The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unbiased Watermark for Large Language Models
Abstract
The recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked a growing apprehension regarding the potential misuse. One approach to mitigating this risk is to incorporate watermarking techniques into LLMs, allowing for the tracking and attribution of model outputs. This study examines a crucial aspect of watermarking: how significantly watermarks impact the quality of model-generated outputs. Previous studies have suggested a trade-off between watermark strength and output quality. However, our research demonstrates that it is possible to integrate watermarks without affecting the output probability distribution with appropriate implementation. We refer to this type of watermark as an unbiased watermark. This has significant implications for the use of LLMs, as it becomes impossible for users to discern whether a service provider has incorporated watermarks or not. Furthermore, the presence of watermarks does not compromise the performance of the model in downstream tasks, ensuring that the overall utility of the language model is preserved. Our findings contribute to the ongoing discussion around responsible AI development, suggesting that unbiased watermarks can serve as an effective means of tracking and attributing model outputs without sacrificing output quality.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“SynthID-Text uses certain elements introduced in previous work22,23,27, but differs in the use of the sampling algorithm, Tournament sampling, which we find provides superior detectability compared with existing methods.”
From Scalable watermarking for identifying large language model outputs (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire
Fu, J., Ng, S.-K., Jiang, Z., & Liu, P. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04166 · Cited by 446
Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods
Crothers, E., Japkowicz, N., & Viktor, H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.07321 · Cited by 196 · cited 1×
“Such detection is crucial to prevent misuse and a substantial body of research has explored this area [68, 26, 12, 29, 51, 53, 52, 60].”
BackgroundParaphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense
Krishna, K., Song, Y., Karpinska, M., Wieting, J., & Iyyer, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.13408 · Cited by 150 · cited 1×
“These include attacks based on invisible characters and homoglyphs [16, 24, 41, 8], generative attacks such as those that prompted the model to change its output in a predictable and easily reversible way [32], and specific instances such as the emoji attack [18], and paraphrasing attacks [47, 33].”
Background
Cited by
Scalable watermarking for identifying large language model outputs
Dathathri, S., See, A., Ghaisas, S., Huang, P.-S., McAdam, R., Welbl, J., Bachani, V., Kaskasoli, A., Stanforth, R., Matejovicova, T., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08025-4 · Cited by 132
Liang, W., Izzo, Z., Zhang, Y., Lepp, H., Cao, H., Zhao, X., Chen, L., Ye, H., Liu, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07183 · Cited by 73
“Hu et al. (2023b); Ku-ditipudi et al. (2023); Wu et al. (2023) study watermarks that preserve the original token probability distributions.”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, Z., Chen, L., Wu, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, H., & Huang, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2310.10669
- References
- 3
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
