README: Robust Error-Aware Digital Signature Framework via Deep Watermarking Model

Daeyeon Hwang; Hyunwook Choi; Junhyeok Choi; Sangyun Won

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

README: Robust Error-Aware Digital Signature Framework via Deep Watermarking Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Perfect watermark recovery jumps from 1.2% to 86.3% for 2048-bit signatures.

desk verdict The cropping-based capacity scaling is a legitimate small idea, but the ERPA mechanism as written cannot know the error vector it embeds, so the headline 86.3% Z.B.I.R. is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04495 v1 pith:AMNMJ2V4 submitted 2025-07-06 cs.CR cs.CV

Hyunwook Choi , Sangyun Won , Daeyeon Hwang , Junhyeok Choi This is my paper

classification cs.CRcs.CV

keywords digitalsignaturedeepwatermarkingerrorcorrectionimageauthenticationzero-bit-errorrateperceptualhashcroppingcapacityscalingDCSS

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes README, a framework for embedding 2048-bit digital signatures into a single image using existing pretrained deep watermarking models, without any fine-tuning. It combines two ideas: cropping the image into patches so a 64-bit watermarker can carry over 4000 bits, and an error-painting module that records where bit errors occur and spreads that information across a companion patch so a learned decoder can correct them. The headline result is that the zero-bit-error image rate, the fraction of images from which every signature bit is recovered exactly, rises from 1.2% to 86.3% under JPEG compression at a 2048-bit payload. If this holds, cryptographic image authentication becomes practical on top of existing watermarkers.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the ERror PAinting Module (ERPA) paired with Distinct Circular Subsum Sequences (DCSS). DCSS is a permutation of a 64-bit circular array with offset set {0,1,3,7,12,20,30} such that no two contiguous subsequences have equal sums modulo 64; each bit error is painted onto these seven offsets, spreading one error into a redundant spatial pattern that a trained single-layer decoder can invert even when the painted positions are themselves corrupted. The cropping strategy that partitions the image into an 8x8 grid is the capacity carrier, effectively turning a 64-bit watermarker into a 4096-bit channel, while ERPA is the reliability carrier that makes that channel usable for zero-bit-error applications.

What would settle it

Run an honest signing-verification cycle: compute the error vector on the clean image (it will be all zeros), embed it as patch B, then apply JPEG compression and decode; if the zero-bit-error rate is no higher than without ERPA, the reported improvement relies on an oracle that cannot exist at signing time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the main obstacle to embedding digital signatures in images is not capacity but bit-level reliability, and that reliability can be restored by a model-agnostic error-correction layer. The authors show that cropping a 1024x1024 image into 64 patches lets an off-the-shelf MBRS watermarker embed 4096 bits, but JPEG compression leaves only 1.2% of images with a perfectly recovered 2048-bit payload. Adding ERPA, which encodes the per-patch error vector into a redundant pattern using Distinct Circular Subsum Sequences and decodes it with a single linear layer, raises that rate to 86.3% while keeping the watermarker frozen.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes the bit-error pattern introduced by distortion is known at signing time and can be embedded into a companion patch; on a clean image that error vector is all zeros, and the paper does not explain where the future errors are observed before embedding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Existing pretrained watermarking models, trained for 30-64 bit payloads, can be repurposed for cryptographic payloads without retraining or architecture changes.
A 2048-bit RSA or ECDSA signature can be bound to a perceptual hash of the image and verified with only the public key and the watermarked image, since the hash is stable under benign distortions.
The zero-bit-error image rate, not average bit error rate, becomes the operative metric for security-critical watermarking, since a single flipped bit invalidates a signature.
The cropping pattern localizes errors to individual patches, so error correction complexity scales linearly with payload size rather than requiring a stronger underlying watermarker.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The ERPA protocol as written assumes the error vector for patch A is known when patch B is being written; a practical deployment would have to predict the distortion channel or embed the correction after observing the decoder's output, which the paper does not specify.
The DCSS painting is essentially a combinatorial error-spreading code; comparing it against standard error-correcting codes (e.g., BCH or Reed-Solomon) over the same channel would isolate how much of the gain comes from the learned decoder rather than the spreading pattern.
Because the framework relies on cropping with a uniform grid, it is vulnerable to cropping attacks that misalign the grid; a testable extension would be to make the grid alignment robust or use overlapping patches.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The headline number does not survive contact with the method. The ERPA module computes the error vector e = m XOR m~ from the decoded patch, then embeds e into a companion B patch at signing time. But m~ for the distorted image only exists at verification time. At signing, the sender only has the clean-image decode, which is error-free by the paper's own Table 1, so e is the zero vector. Without an oracle for the future distortion, patch B carries no information about the errors it is supposed to correct. The reported 86.3% Z.B.I.R. is therefore not derivable from the algorithm as written; row V should collapse toward row IV (1.2%).

