helped me to a great extent to
complete the project successfully.

Bhuvana Shree M S

Pooja H R
Contents
1. ABSTRACT .......................................................................................5
2. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................5
3. LITERATURE SURVEY ....................................................................6
4. PROPOSED SYSTEM.......................................................................7
5. WORKFLOW OF THE IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM ...........................9
A. Selection of writer dependent features .....................................9
B. Symbolic representation: ........................................................13
C. Signature Verification ................................................................15
6. EXPERIMENTATION AND RESULTS ...........................................15
Dataset: ............................................................................................15
Experimental protocol: ...................................................................17
Fixing up writer dependent parameters: .......................................19
7. CONCLUSION.................................................................................21
8. SNAPSHOTS ..................................................................................23
1. ABSTRACT

In this work, an approach for authenticating online signatures based on writer dependent
(Class specific) parameters is proposed. Writer dependent parameters in our work
include writer dependent features, feature dimension, threshold and feature selection
method. Initially, writer dependent features are selected for every writer through different
filter based feature selection methods based on relevancy of features. The relevancy of
a feature is defined based on its discrimination ability. Once the suitable features for a
particular writer are selected, we propose to represent the selected features in the form
of an interval-valued symbolic feature vector. Based on this symbolic representation, a
method for online signature verification is proposed. A decision on writer dependent
parameters is arrived at by estimating the equal error rate (EER) obtained with the
training samples. The parameters which result in lowest EER for a writer are selected to
be the suitable features for that writer. Extensive experimentations were conducted on
MCYT100 (DB1) Further we also conducted verification experiments to show the
effectiveness of symbolic .Experimental results indicate the effectiveness of writer
dependent parameters in achieving the lowest equal error rate (EER) and also the
superiority of symbolic representation in assimilating the intra-class variations.

2. INTRODUCTION
Challenges for online signature verification framework are introduced by factors such
as intra-individual variability (between genuine and genuine), inter-individual variability
(between genuine and forgery) and requirement of high computation capabilities.
This includes

 Exploring the notions of writer dependent features for online signature verification
 Preserving the intra-writer variations by representing the selected writer
dependent
features by means of an interval valued symbolic feature vector.
 Fixing up of writer dependent feature dimension, similarity threshold based on the
minimum error criterion.

The challenge to a Dynamic Signature Verification system can be states as follows; given
a small set of reference signatures, determine the probability that a new signature
submitted for testing is authentic. From this probability a binary (Yes/No) verdict results
typically by applying an acceptance threshold to a match probability. If the acceptance
threshold is too high, authentic signers may be rejected (False Reject), annoying
customers. If the acceptance threshold is set too low, forgers will have an easier time
passing as an authentic signer (False Accept). As a performance biometric, every
instance of a signature is different, and a writer’s consistency is influenced by many
factors. Some people are good mimics, and given enough practice and information, can
produce very good imitations of authentic signatures. Setting the acceptance is a
delicate balance of not annoying too many customers with False Rejects, while
maintaining enough security to reject all but the most skilled, practiced, or lucky forgers
(e.g. picking a signature that is easy to forge).

3. LITERATURE SURVEY

Signatures are widely used as proof of identity in our daily lives. They have been
accepted as an official means to verify personal identity for legal purposes on many
documents such as cheques, credit cards, and wills. Considering the large number of
signatures handled daily through visual inspection by people, the construction of a robust
and accurate automatic system to process such a huge volume of signatures has many
potential benefits for ensuring authenticity of signatures and reducing fraud and other
crimes. Automatic signature recognition/verification by computers has received wide
research interests in the field of pattern recognition.

Authentication based on signatures finds numerous applications in many of our daily

life such as banking transaction, financial transactions and attestation of documents etc.
Depending on the acquisition mode, signature verification can be of two types namely
offline and online (Jain et al.,2002).

In online mode, when compared to offline mode, additional dynamic information such
as pressure, velocity, speed etc., are also extracted in addition to the shape of a signature
(Rashidi et al., 2012; Sae-bae and memon, 2014). As these dynamic characteristics are
difficult to forge, online signature verification is more reliable than that of offline.

