MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A view on latest audio steganography techniques

2011· article· en· W2133930400 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteganographyComputer scienceSteganography toolsRobustness (evolution)EmbeddingDigital audioInformation hidingCryptographyComputer securityAudio signalArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsSpeech coding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steganography has been proposed as a new alternative technique to enforce data security. Lately, novel and versatile audio steganographic methods have been proposed. A perfect audio Steganographic technique aim at embedding data in an imperceptible, robust and secure way and then extracting it by authorized people. Hence, up to date the main challenge in digital audio steganography is to obtain robust high capacity steganographic systems. Leaning towards designing a system that ensures high capacity or robustness and security of embedded data has led to great diversity in the existing steganographic techniques. In this paper, we present a current state of art literature in digital audio steganographic techniques. We explore their potentials and limitations to ensure secure communication. A comparison and an evaluation for the reviewed techniques is also presented in this paper.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.212 · 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