Cover Reproducible Steganography via Deep Generative Models
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
Whereas cryptography easily arouses attacks by means of encrypting a secret message into a suspicious form, steganography is advantageous for its resilience to attacks by concealing the message in an innocent-looking cover signal. Minimal distortion steganography, one of the mainstream steganography frameworks, embeds messages while minimizing the distortion caused by the modification on the cover elements. Due to the unavailability of the original cover signal for the receiver, message embedding is realized by finding the coset leader of the syndrome function of steganographic codes migrated from channel coding, which is complex and has limited performance. Fortunately, deep generative models and the robust semantic of generated data make it possible for the receiver to perfectly reproduce the cover signal from the stego signal. With this advantage, we propose cover-reproducible steganography where the source coding, e.g., arithmetic coding, serves as the steganographic code. Specifically, the decoding process of arithmetic coding is used for message embedding and its encoding process is regarded as message extraction. Taking text-to-speech and text-to-image synthesis tasks as two examples, we illustrate the feasibility of cover-reproducible steganography. Steganalysis experiments and theoretical analysis are conducted to demonstrate that the proposed methods outperform the existing methods in most cases.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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