That said, there are legitimate pieces here. The crop-and-then-watermark capacity scaling is a simple, effective trick to multiply payload without retraining, and the DCSS offset construction is a small but tidy combinatorial scheme. The writing is clear, and the evaluation setup (MBRS, COCO, JPEG Q=50) is standard. The pHash-bound signature idea is a reasonable direction, though its stability assumption is untested.

The other soft spots are secondary to the causal gap but worth noting. The Bernoulli training probability p=0.07 is chosen after seeing Table 5, which is post-hoc selection. There is no comparison with standard error-correcting codes at the same 50% redundancy, a natural baseline. No code or evaluation scripts are released, so the numbers are not independently checkable. The security analysis is brief, and the pHash equality claim needs support.

Who should read this? Someone working on deep watermarking capacity could borrow the cropping idea. But the ERPA mechanism as described is not a working error-correction module, and the framework's central claim is unsupported.

I would still send it to peer review: the flaw is serious but precisely identifiable, and the authors may have an unstated step (e.g., embedding the error vector after a simulated distortion) that could be clarified. If they cannot, the paper should be rejected.

Best.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes README, a framework for embedding 2048-bit digital signatures into images using a pretrained 64-bit DNN watermarking model (MBRS) without fine-tuning. Capacity is scaled by cropping the image into an 8x8 grid; 32 patches (A) carry 2048 message bits and 32 patches (B) carry ERPA error-correction information. ERPA computes an error vector e = m XOR m_tilde from the decoded message, encodes it by DCSS painting into B, and a lightweight neural decoder recovers e at verification to correct m_tilde. The headline result is that Z.B.I.R under JPEG Q=50 increases from 1.2% to 86.3% at a 2048-bit payload. The paper also proposes pHash-based signature verification and reports analyses of painting density, DCSS permutation, and decoder training distribution.

