PreprintCited by 23Advanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security

Robust distortion-free watermarks for language models

Open access
Kuditipudi, Rohith, Thickstun, John, Hashimoto, Tatsunori, Liang, Percy·2023·arXiv

Abstract

We propose a methodology for planting watermarks in text from an autoregressive language model that are robust to perturbations without changing the distribution over text up to a certain maximum generation budget. We generate watermarked text by mapping a sequence of random numbers -- which we compute using a randomized watermark key -- to a sample from the language model. To detect watermarked text, any party who knows the key can align the text to the random number sequence. We instantiate our watermark methodology with two sampling schemes: inverse transform sampling and exponential minimum sampling. We apply these watermarks to three language models -- OPT-1.3B, LLaMA-7B and Alpaca-7B -- to experimentally validate their statistical power and robustness to various paraphrasing attacks. Notably, for both the OPT-1.3B and LLaMA-7B models, we find we can reliably detect watermarked text ($p \leq 0.01$) from $35$ tokens even after corrupting between $40$-$50\%$ of the tokens via random edits (i.e., substitutions, insertions or deletions). For the Alpaca-7B model, we conduct a case study on the feasibility of watermarking responses to typical user instructions. Due to the lower entropy of the responses, detection is more difficult: around $25\%$ of the responses -- whose median length is around $100$ tokens -- are detectable with $p \leq 0.01$, and the watermark is also less robust to certain automated paraphrasing attacks we implement.

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.2307.15593

Cites

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?

  • Kuditipudi et al. (2023) method demonstrates strong robustness against paraphrasing attacks, even when approximately 40-50% of the tokens have been modified.

    “The method demonstrates strong robustness against paraphrasing attacks, even when approximately 40-50% of the tokens have been modified.”

    From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Kuditipudi et al. 2023

    Section 3.2 reports that EXP and EXP-edit are robust to token substitutions, and Section 2.4.1 says detection can remain possible even after most tokens are replaced, provided the remaining tokens retain sufficient watermark potential. Neither passage establishes the claimed 40–50% figure for paraphrasing attacks. Section 3.2 also finds that after Russian roundtrip translation, only EXP-edit reliably detects the watermark. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 23