An initial attempt (Guru et al., 2013) is made on the usage of writer dependent features
for online signature verification. In this work, even though the selected features are
different for different writers, feature dimension and threshold for every writer are the
same.

With this backdrop, we propose a verification model by making use of writer dependent
features for capturing the characteristics of an individual writer and representing them
effectively by means of symbolic feature vector.

4. PROPOSED SYSTEM

The proposed model is based on authenticating a signature in a way similar to human

expert does verification. We mainly focus on exploring the notion of writer dependent
parameters for online signature verification and the second contribution is to demonstrate
the superiority of symbolic representation and symbolic classifier in accomplishing lower
EER.
 The objective is to build a verification model by the use of writer dependent features
which are later effectively represented by means of a symbolic feature vector. The writer
dependent features are selected by means of simple dispersion measures used as
relevance criteria. Further, in addition to the usage of writer dependent features,
significance of writer dependent feature dimension and threshold are also studied.

In the current work, the intuition is to consider the problem of signature verification as a
pattern recognition problem where the main objective is to perform signature verification
based on the parameters selected for each writer individually.

In addition, this work is based on the usage of other writer dependent parameters such
as feature dimension, similarity threshold and feature selection method. Suitable
features, the number of features and the threshold to be used for each writer during
verification are decided based on the error rate estimated with the training sample

The proposed model basically has four important stages namely.

 Selection of writer dependent features based on feature relevance.

 Representation of the selected writer dependent features in the form of an
interval valued symbolic feature vector.
 Fixation of writer dependent parameters
 Signature verification based on the writer dependent parameters.
The block diagram of the proposed model is as shown in Figure.
As it shows, we don’t focus on extraction of features and preprocessing of features of a
signature. As our intuition is to look for writer dependent feature selection, we just
assume that a common set of features are available for each signature sample of every
writer.
 Fig 1- Architecture of proposed model

5. WORKFLOW OF THE IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM

A. Selection of writer dependent features

To select writer dependent features, we have considered the signatures of N writers,
each contributing M signatures. Each signature is characterized by means of say P
features so that the resulting dimension of data matrix of every individual writer will be
M X P . Features for i th writer ( i 1, 2,3,..., N ) are obtained as follows.

Let { S1 , S2 , S3 ,..., SM } be the M training signatures of i th writer and Let { f j1 , f j 2 ,..., f jP } be the

feature vector describing j th signature ( j 1, 2,..., M ) of the i th writer ( i 1, 2, ...., N ).

We recommend selecting only d features out of P available features based on their

relevance. In this work, we have considered selecting features based on 3 different
dispersion measures used as relevance criteria for feature selection due to their ability
to work with both labeled and unlabeled data, computational simplicity and applicability
for large data dimension even upto 105 features (Artur et al., 2012).
M
1
1. Mean Absolute Difference ( MADp ) =
M
f
j 1
jp  f p , p 1, 2,..., P and f p is the mean

of p th feature of the i th writer due to all M signature samples. f jp is the feature

value of p th feature of j th sample

(1)

The mean absolute difference MADp is computed for each feature i.e., p 1, 2,..., P

2. Mean Median Difference ( MM p ) = f p  Median( p) , p 1, 2,..., P

(2)

The mean median difference MM p is the absolute difference between the mean

and median of p th feature of the i th writer due to all M signature samples.

 exp  f 
M
1
pj
M j 1
3. Modified Arithmetic and Geometric Mean ratio ( AGMR p ) = 1
( Mj 1 exp ( f pj ) ) M

(3)

, p 1, 2,..., P

Equation (3) is the modified ratio of arithmetic mean to geometric mean. The ratio is
modified due to the fact that, in case of geometric mean, if any feature value is zero, then
the ratio cannot be determined. Hence by applying the exponential function to each
feature, the ratio is modified as shown in equation (3). After computing the relevance of
all the P features from the above three dispersion measures, features are sorted based
on their relevance values and top d features are selected. The resulting features selected
from the three different dispersion measures are represented by means of the following
three feature vectors.
 FS1   f11 , f 21 , f31 ,..., f d 1 (4)

FS2   f12 , f 2 2 , f32 ,..., f d 2  (5)

FS3   f13 , f 23 , f33 ,..., f d 3  (6)

Here FSi , i  1, 2,3 represents the set of indices of d features selected based on criteria 1,
2 and 3 respectively. The indices of the all d features selected will be stored in the
knowledgebase for later usage during verification.

