MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489657026 · doi:10.1109/bmsb.2016.7521956

Robust contourlet-based watermarking for depth-image-based rendering 3D images

2016· article· en· W2489657026 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Chen, Jiying Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContourletDigital watermarkingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionWatermarkComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)Robustness (evolution)Quantization (signal processing)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)WaveletWavelet transformImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a new blind watermarking scheme for depth-image-based rendering (DIBR) 3D images. The center view and the depth map are available at the content provider side. After applying contourlet transform (CT) to the center view, we embed the watermark into the selected contourlet subbands of the center view by quantization on certain contourlet coefficients. The virtual left and right views are generated from the watermarked center view and the associated depth map using DIBR technique at the receiver side. The statistical differences between quantized and unquantized contourlet coefficients are used for watermark extraction. The watermark can be detected with a low bit error rate (BER) from the center view, the left and right views even when each view is distorted and distributed separately. The simulation results demonstrate that our scheme keeps good perceptual quality of the watermarked images under both objective and subjective image quality estimations. Moreover, compared with other related methods, the proposed scheme has better performance in terms of robustness against image compression, noise addition and geometric attacks such as rotation, scaling and cropping.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207