MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099495624 · doi:10.1109/cibim.2011.5949206

Impact of watermarking on offline signature verification in intelligent bio-watermarking systems

2011· article· en· W2099495624 on OpenAlexafffund
Bassem S. Rabil, Robert Sabourin, Éric Granger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDigital watermarkingComputer scienceWatermarkBiometricsRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionEmbeddingPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bio-watermarking systems were introduced as the synergistic integration of biometrics and digital watermarking to assure the integrity, authenticity and confidentiality of digitized image documents, and biometric templates. In this paper, the impact of watermarking attacks on the performance of offline signature verification is assessed in the context of intelligent bio-watermarking systems. The considered system is based on incremental learning computational intelligence, and multi-objective formulation that allows optimizing parameters according to watermark quality and robustness simultaneously. In this study, Extended Shadow Code features are extracted from digitized offline signatures, collected into feature vectors, and discretized into binary watermarks prior to being embedded into high resolution grayscale face image. The impact on biometric verification performance of quantization and different intensities of attacks are considered, and also observed the impact of using only certain areas of face images of higher texture Region Of Interest (ROI) for embedding the watermark. Experimental results conclude the optimal discretization, and better watermark fitness and verification performance when embedding in ROI. To improve the performance in future research, the authors propose to embed more reference signatures, use efficient ROI identification techniques, and finally novel formulation to add biometrics verification fitness to the watermark quality and robustness fitness during embedding optimization. The proposed system can be applied for verifying individuals crossing borders using offline signatures, or protecting biometric templates.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207