PreprintCited by 194Advanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security

A Watermark for Large Language Models

Open access
Kirchenbauer, John, Geiping, Jonas, Wen, Yuxin, Katz, Jonathan, Miers, Ian, Goldstein, Tom·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Potential harms of large language models can be mitigated by watermarking model output, i.e., embedding signals into generated text that are invisible to humans but algorithmically detectable from a short span of tokens. We propose a watermarking framework for proprietary language models. The watermark can be embedded with negligible impact on text quality, and can be detected using an efficient open-source algorithm without access to the language model API or parameters. The watermark works by selecting a randomized set of "green" tokens before a word is generated, and then softly promoting use of green tokens during sampling. We propose a statistical test for detecting the watermark with interpretable p-values, and derive an information-theoretic framework for analyzing the sensitivity of the watermark. We test the watermark using a multi-billion parameter model from the Open Pretrained Transformer (OPT) family, and discuss robustness and security.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2301.10226

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More robust detectors [8, 14, 36, 1] require recursive paraphrasing to be effectively bypassed.

    “more robust detectors [8, 14, 36, 1] require recursive paraphrasing to be effectively bypassed.”

    From Adversarial Paraphrasing: A Universal Attack for Humanizing AI-Generated Text (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    The paper’s “Paraphrasing Attacks” section says paraphrasing can defeat watermarks, while noting that automated paraphrasing trades reduced watermark strength for reduced fluency. “Details of the T5 Span Attack” reports more successful watermark removal at a larger replacement budget. Neither passage says recursive paraphrasing is required to bypass the detector. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Watermarking presents challenges for proprietary LLMs and third-party applications due to the necessity of accessing the language model logits.

    “Additionally, watermarking presents challenges for proprietary LLMs and third-party applications due to the necessity of accessing the language model logits [Kirchenbauer et al., 2023].”

    From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Kirchenbauer et al., 2023

    Section 3 ('A more sophisticated watermark'; page unavailable) says embedding this watermark changes the model’s logits during generation, which supports the access concern for a third party trying to add it to a proprietary model. But the Introduction says third parties can detect the watermark without model parameters or API access, so the claimed difficulty does not apply to third-party detection; the paper also proposes its framework for proprietary models. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Despite efforts to watermark machine-created content, machine-made and human-made content will increasingly intertwine.

    “Despite efforts to watermark machine-created content 161 , machine-made and human-made content will increasingly intertwine 162 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [162]

  • The human element in this cycle may prove crucial-for instance, in preventing 'model collapse', a dynamic where repeated training on machine-generated data narrows its outputs to very few traits.

    “The human element in this cycle may prove crucial-for instance, in preventing 'model collapse', a dynamic where repeated training on machine-generated data narrows its outputs to very few traits 162 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [162]

  • Preliminary evidence points to the possibility of model collapse, with the models losing diversity and converging to a state with low variance.

    “Preliminary evidence points to the possibility of model collapse, with the models losing diversity and converging to a state with low variance 162 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [162]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., and Gipp, B. Academic Plagiarism Detection: A Systematic Literature Review. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6):112:1-112:42, October 2019. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3345317. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3345317. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Katzenbeisser, S. and Petitcolas, F. A. Information Hiding Techniques for Steganography and Digital Watermarking. Artech House, Inc., USA, 1st edition, 2000. ISBN 978-1- 58053-035-4.
  3. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., and Sutskever, I. Language Models are Unsupervised Multi- task Learners. OpenAI, pp. 24, 2019.
  4. Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., and Liu, P. J. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv e-prints, 2019.
  5. Tian, E. Gptzero update v1, January 2023. URL https: //gptzero.substack.com/p/gptzero- update-v1. · DOI
  6. Venugopal, A., Uszkoreit, J., Talbot, D., Och, F., and Ganitkevitch, J. Watermarking the Outputs of Struc- tured Prediction with an application in Statistical Ma- chine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2011 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing, pp. 1363-1372, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK., July 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/D11-1126.
  7. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. URL https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2019/hash/ 3e9f0fc9b2f89e043bc6233994dfcf76- Abstract.html.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kirchenbauer, J., Geiping, J., Wen, Y., Katz, J., Miers, I., & Goldstein, T.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4318149317
Cited by
194
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 53
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2212182, 2229885)
  • Open Philanthropy Project
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR00112020007)
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • Office of Naval Research (N000142112557)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security
Keywords
watermarking, large language models, watermark detection, hypothesis testing, information-theoretic analysis, watermark robustness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review