Cover Reproducible Steganography via Deep Generative Models
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".