MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757318019 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.2017.8052997

A hidden Markov model-based blind detector for multiplicative watermarking

2017· article· en· W2757318019 on OpenAlexaff
Marzieh Amini, Hamidreza Sadreazami, M. Omair Ahmad, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital watermarkingWatermarkDetectorComputer scienceHidden Markov modelWaveletArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Multiplicative functionRobustness (evolution)AlgorithmMathematicsImage (mathematics)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, transmission of data via Internet has made illegal data distribution a major problem in digital world. Watermarking is known as a possible solution to protect digital data. In this work, we propose a blind detector for multiplicative watermarking of images in the wavelet domain. To this end, the vector-based hidden Markov model (HMM) is employed as a prior model for the wavelet coefficients of the host image. This model is known to provide an accurate fit to the distribution of the wavelet coefficients by capturing both their heavy-tailed marginal statistics and their inter-subbands and cross-orientations dependencies. Analytical expressions for the proposed watermark detector such as the mean and variance of the log-likelihood ratio test are derived and used to evaluate its performance. The performance of the proposed detector is shown to outperform that of the other detectors by providing higher detection rate and better imperceptibility of the embedded watermark. It is also shown that the proposed vector-based HMM detector under various attacks such as compression, rotation, filtering and noise, is more robust than other existing detectors.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207