MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110630485 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557358

Evaluation of robust interframe MPEG video watermarking

2006· article· en· W2110630485 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Moradi, Saeed Gazor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital watermarkingComputer scienceWatermarkInter frameVideo qualityComputer visionVideo denoisingFrame (networking)Artificial intelligenceEmbeddingMPEG-4MPEG-2Motion compensationSynchronization (alternating current)Video compression picture typesVideo trackingMultiview Video CodingReference frameVideo processingReal-time computingImage (mathematics)MathematicsCoding (social sciences)Channel (broadcasting)StatisticsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frame type changing is a very common attack on watermarked video signal. Re-synchronization and making watermark more robust by extending original watermarking algorithm to all inter and intra coded frames are two common methods for surviving this kind of attack. This paper focuses on latter algorithm and stresses the problem of embedding watermark into B-frames in an MPEG video sequence. Moreover, we derive the watermarking capacity of MPEG video frames according to their energy content. Finally, we evaluate the impact of the bit rate allocation strategy and MPEG complexity index on the degradation of video quality in watermarking of B-frames. Our numerical results show that watermarking of B-frames reduces average PSNR of video about 0.4 db that contributes to decrease in video quality and it should be avoided

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)0.007
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207