Even though the number of features selected from each of the relevance criteria is d ,
the indices of the d features selected vary from a writer to a writer. This results in
selection of writer dependent features.

During verification, to authenticate a test signature of a particular writer, it is sufficient to

consider only that number of features required for that writer. Optimal feature dimension
for each writer is fixed up empirically based on a minimum error criterion. For this, we
estimate the EER for each writer for varying values of number of features selected. The
feature dimension which results in lowest EER is selected to be the best feature
dimension for that particular writer. Further, we fused the feature vectors FS1 , FS2 , and FS3

obtained from the different dispersion measures by means of union and intersection
operations as

FS1  FS2  FS3 =  f11 , f 21 , f31 ,..., f d 1   f12 , f 2 2 , f32 ,..., f d 2    f13 , f 23 , f 33 ,..., f d 3  =

f 1
s
, f 2s , f 3s , ... , f t s  ,

Where t>=d and each f x in FS1  FS2  FS3  FS1 , FS2 or FS3 , x 1, 2,..., t and
s
s =1,2,3 (7)

Similarly

FS1  FS2  FS3 =  f11 , f 21 , f31 ,..., f d 1   f12 , f 2 2 , f32 ,..., f d 2    f13 , f 23 , f 33 ,..., f d 3  =

f 1
s
, f 2s , f 3s , ... , f t s  ,
Where t<=d and each f x in FS1  FS2  FS3  FS1 , FS2 and FS3 ,
s
x 1, 2,..., t and s =1,2,3

(8)

The union and intersection of different feature selection methods result in the creation of
a new feature vector for each writer. During fusion we considered fusion of all the feature
vectors and also two feature vectors at a time both in union and intersection
combinations. Table-I shows the indices of the feature obtained after fusion for 10 writers
when top 05 relevant features are considered for feature selection from each of these
individual relevance criteria.

User # FS1UFS2UFS3 FS1∩FS2∩FS3

Total Total
Indices of the
Number Number
Indices of the Features Selected Features
of of
Selected
Features Features

1 5 6 9 10 20 21 85 07 6 10 20 03

2 3 6 10 20 39 76 83 85 08 6 20 02

3 3 6 10 20 33 39 44 76 08 33 76 02

4 3 5 6 9 20 33 39 44 83 85 10 3 01

5 5 6 10 20 21 39 78 83 85 09 6 83 02

6 3 8 20 33 39 44 85 07 20 33 44 03

7 3 6 10 20 33 39 72 84 08 10 20 02

8 3 6 9 10 20 39 71 76 08 10 20 39 03

9 3 10 20 33 39 44 76 85 08 76 85 02

10 3 10 20 39 44 72 76 78 84 09 20 01

Table 1- Indices of feature selected

B. Symbolic representation:

After selecting writer dependent features, we represent every writer by means of interval
valued symbolic feature vector (Guru and Prakash, 2009). The interval valued feature
vector of i th writer is created as follows. Let { S1 , S2 , S3 ,..., SM }be the M training signatures of

i th writer and Let f 1 , f 2 , f3 , .., f d  be the set of d features selected for i th writer. To

compute the interval valued feature vector to represent i th writer, we computed the mean
and standard deviation of each of the selected features considering all the M training
signatures. For example the interval value for p th feature is computed as follows.

