MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137394636 · doi:10.1109/tmm.2005.843357

Comments on "An SVD-based watermarking scheme for protecting rightful Ownership"

2005· article· en· W2137394636 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Multimedia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatermarkDigital watermarkingSingular value decompositionComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceScheme (mathematics)DetectorSingular valueValue (mathematics)AlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionMathematicsMachine learningTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent paper by Tan and Liu , a watermarking algorithm for digital images based on singular value decomposition (SVD) is proposed. This comment demonstrates that this watermarking algorithm is fundamentally flawed in that the extracted watermark is not the embedded watermark but determined by the reference watermark. The reference watermark generates the pair of SVD matrices employed in the watermark detector. In the watermark detection stage, the fact that the employed SVD matrices depend on the reference watermark biases the false positive detection rate such that it has a probability of one. Hence, any reference watermark that is being searched for in an arbitrary image can be found. Both theoretical analysis and experimental results are given to support our conclusion.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.258 · 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