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. S. Abdelnabi and M. Fritz. Adversarial watermarking transformer: Towards tracing text provenance with data hiding. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2021.
  2. M. J. Atallah, V. Raskin, M. Crogan, C. Hempelmann, F. Kerschbaum, D. Mohamed, and S. Naik. Natural language watermarking: Design, analysis, and a proof-of-concept implementation. In Information Hiding: 4th International Workshop, IH 2001 Pitts- burgh, PA, USA, April 25-27, 2001 Proceedings 4, pages 185-200. Springer, 2001.
  3. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  4. M. Christ, S. Gunn, and O. Zamir. Undetectable watermarks for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09194, 2023. · arXiv
  5. F. Dai and Z. Cai. Towards near-imperceptible steganographic text. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4303-4308, 2019.
  6. G. Elfving, G. Birkhoff, and R. von Mises. Vol. 2. probability and statistics, General. In Selected Papers of Richard von Mises. American Mathematical Society, 1966.
  7. X. He, Q. Xu, L. Lyu, F. Wu, and C. Wang. Protecting intellectual property of lan- guage generation APIs with lexical watermark. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
  8. X. He, Q. Xu, Y. Zeng, L. Lyu, F. Wu, J. Li, and R. Jia. Cater: Intellectual property protection on text generation apis via conditional watermarks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 2022.
  9. G. Jawahar, M. Abdul-Mageed, and V. Laks Lakshmanan. Automatic detection of ma- chine generated text: A critical survey. In International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2020.
  10. N. S. Kamaruddin, A. Kamsin, L. Y. Por, and H. Rahman. A review of text watermark- ing: theory, methods, and applications. IEEE Access, 2018.
  11. J. Kirchenbauer, J. Geiping, Y. Wen, J. Katz, I. Miers, and T. Goldstein. A watermark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10226, 2023. · arXiv
  12. E. Mitchell, Y. Lee, A. Khazatsky, C. D. Manning, and C. Finn. Detectgpt: Zero- shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11305, 2023. · arXiv
  13. G. Papandreou and A. L. Yuille. Perturb-and-map random fields: Using discrete op- timization to learn and sample from energy models. 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 193-200, 2011.
  14. C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y. Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551, 2020.
  15. S. G. Rizzo, F. Bertini, and D. Montesi. Fine-grain watermarking for intellectual property protection. EURASIP Journal on Information Security, 2019.
  16. J. Shen, H. Ji, and J. Han. Near-imperceptible neural linguistic steganography via self- adjusting arithmetic coding. In Proceedings of Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing, pages 303-313, 2020.
  17. J. Tiedemann and S. Thottingal. OPUS-MT -Building open translation services for the World. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 2020.
  18. J. Tiedemann, M. Aulamo, D. Bakshandaeva, M. Boggia, S.-A. Grönroos, T. Niemi- nen, A. Raganato, Y. Scherrer, R. Vazquez, and S. Virpioja. Democratizing machine translation with opus-mt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01936, 2022. · arXiv
  19. H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv
  20. H. Ueoka, Y. Murawaki, and S. Kurohashi. Frustratingly easy edit-based linguistic steganography with a masked language model. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2021.
  21. A. Venugopal, J. Uszkoreit, D. Talbot, F. J. Och, and J. Ganitkevitch. Watermarking the outputs of structured prediction with an application in statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing, 2011.
  22. M. J. Wainwright. High-Dimensional Statistics: A Non-Asymptotic Viewpoint. Cam- bridge University Press, 2019.
  23. X. Yang, J. Zhang, K. Chen, W. Zhang, Z. Ma, F. Wang, and N. Yu. Tracing text provenance via context-aware lexical substitution. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
  24. S. Zhang, S. Roller, N. Goyal, M. Artetxe, M. Chen, S. Chen, C. Dewan, M. Diab, X. Li, X. V. Lin, et al. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068, 2022. · arXiv
  25. X. Zhao, Y.-X. Wang, and L. Li. Protecting language generation models via invisible watermarking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03162, 2023. · arXiv
  26. Z. Ziegler, Y. Deng, and A. M. Rush. Neural linguistic steganography. In Proceedings of Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing, pages 1210-1215, 2019.
  27. "Deep Watermarks: Towards Pervasive Protection for Language Models" 2. "Adding Transparency to Language Models: A Watermarking Approach" 3. "Watermarking Language Models for Traceability and Verification" 4. "A Comprehensive Review on Watermarking Methods for Language Models" 5. "The Power of Watermarking for Language Model Protection" 6. "Attribut- ing Authorship in Language Models with Watermarking" 7. "Understanding the Promise of Watermarking for Language Model Security" 8. "Watermarking Language Models: A Survey" 9. "Watermarking Language Models for Better Security" 10. "Mitigating Plagiarism in Language Models with Watermark- ing" 11. "Watermarking Language Models: Exploring the Possibilities" 12. "A Generative Approach to Watermarking Language Models" 13. "Watermark- ing Strategies for Protecting Language Models" 14. "Watermark Detection for Language Model Security" 15. "Making Language Model Security Watertight with Watermarking" 16. "Leveraging Watermarking for Enhancing Language Model Security" 17. "Understanding the Role of Watermarking in Language Model Security" 18. "A Novel Approach to Watermarking Language Models" 19. "Exploring the Possibilities of Watermarking for Language Model Security" EXP 3

Authors
Kuditipudi, R., Thickstun, J., Hashimoto, T., & Liang, P.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385437823
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 16 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1805310)
  • Open Philanthropy Project
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
text watermarking, language models, watermark detection, paraphrasing attacks, robustness to disturbances, inverse transform sampling, autoregressive generation, LLaMA-7B, response entropy

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