# An Adaptive and Secure Holographic Image Watermarking Scheme
## 5 Experiments and Results
### Test for the Effectiveness of Our Watermarking Scheme
#### 5.2.2 Robustness to Attacks
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Eline**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Goldhill**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Our**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Our**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} \\
**Attacks** & **Method** & **in[7]** & **in[2]** & **in[4]** & **Method** & **in[7]** & **in[2]** & **in[4]** \\ \hline Gaussian low-pass filtering & 0.994 & 0.927 & 0.686 & 0.681 & 0.93 & 0.913 & 0.613 & 0.656 \\ Average filtering & 0.995 & 0.925 & 0.656 & 0.673 & 0.929 & 0.911 & 0.612 & 0.65 \\ Median filtering & 0.947 & 0.913 & 0.637 & 0.539 & 0.884 & 0.77 & 0.665 & 0.576 \\ Occlusion & 0.824 & 0.752 & 0.802 & 0.821 & 0.756 & 0.752 & 0.806 & 0.814 \\ Unsharp & 0.986 & 0.94 & 0.736 & 0.985 & 0.941 & 0.939 & 0.819 & 0.984 \\ Blurring & 0.99 & 0.93 & 0.639 & 0.806 & 0.913 & 0.9 & 0.601 & 0.669 \\ JPEG & 0.895 & 0.931 & 0.646 & 0.924 & 0.868 & 0.927 & 0.692 & 0.645 \\ Gaussian noise & 0.954 & 0.97 & 0.823 & 0.993 & 0.948 & 0.96 & 0.819 & 0.922 \\ Salt and pepper noise & 0.829 & 0.813 & 0.888 & 0.948 & 0.855 & 0.834 & 0.893 & 0.938 \\ Brighten & 0.817 & 0.53 & 0.781 & 0.797 & 0.996 & 0.474 & 0.987 & 0.995 \\ Darken & 0.992 & 0.528 & 0.972 & 0.991 & 0.777 & 0.492 & 0.847 & 0.832 \\ Rescaling & 0.995 & 0.795 & 0.75 & 0.993 & 0.952 & 0.636 & 0.822 & 0.966 \\ Rotation & 0.8 & 0.83 & 0.764 & 0.777 & 0.802 & 0.832 & 0.768 & 0.779 \\ Painting & 0.986 & 0.93 & 0.968 & 0.983 & 0.977 & 0.94 & 0.973 & 0.984 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The \(N\)Cs of the mark CGHs which were extracted from the attacked watermarked Elaine and Goldhill comparing between our method and the schemes in [2,4,7]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Pepers**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Crane**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Our**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Our**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scheme**} \\
**Attacks** & **Method** & **in[7]** & **in[2]** & **in[4]** & **Method** & **in[7]** & **in[2]** & **in[4]** \\ \hline Gaussian low-pass filtering & 0.994 & 0.895 & 0.656 & 0.752 & 0.97 & 0.951 & 0.624 & 0.615 \\ Average filtering & 0.994 & 0.892 & 0.655 & 0.738 & 0.971 & 0.95 & 0.621 & 0.609 \\ Median filtering & 0.971 & 0.891 & 0.625 & 0.501 & 0.916 & 0.802 & 0.653 & 0.493 \\ Occlusion & 0.762 & 0.761 & 0.761 & 0.758 & 0.78 & 0.762 & 0.791 & 0.8 \\ Unsharp & 0.995 & 0.917 & 0.636 & 0.971 & 0.97 & 0.957 & 0.804 & 0.971 \\ Blurring & 0.991 & 0.866 & 0.653 & 0.792 & 0.965 & 0.94 & 0.614 & 0.628 \\ JPEG & 0.883 & 0.913 & 0.597 & 0.644 & 0.895 & 0.894 & 0.786 & 0.512 \\ Gaussian noise & 0.955 & 0.964 & 0.715 & 0.931 & 0.947 & 0.961 & 0.798 & 0.94 \\ Salt and pepper noise & 0.851 & 0.829 & 0.827 & 0.924 & 0.858 & 0.841 & 0.878 & 0.927 \\ Brighten & 0.969 & 0.528 & 0.962 & 0.963 & 1 & 0.511 & 0.985 & 0.997 \\ Darken & 0.886 & 0.495 & 0.866 & 0.877 & 0.915 & 0.487 & 0.95 & 0.958 \\ Rescaling & 0.997 & 0.781 & 0.684 & 0.962 & 0.988 & 0.8 & 0.85 & 0.976 \\ Rotation & 0.832 & 0.83 & 0.789 & 0.785 & 0.789 & 0.839 & 0.759 & 0.767 \\ Painting & 0.97 & 0.95 & 0.964 & 0.955 & 0.98 & 0.95 & 0.972 & 0.978 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The \(N\)Cs of the mark CGHs which were extracted from the attacked watermarked Peppers and Crane comparing between our method and the schemes in [2,4,7].