i i
Let Mean ( f p ) and Std( f p ) be the mean and standard deviation of p th feature of the i th writer

where
M
  x j  Mean ( f pi ) 
M

1 2
Mean ( f pi )  f pj and Std ( f pi ) 
1
p 1, 2,..., d (9)
M M
j 1 j 1

f pj is the p th feature value of j th training signature. To preserve the intra-class variations

among the signature samples of a writer, the p th feature of ith is represented in the form
of interval valued as [ fip  , fip  ] where

fip  Mean ( f pi )  Std ( f pi ) and fip  Mean ( f pi )  Std ( f pi ) (10)

Similarly all the d features are represented in the form of interval valued features
resulting in an interval valued symbolic feature vector for i th writer as
{[ fi1 , fi1 ],[ fi 2 , fi 2 ],[ fi 3 , f i 3 ],..,[ f id , f id ]} (11)

In case of union and intersection, symbolic feature vector for i th writer will be
{[ fi1 , fi1 ],[ fi 2 , fi 2 ],[ fi 3 , fi 3 ],..,[ f it , f it ]} where t>=d for union and t<=d for intersection. We

store this symbolic feature vector as a representative of the i th writer. In general for N
writer we get N symbolic feature vectors of interval valued type. Compared to
conventional representation, where all training signatures of a writer are stored in the
knowledgebase, symbolic representation results in a considerable reduction of number
 of feature vectors to be stored in the knowledgebase. In symbolic approach, it is sufficient
to store only one symbolic feature vector characterizing one particular writer. Table-II
shows the interval valued symbolic feature vector for 5 writers based on top 5 features
selected considering 05 training samples in case of FS1. Top row denotes the indices of
the feature selected and the bottom row denotes the interval of the corresponding feature
obtained considering all the training signatures of a particular writer.

Sample Interval valued symbolic feature vectors for 10 writers along with the indices
of the features selected

Writer #

Indices 10 20 6 39 21

1 [197.70,
Interval 243.86] [121.88, 152.51] [121.17, 139.09] [51.83, 62.11] [60.75, 73.56]

Indices 20 10 39 6 76
2
Interval [99.92, 123.48] [61.05, 77.27] [26.30, 51.01] [53.97, 59.09] [25.89, 43.12]

Indices 20 44 33 3 76

3 [112.30,
Interval [97.62, 136.45] [21.38, 35.42] [23.39, 55.81] 135.30] [24.97, 36.12]

Indices 33 44 20 85 6
4
Interval [8.01, 37.19] [5.26, 30.34] [86.90, 102.93] [26.76, 46.91] [46.83, 54.50]

Indices 6 10 39 20 85
5
Interval [72.19, 82.50] [61.18, 66.30] [58.82, 78.61] [92.89, 108.81] [23.11, 32.20]

Table 2- Symbolic representation of features

C. Signature Verification

For verifying whether a test signature is genuine or not, we consider a test signature

represented in the form of P dimensional feature vector as Fq  fq1,fq2 ,...,fqP 

It is interesting to note that all the features of test signature will be of crisp type while the
corresponding feature of a reference signature is of interval valued. For authenticating
the test signature, we compare only d features ( d  P ) of the test signature with the
corresponding d interval valued features of the reference signature. The indices of the d
features to be compared are available in the knowledgebase. To keep track of number
of features of test signature that lies within the corresponding interval valued feature of
the reference signature we use a counter ( Acp ), If a feature of the test signature lies within

the corresponding interval-valued feature of a reference signature, the Acp is

incremented by one. Acp is used as a measure for determining the validity of the test

signature. If the value of Acp is greater than a predefined threshold, then the test

signature is considered as genuine otherwise the test signature is rejected as forgery.

6. EXPERIMENTATION AND RESULTS

In this section, we discuss about the dataset used for experimentation, training and
testing details, experimental protocol along with the results obtained.

Dataset:

We conducted experiments using MCYT online signature data set, which is one of the
standard benchmarking datasets for online signatures. MCYT data set consists of two
subsets; MCYT-100 (DB1) consisting of signatures of first 100 writers. The data sets
consist of 25 genuine and 25 skilled forgeries for each writer where the skilled forgeries
for each writer are collected from 5 different writers.
For experimentation we considered 100 global features.

