MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313575480 · doi:10.32604/cmes.2023.025082

Topic Controlled Steganography via Graph-to-Text Generation

2023· article· en· W4313575480 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteganographyComputer scienceInformation hidingGraphCoding (social sciences)EmbeddingTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenerative grammarPath (computing)Natural language processingMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generation-based linguistic steganography is a popular research area of information hiding. The text generative steganographic method based on conditional probability coding is the direction that researchers have recently paid attention to. However, in the course of our experiment, we found that the secret information hiding in the text tends to destroy the statistical distribution characteristics of the original text, which indicates that this method has the problem of the obvious reduction of text quality when the embedding rate increases, and that the topic of generated texts is uncontrollable, so there is still room for improvement in concealment. In this paper, we propose a topic-controlled steganography method which is guided by graph-to-text generation. The proposed model can automatically generate steganographic texts carrying secret messages from knowledge graphs, and the topic of the generated texts is controllable. We also provide a graph path coding method with corresponding detailed algorithms for graph-to-text generation. Different from traditional linguistic steganography methods, we encode the secret information during graph path coding rather than using conditional probability. We test our method in different aspects and compare it with other text generative steganographic methods. The experimental results show that the model proposed in this paper can effectively improve the quality of the generated text and significantly improve the concealment of steganographic text.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.217 · 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