MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139315048 · doi:10.1145/1242471.1242473

A survey of RST invariant image watermarking algorithms

2007· review· en· W2139315048 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital watermarkingWatermarkInvariant (physics)Computer scienceAlgorithmEmbeddingImage translationArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Computer visionTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we review the algorithms for rotation, scaling and translation (RST) invariant image watermarking. There are mainly two categories of RST invariant image watermarking algorithms. One is to rectify the RST transformed image before conducting watermark detection. Another is to embed and detect watermark in an RST invariant or semi-invariant domain. In order to help readers understand, we first introduce the fundamental theories and techniques used in the existing RST invariant image watermarking algorithms. Then, we discuss in detail the work principles, embedding process, and detection process of the typical RST invariant image watermarking algorithms. Finally, we analyze and evaluate these typical algorithms through implementation, and point out their advantages and disadvantages.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.262 · 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