gbanyan
b6913d2f93
Structural: - Promote operational classifier definition from §III-L.0 to new §III-H.1, so the reader meets the five-way HC/MC/HSC/UN/LH rule before the §III-I/J/K diagnostic chain instead of ~130 lines after. §III-L renamed to "Anchor-Based Threshold Calibration"; §III-L.0 retains only calibration methodology, three units of analysis, any-pair semantics, and the FAR terminological note. §III-L.7 deleted (redundant with §III-J). - Reorganise §V-H Limitations into Primary / Secondary / Documented features / Engineering groupings (was a flat 14-item list). - Reframe §III-M from "ten-tool unsupervised-validation collection" to "each diagnostic addresses one specific unsupervised failure mode"; rename "What v4.0 does/does not claim" → "Limits / Scope of the present analysis"; retitle Table XXVII. Framing alignment (cross-section): - Strip all v3.x / v4.0 / v3.20 / v4-new / inherited lineage labels from rendered text (Abstract, Intro, §II, §III, §IV, §V, §VI, Appendix, Impact). - Replace "Paper A" rule references with "deployed" rule references. - Soften "validation" to "characterise" / "check" / "screening label" / "consistency check" / "support"; "verdict" → "screening label". - Remove codex-verified spike claims (non-Big-4 jittered dHash, Big-4 pooled cosine after firm-mean centring). Only formally scripted evidence (Scripts 39b–39e) retained; non-Big-4 evidence framed as corroborating raw-axis cosine, not as calibration evidence. - Strip script-provenance parentheticals from Introduction; defer Script 39c internal references and similar to Methodology / Appendix. Numerical / table fixes: - §III-C document-count arithmetic: 12 corrupted → 13 corrupted/unreadable, verified against sqlite DB and total-pdf/ folder counts (90,282 - 4,198 no-sig - 13 corrupted = 86,071 → 85,042 with detections → 182,328 sigs → 168,755 CPA-matched). Table I shows VLM-positive (86,084) and processed-for-extraction (86,071) as separate rows. - Wilson 95% CIs added for joint-rule ICCR rows in Table XXI / methodology table ([0.00011, 0.00018] and [0.00008, 0.00014]). - Unit error fixed: 0.3856 pp / 0.4431 pp → 0.3856 (38.6 pp) / 0.4431 (44.3 pp). Smaller revisions: - Pipeline framing: "detecting" → "screening" in Abstract / Intro / Conclusion for consistency with the unsupervised-screening positioning. - "hard ground-truth subset" → "conservative hard-positive subset" throughout. - §III-F SSIM / pixel-comparison rebuttal compressed from ~15 lines to 4; design-level argument deferred to supplementary materials. - "stakeholders can adopt / can derive thresholds" → "alternative operating points can be characterised by inverting" (less prescriptive). - "the same mechanism extending in milder form to Firms B/C/D" → "similar, milder production-related reuse patterns at Firms B/C/D" (mechanism claim softened). - Appendix A "non-hand-signed mode" / "two-mechanism mixture" lineage language aligned with v4 framing. Appendix B: - Rebuilt as a redirect-only stub. The HTML-commented obsolete table mapping (Table IX–XVIII labels with FAR / capture-rate / validation language) is removed; replaced with a short paragraph pointing to supplementary materials for full table-to-script provenance. Cross-references: - All §III-L references for the rule definition retargeted to §III-H.1; references for calibration still point to §III-L. - §III-H references for byte-level Firm A evidence / non-Big-4 reverse anchor retargeted to §III-H.2. Artefacts: - Combined manuscript regenerated: paper_a_v4_combined.md, 1314 lines (was 1346 pre-review). - Two review handoff documents added: paper/review_handoff_abstract_intro_20260515.md paper/review_handoff_body_20260515.md Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
7.2 KiB
References
[1] Taiwan Certified Public Accountant Act (會計師法), Art. 4; FSC Attestation Regulations (查核簽證核准準則), Art. 6. Available: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=G0400067
[2] S.-H. Yen, Y.-S. Chang, and H.-L. Chen, "Does the signature of a CPA matter? Evidence from Taiwan," Res. Account. Regul., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 230–235, 2013.
[3] J. Bromley et al., "Signature verification using a Siamese time delay neural network," in Proc. NeurIPS, 1993.
[4] S. Dey et al., "SigNet: Convolutional Siamese network for writer independent offline signature verification," arXiv:1707.02131, 2017.
[5] H.-H. Kao and C.-Y. Wen, "An offline signature verification and forgery detection method based on a single known sample and an explainable deep learning approach," Appl. Sci., vol. 10, no. 11, p. 3716, 2020.
[6] H. Li et al., "TransOSV: Offline signature verification with transformers," Pattern Recognit., vol. 145, p. 109882, 2024.
[7] S. Tehsin et al., "Enhancing signature verification using triplet Siamese similarity networks in digital documents," Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 17, p. 2757, 2024.
[8] P. Brimoh and C. C. Olisah, "Consensus-threshold criterion for offline signature verification using CNN learned representations," arXiv:2401.03085, 2024.
