MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473037028 · doi:10.1109/iwssip.2016.7502755

A simple image-adaptive watermarking algorithm with blind extraction

2016· article· en· W2473037028 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Hamid, Chunyan Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital watermarkingWatermarkDiscrete cosine transformArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceHuman visual system modelComputer visionAlgorithmEmbeddingImage qualityImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an adaptive, DCT based, blind image watermarking algorithm. The adaptability is developed, while exploring the properties of the human visual system (HVS), to embed robust watermarks in DCT matrices while making them the least visible in the space domain. In the algorithm, binary watermarks are embedded in image blocks having gray level variations sufficient to mask a certain level of signal alterations. The orientations of the variations in such a block are detected by examining the locations of the most significant DCT coefficients in the matrix and a particular DCT coefficient is then chosen for watermark embedding with a view to making the gray level changes resulting from the embedding have a similar orientation with the original image signal to mask the watermark better. Moreover, the embedding strength is made to depend on the DC component, as it indicates the brightness of the image block, to further reduce the visibility of the watermark. The algorithm is computationally simple because it extracts the needed features directly from the DCT coefficients. Simulation results show that the algorithm is highly robust against JPEG compression even at low quality factors while maintaining high visual quality. Furthermore, the computational simplicity of the algorithm makes it very useful in real-time applications.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207