Significance. If the causal gap were closed, the result would be significant: it would demonstrate that a pretrained watermarking model can be turned into a reliable carrier for cryptographic payloads without model modification, and the Z.B.I.R metric is appropriate for signature applications. The paper's use of an off-the-shelf MBRS model and the explicit JPEG evaluation are strengths. However, the central ERPA mechanism requires information that is unavailable at signing time, and the pHash verification step requires exact hash equality that is not justified. As it stands, the reported numbers cannot be produced by the described algorithm.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.2, ERror PAinting Module] Equation e = m XOR m_tilde defines the error vector from the distorted decoded message. At signing time, Alice has not yet applied JPEG compression and cannot know m_tilde after the distortion. Computing e from the clean decoder output yields approximately the zero vector, so the ERPA correction painted into patch B contains no information about the errors it is supposed to fix. The assumption that the error pattern is 'deterministic and consistent' only says that the same distortion produces the same errors; it does not make the future error pattern available to the encoder. No procedure in the paper supplies e at signing time. Without an oracle, Table 2 row V should collapse to row IV (Z.B.I.R. 1.2%), so the headline 86.3% claim is unsupported.
[Sec. Experiments, ERPA Analysis, Table 5] Table 5 compares decoder training regimes including 'Known Exact Error' oracle. That oracle is used during training to supervise the decoder; it does not provide e to the encoder at signing time. The table therefore cannot validate the deployment scenario. The paper needs to specify the exact inference-time input to the ERPA encoder and to demonstrate that this input is computable from the clean image alone. As written, the distinction between training-time oracle and inference-time availability is conflated, and the causal gap from the previous comment remains.
[Sec. Perceptual Hash-Based Signature Verification] The signature is computed as Sign(sk, pHash(image)), and verification at Bob uses only the watermarked image and public key. A standard digital signature requires the verifier to recompute exactly the same hash value that was signed; 'nearly identical' pHash values are not sufficient. If pHash(watermarked image) differs from pHash(original image) in any bit, signature verification fails. The paper does not provide an error-tolerant signature verification scheme or evidence that pHash is exactly invariant under the tested JPEG distortion. This undermines the public verifiability claim.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (1)] The DCSS condition as written is unsatisfiable because S1 = S2 gives equal sums; it should require S1 and S2 to be distinct and should specify whether subsequences are considered circularly. This is a local definitional issue but should be corrected for reproducibility.
[Sec. Perceptual Hash-Based Signature Verification] The text repeats the same SHA-256 sensitivity statement twice, and the claim that pHash values are 'nearly identical' should be made quantitative by specifying the pHash variant and the observed Hamming distance distribution.
[Table 1] Rows III and V omit PSNR/SSIM values, so the claim that ERPA preserves visual quality is not quantitatively supported for those configurations.
[Abstract] The acronym expansion 'Deep Water Marking Mod El' is inconsistent with the body's 'Deep WaterMarking ModEl'; please unify the terminology.
[General] No code or reproducibility artifacts are provided; given the causal concern in the major comments, pseudocode for the signing-time computation of e would greatly help the reader assess the method.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

ERPA's central correction is defined from the very error vector it claims to fix, so the reported 1.2% to 86.3% Z.B.I.R gain is an algebraic identity with an oracle-provided error vector, not an independent prediction.

self definitional [Section 3.2 (ERror PAinting Module), e = m XOR m~ construction; Figure 2; Table 2 rows (IV)-(V)]
"Given a message patch A with ground-truth watermark m ∈ {0, 1}n, and its predicted version ˜m, the bitwise error vector e ∈ {0, 1}n is computed as: e = m ⊕ ˜m, where ei = 1 if mi ̸= ˜mi 0 otherwise. We assume that the error pattern within patch A is deterministic and consistent during decoding. Therefore, instead of discarding this information, we embed it into an error-handling patch B to support downstream error correction."

The receiver reconstructs m as m = m~ XOR ehat, where ehat is a decoded copy of the painted true error vector e = m XOR m~. If e is the actual JPEG-induced error pattern, then any successful recovery of e yields m by definition, regardless of the watermark model's robustness. The JPEG-degraded m~ is produced only after distortion has occurred, yet e is embedded into B at signing time; the 'deterministic and consistent' assumption does not provide a causal way for Alice to know this future error vector. Without an oracle, the signing-time e is the clean-image error (essentially zero), so ERPA is a no-op and Table 2 collapses toward row (IV) at 1.2%. With an oracle supplying the true JPEG error vector, the reported 86.3% is forced by construction, not predicted.

full rationale

The cropping-based capacity scaling and pHash-based verification are independent, non-circular components that plausibly work as described. The central empirical claim, however, rests entirely on ERPA's error-vector construction. The paper defines e as the exact bitwise mismatch between the ground-truth message and the distorted decoded message, then embeds that same e into the helper patch and XORs the recovered ehat with the distorted message. The paper never specifies a signing-time procedure that produces the JPEG-error vector; the only way to obtain the reported 1.2% to 86.3% improvement is to use the exact error pattern caused by the test distortion. That is precisely the quantity the framework is supposed to predict or correct, so the headline gain is not an independent validation but an identity in which the target error vector is the input. This is a load-bearing circularity in the paper's main result, meriting a score of 8. No self-citation chain is involved.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on two fitted hyperparameters (DCSS offset count and Bernoulli p=0.07), a hand-built offset set, and several domain assumptions that are only partially tested. The most serious is the availability of the error vector at signing time, which is load-bearing and unexplained.

