MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012940515 · doi:10.1109/compsacw.2010.37

Natural Language Watermarking Based on Syntactic Displacement and Morphological Division

2010· article· en· W2012940515 on OpenAlexaff
Miyoung Kim, Osmar R. Zai͏̈ane, Randy Goebel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphemeComputer scienceNatural language processingAgglutinative languageArtificial intelligenceDigital watermarkingPredicate (mathematical logic)SentenceLinguisticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores a method for Korean text watermarking based on a linguistic analysis scheme using morphemic and syntactic analysis. In this scheme, a predicate nominal is separated into its nominal and its predicate, and syntactic adverbial is displaced. Korean, as an agglutinative language, provides a good basis for this morpheme-based natural language watermarking because a word consists of several morphemes. A Korean word usually consists of a content morpheme and a function morpheme. However, a predicate nominal is an exception, having two content morphemes-nominal and predicate--and one function morpheme. So, we can divide a predicate nominal into a nominal and a predicate. In addition, we also perform syntax-based watermarking. We displace syntactic adverbials using the characteristic that most languages permit displacement of syntactic adverbials within its clause. Combining these morphemic and syntactic characteristics, we propose a method of language watermarking based on syntactic displacement and morphological division. To make our system more secure, we also include a sentence weight value and encode the weight value with a watermark bit. Our watermarking method doesn't change the meaning of the most marked sentences, and it also ensures the naturalness of the sentences. From the experimental results, we show that the rate of unnatural sentences of marked text is reasonable, and the watermarking capacity is better than previous systems. The coverage of marked sentences is also reasonable. Experimental results also show that the marked text retains the same style, and also has the same information without semantic distortion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207