RevHashNet: Perceptually de-hashing real-valued image hashes for similarity retrieval
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image hashing has attracted increasing popularity in recent years. Some off-the-shelf image hashing methods are able to generate more compact and robust hashes for fast indexing and content-based similarity retrieval. However, the ability to infer original image contents from their real-valued image hashes has seldom been examined. Inherited from cryptographic hashing for image privacy protection, general image hashing is supposed to be a non-revertible function. Should there be a way to revert (or perceptually reconstruct) images from the corresponding real-valued image hashes? This paper explores the feasibility of perceptually image hashing reversion, and fill this gap by proposing a deep learning based framework, entitled RevHashNet. Given real-valued image hashes from certain image hashing methods, the proposed RevHashNet can automatically reconstruct perceptually similar images with respect to the original ones with high visual quality. Experiments and simulations on real image datasets support the de-hashing effectiveness of the proposed RevHashNet.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it