free parameters (4)

Bernoulli training flip probability p = 0.07
Selected from {0.01, 0.05, 0.07, 0.1} in Table 5 to maximize Z.B.I.R on the JPEG evaluation; the headline 86.3% is reported for this chosen value.
DCSS offset count L = 7
The number of painted positions per error bit is chosen empirically in Table 3, stated as using 7 offset elements because it yields the best performance.
DCSS offset set S_offset = {0, 1, 3, 7, 12, 20, 30}
Hand-constructed offset set for 64-bit vectors; no proof is given that it satisfies Eq. 1, and it is tuned to the 64-bit patch size.
Capacity split between A and B patches = 32 A patches and 32 B patches in an 8x8 grid
A design choice that halves the payload capacity to pay for ERPA redundancy; the fair-comparison protocol is described only in prose.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The bit-error pattern in a message patch is deterministic and consistent during decoding and is known to the encoder at signing time.
Stated in Sec. 3.2 (ERPA Overview) and used to justify embedding e into patch B; no mechanism is given for obtaining e before the distortion is observed.
domain assumption pHash of the watermarked image is bit-identical to pHash of the original image for signature verification.
Sec. 3.3 uses pHash-based signatures, but only claims hashes are nearly identical; exact equality is required for the cryptographic verification to succeed, and no pHash bit-error experiment is reported.
domain assumption MBRS retains its robustness when used on 128x128 crops of a large image and after reassembly.
The capacity-scaling design depends on this; Table 2 shows cropping alone drops Z.B.I.R to 1.2% under JPEG, so the assumption is only weakly satisfied.
ad hoc to paper The constructed DCSS set S={1,2,4,5,8,10,34} satisfies the non-collision condition of Eq. 1.
Eq. 1 is asserted without proof; the paper does not demonstrate that all contiguous subsequence sums are distinct mod 64 for this set.
standard math Digital signatures are unforgeable without the private key.
The security analysis in Sec. 3.4 relies on the standard cryptographic assumption; this is not the paper's contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of README: Robust Error-Aware Digital Signature Framework via Deep Watermarking Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AMNMJ2V4

@misc{pith2026250704495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: README: Robust Error-Aware Digital Signature Framework via Deep Watermarking Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AMNMJ2V4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04495}
}

read the original abstract

Deep learning-based watermarking has emerged as a promising solution for robust image authentication and protection. However, existing models are limited by low embedding capacity and vulnerability to bit-level errors, making them unsuitable for cryptographic applications such as digital signatures, which require over 2048 bits of error-free data. In this paper, we propose README (Robust Error-Aware Digital Signature via Deep WaterMarking ModEl), a novel framework that enables robust, verifiable, and error-tolerant digital signatures within images. Our method combines a simple yet effective cropping-based capacity scaling mechanism with ERPA (ERror PAinting Module), a lightweight error correction module designed to localize and correct bit errors using Distinct Circular Subsum Sequences (DCSS). Without requiring any fine-tuning of existing pretrained watermarking models, README significantly boosts the zero-bit-error image rate (Z.B.I.R) from 1.2% to 86.3% when embedding 2048-bit digital signatures into a single image, even under real-world distortions. Moreover, our use of perceptual hash-based signature verification ensures public verifiability and robustness against tampering. The proposed framework unlocks a new class of high-assurance applications for deep watermarking, bridging the gap between signal-level watermarking and cryptographic security.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04495 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Crop-and-then-Watermarking Method. To increase the embedding capacity while retaining the original watermarking model, the image is first cropped and each crop is processed independently for message embedding. The cropped segments are then reassembled to reconstruct the original image. A Refine B ErrPa Model-based Decoder Error Seq Error Seq Error Seq Random Noise Generator A Watermark Decoder GT value Watermark En… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** ERror PAinting Module (ERPA). ERPA enhances bit-level watermark reliability through a deterministic encoder and a noise-robust neural decoder. The encoder spatially distributes error vectors using a Distinct Circular Subsum Sequence (DCSS), allowing the decoder to recover the original error pattern even under distortion. The watermarked patches {I ′ 1 , . . . , I′ n} are subsequently reassembled to form the final … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overall pipeline of the proposed README framework. The framework embeds a perceptual-hash-bound digital signature across cropped image patches, supported by a patch-wise error correction module (ERPA). This enables high-capacity, robust, and verifiable authentication, even under image distortions. Noise-Robust Neural Decoder. To recover the original error vector e from the noisy decoded sequence e˜ ′ , we employ a … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Qualitative Results of Watermarked Images. Visual comparison between original and watermarked images shows that our crop-based method preserves structural details and introduces no perceptible artifacts. Cropping Methods. To support high-capacity watermark embedding, …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Al-Haj, A.; Mohammad, A.; and Amer, A. 2017. Crypto-Watermarking of Transmitted Medical Images. Journal of Digital Imaging, 30(1): 26--38