Fig 2- Sample signature of MYCT dataset

Table 3- Top 10 of 100 global parameters for User 1 and User 2

Experimental protocol:

For experimentation, data set is divided into training and testing sets. For testing we
considered both skilled and random forgeries. Skilled forgeries are created with sufficient
practice and are difficult to forge. We conducted feature selection experiments for each
writer by considering the training signatures of the particular writer. Selected features are
ranked based on their relevance are stored in the knowledgebase in the form of interval
valued symbolic feature vector. For identifying the number of features to be fixed for
each writer and the similarity threshold value, we vary the number of features to be
selected for a writer from 5 to 75 in step of 5 based on their relevance. We also vary the
similarity threshold from 0.1 to 1.0 in step of 0.1 and calculated the False Acceptance
Rate (FAR) and False Rejection Rate (FRR). FAR is the percentage of forgery samples
wrongly treated as genuine signatures and FRR is the percentage of genuine signatures
wrongly rejected as forgery. The point at which these two values are equal in the ROC
curve is the Equal Error Rate (EER) of the system. Similarity threshold is the percentage
of number of features of test signature that should lies within the corresponding interval
valued features of the reference signature for treating the test signature as a genuine.
Fig. 3 Variation of FAR and FRR for various combinations of Feature Selection

a. FS1 b. FS2 c. FS3 d. FS1UFS2UFS3 e. FS1∩FS2∩FS3

Fixing up writer dependent parameters:

In our work, two parameters namely number of features (Feature dimension) and the
similarity threshold are determined empirically as follows. For each writer, we vary the
number of features to be selected from 5 to 75 in step of 5 and estimate the EER
under varying threshold. Based on the minimum EER criterion, the parameters are
fixed up for each writer individually. We conducted 20 trials with random selection of
training signatures in each trial and the EER is computed.

We also have conducted experiments to estimate the EER using writer dependent
parameters. The average EER of the system is estimated by taking the average EER
of each individual writer. We conducted 20 trials with different training and testing
samples in each trial and the average EER of 20 trials is considered as the EER of
individual writer. Usage of writer dependent threshold and writer dependent features
resulted in a considerable reduction in the average EER compared to the usage of
common threshold and common feature dimension for all writers. This shows the
superiority of writer dependent parameters for signature verification.
Table 4- Shows the Minimum, Maximum and average EER obtained with writer dependent parameters
for DB1.

Method Skilled_05 Skilled_20 Random_05 Random_20

Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg

FS1 2.7 4.3 3.3 0.7 2.0 1.3 1.1 2.3 1.4 0.1 1.2 0.7

FS2 2.5 4.0 3.2 0.9 2.6 1.7 1.1 1.8 1.5 0.2 0.9 0.5

FS3 2.8 4.4 3.5 0.8 2.6 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.3 0.2 1.0 0.6

U123 2.2 3.9 3.1 0.8 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.4 0.3 1.0 0.6

I123 3.3 4.7 3.8 0.9 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.7

U12 2.9 3.9 3.3 0.7 2.4 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.5 0.3 1.0 0.6

U13 2.4 3.8 3.1 0.9 2.5 1.6 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.3 1.0 0.6

U23 2.6 4.0 3.1 0.6 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.3 0.2 0.9 0.5
 FS1 FS2
15 15

10 10
EER (%) EER (%)
5 5
EER EER
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Writer # Writer #

(a) (b)

FS3 FS1UFS2UFS3
15 15
10 10
EER (%) EER (%)
5 5
EER EER
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Writer # Writer #

(c) (d)

FS1∩FS2∩FS3
15

10
EER (%)
5
EER
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Writer #

(e)

