MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382401897 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3084797/v1

Digital watermarks for videos based on a locality-sensitive hashing algorithm

2023· preprint· en· W4382401897 on OpenAlexaff
Yajuan Sun, Gautam Srivast

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatermarkDigital watermarkingHash functionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionQuantization (signal processing)Pattern recognition (psychology)EmbeddingMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sensitive information in images is leaked during attacks, resulting in the malicious acquisition of personal privacy. To improve the robustness of attacking defence for video images, a digital watermarking algorithm based on locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) is designed. The video signal was decomposed using a one-dimensional wavelet transform. According to the Yeung Mintzer (Y-M) algorithm, a marker watermark W1 was embedded in the low-frequency subband to identify image tampering. The data string of hash function values and the exclusive OR (XOR) result of identification watermark W2 were embedded into the HH high-frequency subband, which was used to identify and counter the pseudo-authentication attacks such as collage and Vector Quantization(VQ). The singular value decomposition (SVD) algorithm was used to decompose the hash-mapped watermark and adaptively adjust the embedding strength of the watermark. The position-sensitive hash algorithm proposed has good invisibility for embedding digital watermarks into images, with an average accuracy of approximately 97% for feature matching of digital images. The PSNR value of the image embedded with the watermark is approximately 49 dB. At the 50th minute of the experiment, the regulatory factor value of the research method was 0.3. Under different attack modes, the correlation coefficient between the watermark extracted by this method and the original watermark image is greater than 0.85. Due to the low compression quality of JPGE, the correlation coefficient between the watermark and the initial watermark is greater than 0.6, and its error rate is less than 0.10bit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207