MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149805557 · doi:10.1109/icme.2006.262785

A Secret Key Based Multiscale Fragile Watermark in the Wavelet Domain

2006· article· en· W2149805557 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Yuan, Xiao–Ping Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatermarkDigital watermarkingComputer scienceKey (lock)EncryptionEmbeddingArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)WaveletComputer visionTheoretical computer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of the wavelet coefficients in 2-D discrete wavelet transform (DWT) subspaces can be well described by a Gaussian mixture statistical model. In this paper, a secret key based fragile watermarking scheme is presented based on this statistical model. The Gaussian statistical model parameters are obtained by an expectation maximization (EM) algorithm and modified in a way to form special relationships for image authentication. The secret key is designed to securely embed a message bit stream, such as personal signatures or copyright logos, into a host image. Because of the secret embedding key, the new method is robust to most image tampering, even when the attackers are fully aware of the watermark embedding algorithms. Besides, the secret embedding key can be encrypted and embedded as a robust watermark into the same host image of the fragile watermarks for the benefit that the decoding of fragile watermarks only requires a single encryption key other than the image itself. The new method also has the advantage of changing only a few image data for watermark embedding and being able to distinguish some normal image operations such as compression from malicious to achieve a semi-fragile application

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207