4.6 Article

Common Gabor Features for Image Watermarking Identification

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 11, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11188308

关键词

watermarking identification; Gabor feature; discriminant analysis (DA) classifier; Random_forest classifier

资金

  1. Uniten BOLD Publication Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposed using Gabor features and classifiers to improve the accuracy of image watermarking identification, using discriminant analysis and random forests as classifiers, and achieving good classification performance. The proposed method showed excellent performance in terms of true positive rate and false negative rate, and has the advantage of being able to find images with watermarks in different databases.
Image watermarking is one of many methods for preventing unauthorized alterations to digital images. The major goal of the research is to find and identify photos that include a watermark, regardless of the method used to add the watermark or the shape of the watermark. As a result, this study advocated using the best Gabor features and classifiers to improve the accuracy of image watermarking identification. As classifiers, discriminant analysis (DA) and random forests are used. The DA and random forest use mean squared energy feature, mean amplitude feature, and combined feature vector as inputs for classification. The performance of the classifiers is evaluated using a variety of feature sets, and the best results are achieved. In order to assess the performance of the proposed method, we use a public database. VOC2008 is a public database that we use. The findings reveal that our proposed method's DA classifier with integrated features had the greatest TPR of 93.71 and the lowest FNR of 6.29. This shows that the performance outcomes of the proposed approach are consistent. The proposed method has the advantages of being able to find images with the watermark in any database and not requiring a specific type or algorithm for embedding the watermark.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据