CalvinBackup/remove-ai-watermarks
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/wiltodelta/remove-ai-watermarks.git synced 2026-08-07 14:38:35 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Restructure documentation, validate metadata removal, consolidate assets

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Victor Kuznetsov
2026-07-25 21:08:04 -07:00
parent 214c9bb3e7
commit 03cd00f132
172 changed files with 2356 additions and 2863 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
tests/test_text_mark_faint_mask.py
+7 -9
View File
@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
"""A mark the `tophat` front-end DETECTS must also be MASKABLE.
Corpus-found 2026-07-20: Doubao's detection moved to the continuous `tophat` front-end
(which does not binarize, and that is where its recall 89% -> 92% came from), but the
Doubao's detection moved to the continuous `tophat` front-end, which does not
binarize, but the
removal mask still came from the BINARIZED glyph blob. A mark faint enough to be found
only by the continuous response therefore produced an empty binary blob, `localize`
returned mask=None, and `remove()` was a silent no-op: `identify` reported
`visible_doubao` while `visible` said "no visible mark" on the same file. Measured on the
full corpus parity sweep: 57 of 60 sampled still-detected Doubao marks were untouched
no-ops, ~8% of all Doubao detections.
`visible_doubao` while `visible` said "no visible mark" on the same file.
"""
from __future__ import annotations
@@ -99,11 +97,11 @@ class TestFaintMarkIsMaskable:
class TestFaintMaskStaysTight:
"""The faint fallback must cover the mark WITHOUT filling the whole corner.
Corpus-found 2026-07-20: the first version of the fallback thresholded the continuous
The first version of the fallback thresholded the continuous
response at 0.5, but `tophat_response` returns uint8 0..255 -- so it selected every
non-zero pixel, not "half the peak" as its comment claimed. On 12 of 12 real frames
taking this path the resulting box covered 100% of the corner ROI, so removal inpainted
the entire corner instead of the glyph. Parity could not see it: parity asks whether
non-zero pixel, not "half the peak" as its comment claimed. On compatibility frames
taking this path the resulting box covered the corner ROI, so removal inpainted the
entire corner instead of the glyph. Parity could not see it: parity asks whether
the detector is clean afterwards, and a mask that fills everything passes trivially.
The cost, not the outcome, was the defect.
"""