work page 2017
[4]

Anderson, R.; and Petitcolas, F. 1998. On The Limits of Steganography. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 16: 474--481

work page 1998
[5]

Arunkumar, S.; Subramaniyaswamy, V.; Vijayakumar, V.; Chilamkurti, N.; and Logesh, R. 2019. SVD-based robust image steganographic scheme using RIWT and DCT for secure transmission of medical images. Measurement, 139: 426--437

work page 2019
[6]

Baby, D.; Thomas, J.; Augustine, G.; George, E.; and Michael, N. R. 2015. A Novel DWT Based Image Securing Method Using Steganography. Procedia Computer Science, 46: 612--618. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies, ICICT 2014, 3-5 December 2014 at Bolgatty Palace & Island Resort, Kochi, India

work page 2015
[7]

Baluja, S. 2017. Hiding Images in Plain Sight: Deep Steganography. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

work page 2017
[8]

Bhattacharya, T.; Dey, N.; and Bhadra Chaudhuri, S. 2012. A Session based Multiple Image Hiding Technique using DWT and DCT. International Journal of Computer Applications, 38

work page 2012

Show all 31 references

[9]

Chu, R.; You, X.; Kong, X.; and Ba, X. 2004. A DCT-based image steganographic method resisting statistical attacks. In 2004 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, volume 5, V--953

2004
[10]

Diffie, W.; and Hellman, M. 1976. New directions in cryptography. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 22(6): 644--654

1976
[11]

Fairoze, J.; Ortiz-Jimenez, G.; Vecerik, M.; Jha, S.; and Gowal, S. 2025. On the difficulty of constructing a robust and publicly-detectable watermark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04901

2025 arXiv
[12]

Guo, H.; and Georganas, N. 2003. Digital image watermarking for joint ownership verification without a trusted dealer. In 2003 International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. ICME '03. Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8698), volume 2, II--497

2003
[13]

E.; Cherifi, H.; and Hassouni, M

Hamidi, M.; Haziti, M. E.; Cherifi, H.; and Hassouni, M. E. 2018. Hybrid blind robust image watermarking technique based on DFT-DCT and Arnold transform. Multimedia Tools Appl., 77(20): 27181–27214

2018
[14]

Jia, Z.; Fang, H.; and Zhang, W. 2021. Mbrs: Enhancing robustness of dnn-based watermarking by mini-batch of real and simulated jpeg compression. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on multimedia, 41--49

2021
[15]

Johnson, D.; Menezes, A.; and Vanstone, S. 2001. The elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA). Int. J. Inf. Sec., 1: 36--63

2001
[16]

Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 1...