[9] N. Woodruff et al., "Fully-automatic pipeline for document signature analysis to detect money laundering activities," arXiv:2107.14091, 2021.
[10] S. Abramova and R. Böhme, "Detecting copy-move forgeries in scanned text documents," in Proc. Electronic Imaging, 2016.
[11] Y. Li et al., "Copy-move forgery detection in digital image forensics: A survey," Multimedia Tools Appl., 2024.
[12] Y. Jakhar and M. D. Borah, "Effective near-duplicate image detection using perceptual hashing and deep learning," Inf. Process. Manage., p. 104086, 2025.
[13] E. Pizzi et al., "A self-supervised descriptor for image copy detection," in Proc. CVPR, 2022.
[14] L. G. Hafemann, R. Sabourin, and L. S. Oliveira, "Learning features for offline handwritten signature verification using deep convolutional neural networks," Pattern Recognit., vol. 70, pp. 163–176, 2017.
[15] E. N. Zois, D. Tsourounis, and D. Kalivas, "Similarity distance learning on SPD manifold for writer independent offline signature verification," IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 19, pp. 1342–1356, 2024.
[16] L. G. Hafemann, R. Sabourin, and L. S. Oliveira, "Meta-learning for fast classifier adaptation to new users of signature verification systems," IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 15, pp. 1735–1745, 2020.
[17] H. Farid, "Image forgery detection," IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 16–25, 2009.
[18] F. Z. Mehrjardi, A. M. Latif, M. S. Zarchi, and R. Sheikhpour, "A survey on deep learning-based image forgery detection," Pattern Recognit., vol. 144, art. no. 109778, 2023.
[19] J. Luo et al., "A survey of perceptual hashing for multimedia," ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl., vol. 21, no. 7, 2025.
[20] D. Engin et al., "Offline signature verification on real-world documents," in Proc. CVPRW, 2020.
[21] D. Tsourounis et al., "From text to signatures: Knowledge transfer for efficient deep feature learning in offline signature verification," Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 189, art. 116136, 2022.
[22] B. Chamakh and O. Bounouh, "A unified ResNet18-based approach for offline signature classification and verification across multilingual datasets," Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 270, pp. 4024–4033, 2025.
[23] A. Babenko, A. Slesarev, A. Chigorin, and V. Lempitsky, "Neural codes for image retrieval," in Proc. ECCV, 2014, pp. 584–599.
[24] S. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ge, S. Song, K. Dang, P. Wang, S. Wang, J. Tang, H. Zhong, Y. Zhu, M. Yang, Z. Li, J. Wan, P. Wang, W. Ding, Z. Fu, Y. Xu, J. Ye, X. Zhang, T. Xie, Z. Cheng, H. Zhang, Z. Yang, H. Xu, and J. Lin, "Qwen2.5-VL technical report," arXiv:2502.13923, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13923
[25] Ultralytics, "YOLO11 documentation," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://docs.ultralytics.com/models/yolo11/
[26] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, "Deep residual learning for image recognition," in Proc. CVPR, 2016.
[27] N. Krawetz, "Kind of like that," The Hacker Factor Blog, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/529-Kind-of-Like-That.html
[28] B. W. Silverman, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall, 1986.
[29] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
[30] Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, "Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity," IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004.
[31] J. V. Carcello and C. Li, "Costs and benefits of requiring an engagement partner signature: Recent experience in the United Kingdom," The Accounting Review, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 1511–1546, 2013.
[32] A. D. Blay, M. Notbohm, C. Schelleman, and A. Valencia, "Audit quality effects of an individual audit engagement partner signature mandate," Int. J. Auditing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 172–192, 2014.
[33] W. Chi, H. Huang, Y. Liao, and H. Xie, "Mandatory audit partner rotation, audit quality, and market perception: Evidence from Taiwan," Contemp. Account. Res., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 359–391, 2009.
[34] J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, "You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection," in Proc. CVPR, 2016, pp. 779–788.
[35] J. Zhang, J. Huang, S. Jin, and S. Lu, "Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey," IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 5625–5644, 2024.
[36] H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney, "On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other," Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 50–60, 1947.
[37] J. A. Hartigan and P. M. Hartigan, "The dip test of unimodality," Ann. Statist., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 70–84, 1985.
[38] D. Burgstahler and I. Dichev, "Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses," J. Account. Econ., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 99–126, 1997.
[39] J. McCrary, "Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test," J. Econometrics, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 698–714, 2008.
[40] A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin, "Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm," J. R. Statist. Soc. B, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 1977.
[41] H. White, "Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models," Econometrica, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 1982.
[42] M. Stone, "Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions," J. R. Statist. Soc. B, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 111–147, 1974.
[43] S. Geisser, "The predictive sample reuse method with applications," J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., vol. 70, no. 350, pp. 320–328, 1975.
[44] A. Vehtari, A. Gelman, and J. Gabry, "Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC," Stat. Comput., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1413–1432, 2017.