A Robust Watermarking Technique Using Affine Transform and Cross-Reference Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, Harris detector is commonly used for finding salient points in watermarking systems using feature points. Harris detector is a kind of combined comer and edge detector which is based on neighboring image data distribution, therefore it has some limitation to find accurate salient points after watermark embedding or any kinds of digital attacks. In this paper, we have used cross reference points which use not data distribution but geometrical structure of a normalized image in order to avoid pointing error caused by the distortion of image data. After normalization, we find cross reference points and take inverse normalization of these points. Next, we construct a group of triangles using tessellation with inversely normalized cross reference points. The watermarks are affine transformed and transformed-watermarks are embedded into not normalized image but original one. Only locations of watermarks are determined on the normalized image. Therefore, we can reduce data loss of watermark which is caused by inverse normalization. As a result, we can detect watermarks with high correlation after several digital attacks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".