2014
[17]

Liu, R.; and niu Tan, T. 2002. An SVD-based watermarking scheme for protecting rightful ownership. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 121--128

2002
[18]

Nag, A.; Biswas, S.; Sarkar, D.; and Sarkar, P. 2010. A novel technique for image steganography based on Block-DCT and Huffman Encoding. CoRR, abs/1006.1186

2010 arXiv
[19]

National Institute of Standards and Technology . 1995. FIPS PUB 180-1: Secure Hash Standard . Technical Report FIPS PUB 180-1, U.S. Department of Commerce

1995
[20]

Neeta, D.; Snehal, K.; and Jacobs, D. 2007. Implementation of LSB Steganography and Its Evaluation for Various Bits. In 2006 1st International Conference on Digital Information Management, 173--178

2007
[21]

K.; Tiwari, A.; and Ali, S

Padhi, S. K.; Tiwari, A.; and Ali, S. S. 2024. Deep Learning-based Dual Watermarking for Image Copyright Protection and Authentication. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence

2024
[22]

Rahim, R.; Nadeem, S.; et al. 2018. End-to-end trained CNN encoder-decoder networks for image steganography. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops, 0--0

2018
[23]

R.; and Kabir, M

Raiyan, S. R.; and Kabir, M. H. 2025. SCReedSolo: A Secure and Robust LSB Image Steganography Framework with Randomized Symmetric Encryption and Reed-Solomon Coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12368

2025
[24]

Rivest, R. L. 1992. The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm . RFC 1321

1992
[25]

L.; Shamir, A.; and Adleman, L

Rivest, R. L.; Shamir, A.; and Adleman, L. 1978. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Commun. ACM, 21(2): 120–126

1978
[26]

Singh, A.; and Singh, H. 2015. An improved LSB based image steganography technique for RGB images. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), 1--4

2015
[27]

Tancik, M.; Mildenhall, B.; and Ng, R. 2020. Stegastamp: Invisible hyperlinks in physical photographs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2117--2126

2020
[28]

Tauhid, A.; Tasnim, M.; Noor, S.; Faruqui, N.; and Yousuf, M. 2019. A Secure Image Steganography Using Advanced Encryption Standard and Discrete Cosine Transform. Journal of Information Security, 10: 117--129

2019
[29]

van Schyndel, R.; Tirkel, A.; and Osborne, C. 1994. A digital watermark. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Image Processing, volume 2, 86--90 vol.2

1994
[30]

Zhang, X.; Li, R.; Yu, J.; Xu, Y.; Li, W.; and Zhang, J. 2024. Editguard: Versatile image watermarking for tamper localization and copyright protection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11964--11974

2024
[31]

Zhu, J.; Kaplan, R.; Johnson, J.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2018. HiDDeN: Hiding Data with Deep Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1807.09937

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Al-Haj, A.; Mohammad, A.; and Amer, A. 2017. Crypto-Watermarking of Transmitted Medical Images. Journal of Digital Imaging, 30(1): 26--38

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Anderson, R.; and Petitcolas, F. 1998. On The Limits of Steganography. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 16: 474--481

work page 1998

[5] [5]

Arunkumar, S.; Subramaniyaswamy, V.; Vijayakumar, V.; Chilamkurti, N.; and Logesh, R. 2019. SVD-based robust image steganographic scheme using RIWT and DCT for secure transmission of medical images. Measurement, 139: 426--437

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Baby, D.; Thomas, J.; Augustine, G.; George, E.; and Michael, N. R. 2015. A Novel DWT Based Image Securing Method Using Steganography. Procedia Computer Science, 46: 612--618. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies, ICICT 2014, 3-5 December 2014 at Bolgatty Palace & Island Resort, Kochi, India

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Baluja, S. 2017. Hiding Images in Plain Sight: Deep Steganography. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Bhattacharya, T.; Dey, N.; and Bhadra Chaudhuri, S. 2012. A Session based Multiple Image Hiding Technique using DWT and DCT. International Journal of Computer Applications, 38

work page 2012