fin des exp

[canny.git] / experiments.tex

diff --git a/experiments.tex b/experiments.tex
index 9da4704046665ae6980ba9ba7ff4a47273f45ba0..9c7302585af6241dcdcd94d1b640cb00b2bd7d4f 100644 (file)
--- a/experiments.tex
+++ b/experiments.tex
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ this set of cover images since this paper is more focused on
 the methodology than benchmarking.    
 Our approach is always compared to Hugo~\cite{DBLP:conf/ih/PevnyFB10}
 and to EAISLSBMR~\cite{Luo:2010:EAI:1824719.1824720}.
-The former is the less detectable information hidding tool in spatial domain 
+The former is the less detectable information hiding tool in spatial domain 
 and the later is the work which is close to ours, as far as we know. 
 
 
@@ -35,26 +35,32 @@ The first one is widely used but does not take into
 account the Human Visual System (HVS).
 The other ones have been designed to tackle this problem.
 
+If we apply them on the running example, 
+the PSNR, PSNR-HVS-M, and wPSNR values are respectively equal to 
+68.39, 79.85, and 89.71 for the stego Lena when $b$ is equal to 7.
+If $b$ is 6, these values are respectively equal to 
+65.43, 77.2, and 89.35.
+
 
 
 
 \begin{table*}
 \begin{center}
-\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
+\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline
-Schemes & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{STABYLO} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{HUGO}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{EAISLSBMR} \\
+Schemes & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{STABYLO} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{HUGO}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{EAISLSBMR} \\
 \hline
-Embedding &   Fixed & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Adaptive} &  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed} \\
+Embedding &   Fixed & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Adaptive} &  \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed} \\
 \hline
-Rate &   10\% &  + sample & + STC  &  10\%&6.35\%& 10\%&6.35\%\\ 
+Rate &   10\% &  + sample &  +STC(7) & +STC(6) &  10\%&6.35\%& 10\%&6.35\%\\ 
 \hline
-PSNR & 61.86 & 63.48 &  66.55 (\textbf{-0.8\%})     & 64.65 & {67.08} & 60.8 & 62.9\\ 
+PSNR & 61.86 & 63.48 &  66.55 (\textbf{-0.8\%}) &  63.7  & 64.65 & {67.08} & 60.8 & 62.9\\ 
 \hline
-PSNR-HVS-M & 72.9 & 75.39 & 78.6 (\textbf{-0.8\%})    & 76.67 & {79.23} & 61.3  & 63.4\\ 
+PSNR-HVS-M & 72.9 & 75.39 & 78.6 (\textbf{-0.8\%}) & 75.5  & 76.67 & {79.23} & 71.8  & 74.3\\ 
 %\hline
 %BIQI & 28.3 & 28.28 & 28.4 & 28.28 & 28.28 & 28.2 & 28.2\\ 
 \hline
-wPSNR & 77.47 & 80.59 & 86.43(\textbf{-1.6\%})  & 83.03 & {87.8} & 76.7 & 80.6\\ 
+wPSNR & 77.47 & 80.59 & 86.43(\textbf{-1.6\%})& 86.28  & 83.03 & {87.8} & 76.7 & 80.6\\ 
 \hline
 \end{tabular}
 
@@ -88,6 +94,11 @@ the two least significant bits whereas STABYLO only alter LSB.
 If we combine \emph{adaptive} and \emph{STC} strategies 
 (which leads to an average embedding rate equal to 6.35\%)
 our approach  provides equivalent metrics than HUGO.
+In this column STC(7) stands for embeding data in the LSB whereas
+in STC(6), data are hidden in the two last significant bits. 
+
+
+
 The quality variance between HUGO and STABYLO for these parameters
 is given in bold font. It is always close to 1\% which confirms 
 the objective presented in the motivations:
@@ -126,17 +137,17 @@ can be favorably executed thanks to an ensemble classifier.
 \begin{table*}
 \begin{center}
 %\begin{small}
-\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
+\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline
-Schemes & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{STABYLO} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{HUGO}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{EAISLSBMR}\\
+Schemes & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{STABYLO} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{HUGO}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{EAISLSBMR}\\
 \hline
-Embedding & Fixed &   \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Adaptive}  & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed} \\
+Embedding & Fixed &   \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Adaptive}  & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed} \\
 \hline
-Rate & 10\% &  + sample &   + STC   & 10\%& 6.35\%& 10\%& 6.35\%\\ 
+Rate & 10\% &  + sample &   +STC(7) & +STC(6)   & 10\%& 6.35\%& 10\%& 6.35\%\\ 
 \hline
-AUMP & 0.22 & 0.33 & 0.39         &  0.50 &  0.50 & 0.49 & 0.50 \\
+AUMP & 0.22 & 0.33 & 0.39  &   0.45    &  0.50 &  0.50 & 0.49 & 0.50 \\
 \hline
-Ensemble Classifier & 0.35 & 0.44 & 0.47       & 0.48 &  0.49  &  0.43  & 0.46 \\
+Ensemble Classifier & 0.35 & 0.44 & 0.47 & 0.47     & 0.48 &  0.49  &  0.43  & 0.46 \\
 
 \hline
 \end{tabular}
@@ -153,6 +164,7 @@ Next, our approach is more easily detectable than HUGO, which
 is the most secure steganographic tool, as far as we know. 
 However by combining \emph{adaptive} and \emph{STC} strategies
 our approach obtains similar results than HUGO ones.
+
 However due to its 
 huge number of features integration, it is not lightweight, which justifies 
 in the authors' opinion the consideration of the proposed method.