Fig. 4. EER of Individual Writers of DB1 (Skilled_05)

a. FS1 b. FS2 c. FS3 d. FS1UFS2UFS3 e. FS1∩FS2∩FS3

7. CONCLUSION

In this paper, a new approach has been proposed for online signature verification
based on writer dependent parameters. Writer dependent features are selected from
different filter based feature selection methods. Based on the features selected,
signatures of a particular writer are stored in the form interval valued symbolic feature
vector. A method for online signature verification is proposed based on the
representation scheme. All the experimentations are conducted on a standard
benchmarking data set of large size. Results obtained establish the effectiveness of
writer dependent parameters for signature verification. It also confirms the
effectiveness of symbolic representation over conventional representation. The EER
we obtained with writer dependent parameters and symbolic representation is lowest
compared to many well-known existing models for online signature verification on the
MCYT benchmarking dataset. In addition our model works in lower dimension but yet
resulted in an EER which is lowest compared to state of the works reported in the
literature. The objective of this project is to present an interval-symbolic representation
based method for online signature and hence verify whether a given signature is
genuine or forged.Signature verification based on the writer dependent parameters.
Exploring the notions of the Writer dependent parameters for online signature
verification using the features : Pen pressure, X coordinates, Y Coordinates, Pen
Azimuthal captured by the Signature Acquisition Device :Wacom Intuos

Based on the error rate achieved with training samples we come to conclusion based
on the ERR(Equal Error Rate). Fixing up the writer dependent feature similarity
threshold based on the equal error rate. (i.e) True Acceptation, True Rejection, False
Acceptation, False Rejection.
 Feature
Writer Feature Selection
# EER Threshold Dimension Method Feature Indices

10,20,6,39,21,85,9,99,76,5,47,83,11,4,31,3,25,33,44,8,80,87,55,77,78,100,
1 0.0 0.5 46 FS1
96,92,90,69,91,54,95,23,97,28, 16,43,68,79,14,35, 74, 36, 49, 62

10,6,76,9,85,3,20,33,21,44,78,39,83,5,72,77,84,98,11,4,8,99,2,12,47,31,80,
2 2.0 0.4 34 FS2
92,15,25,30,93,13,52

3,33,85,20,21,39,44,8,76,12,99,6,98,4,5,10,9,11,2,83,55,31,94,62,100,92,91,
3 1.7 0.4 37 FS3
87,68,82,47,38,93,74,90,78,97

33,10,20,8,44,85,76,6,9,39,83,3,11,12,90,84,4,98,5,47.25,78,100,97,55,93,
4 1.9 0.5 44 FS3
67,86,70,21,43,94,49,75,30,99,79,24,15,60,13,72,28,38

6,39,20,21,9,83,78,5,3,98,85,44,4,10,11,62,92,8,33,25,74,93,89,97,47,87,

5 1.7 0.4 62 FS3 91,55,82,88,30,80,84,100,36,90,31,99,96,77,72,19,43,27,75,69,18,35,23,

37,76,54,14,65,40,58,34, 57,67,71,24,32

85,39,76,3,6,83,99,10,71,20,44,2,84,21,33,94,9,8,98,90,87,92,4,47,31,55,

6 1.9 0.5 55 FS3 72,100,52,67,78,25,62,70,13,11,79,69,24,30,45,77,88,60,49,1,48,56,51,42,

34,28,97,73,64

20,3,44,10,72,78,71,99,84,83,6,21,85,8,12,33,9,31,52,39,5,55,100,91,24,

7 2.3 0.5 66 FS3 74,15,19,11,76,98,47,92,87,13,4,37,77,79,30,89,28,25,49,88,46,27,69,7,93,

17,18,14,43,36,97,86,45,66,62,82,35,90,32,57,65

2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,
8 3.4 0.4 48 U123
30,31,32,33,35,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,44,47,49,50,52,54,55,56

1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,30,31,32,
9 0.0 0.4 48 U123
33,36,37,38,39,41,42,43,44,45,47,48,49,50,51,52,55,56,57,58,59

3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,15,17,18,19,20,21,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,33,35,36,37,
10 3.5 0.5 43 I123
39,45,47,48,49,55,56,57,58,59,61,65,66,67,69,70

Table 5-. Detail of Class specific parameters for a sample 10 writers of DB1
8. SNAPSHOTS