Evaluating and benchmarking software and hardware field programmable gate array (FPGA)-based digital watermarking are considered challenging tasks because of multiple and conflicting evaluation criteria. A few evaluation and benchmarking techniques/frameworks have been implemented to digital watermarking or steganography; however, these approaches still present certain limitations. In particular, fixing some attributes on account of other attributes and well-known benchmarking approaches are limited to robust watermarking techniques. Thus, this study aims toward a new methodology for evaluation and benchmarking using multi-criteria analysis for software and hardware “FPGA”-based digital watermarking or steganography. To achieve this objective, two iterations are conducted. The first iteration consists of two stages: discussing software and hardware “FPGA”-based digital watermarking or steganography to create a dataset with various samples for benchmarking and discussing the evaluation method and then discussing the test for software and hardware “FPGA”-based digital watermarking or steganography according to multi-criteria evaluation (i.e., complexity, payload and quality) to create a decision matrix. The second iteration applies different decision-making techniques (i.e., SAW, MEW, HAW, TOPSIS, WSM and WPM)) to benchmark the results of the first iteration (i.e., software or hardware FPGA-based digital watermarking or steganography approaches). Then, the discussed mean, standard deviation and paired sample [Formula: see text]-test results are used to measure the correlations among different techniques based on the ranking results. The discussion findings are described as follows: (1) the integration of developer and evaluator preferences into the evaluation and benchmarking for software and hardware FPGA-based digital watermarking or steganography, (2) the process of assigning weights and (3) visualizing large-scale data sample in either software or hardware FPGA-based digital watermarking or steganography algorithms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaidan et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: