New Evaluation Metrics Capture Quality Degradation due to LLM Watermarking
On the map: LLM safety and security → Watermarking generated content and models
Abstract (arXiv)
With the increasing use of large-language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, watermarking has emerged as a promising approach for tracing machine-generated content. However, research on LLM watermarking often relies on simple perplexity or diversity-based measures to assess the quality of watermarked text, which can mask important limitations in watermarking. Here we introduce two new easy-to-use methods for evaluating watermarking algorithms for LLMs: 1) evaluation by LLM-judger with specific guidelines; and 2) binary classification on text embeddings to distinguish between watermarked and unwatermarked text. We apply these methods to characterize the effectiveness of current watermarking techniques. Our experiments, conducted across various datasets, reveal that current watermarking methods are detectable by even simple classifiers, challenging the notion of watermarking subtlety. We also found, through the LLM judger, that watermarking impacts text quality, especially in degrading the coherence and depth of the response. Our findings underscore the trade-off between watermark robustness and text quality and highlight the importance of having more informative metrics to assess watermarking quality.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Watermarking generated content and models, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 16 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Dec 2023.
Builds on
16 of 21 references.
Closest ancestors · 7
Same direction, newest first
- 2023Robust Distortion-free Watermarks for Language Models28 Jul
- 2023Provable Robust Watermarking for AI-Generated Text30 Jun
- 2023On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Models7 Jun
- 2023Undetectable Watermarks for Language Models25 May
- 2023Robust Multi-bit Natural Language Watermarking through Invariant Features3 May
- 2023Protecting Language Generation Models via Invisible Watermarking6 Feb
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Models24 Jan
Other references · 9
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,080
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
- 2018A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documentscited by 477
- 2023PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimizationcited by 311
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
- 2023LongForm: Effective Instruction Tuning with Reverse Instructionscited by 47
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
- 2024PostMark: A Robust Blackbox Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 24
- 2026Large Language Model Reasoning Failurescited by 20
- 2024'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviewscited by 8
- 2024Watermark under Fire: A Robustness Evaluation of LLM Watermarkingcited by 7
- 2024Humanizing the Machine: Proxy Attacks to Mislead LLM Detectorscited by 6
- 2025Factuality Beyond Coherence: Evaluating LLM Watermarking Methods for Medical Textscited by 4
- 2026An Exploratory Study on LLM-Generated Code and Comments in Code Repositoriescited by 2
- 2025Modification and Generated-Text Detection: Achieving Dual Detection Capabilities for the Outputs of LLM by Watermarkcited by 0
- 2025Signature vs. Substance: Evaluating the Balance of Adversarial Resistance and Linguistic Quality in Watermarking Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026An Exploratory Study on LLM-Generated Code and Comments in Code Repositories2 Jul 2026
- 2026Large Language Model Reasoning Failures5 Feb 2026
- 2025Factuality Beyond Coherence: Evaluating LLM Watermarking Methods for Medical Texts9 Sep 2025
- 2025Signature vs. Substance: Evaluating the Balance of Adversarial Resistance and Linguistic Quality in Watermarking Large Language Models11 Aug 2025
- 2025Modification and Generated-Text Detection: Achieving Dual Detection Capabilities for the Outputs of LLM by Watermark12 Feb 2025
- 2024Watermark under Fire: A Robustness Evaluation of LLM Watermarking20 Nov 2024
- 2024Humanizing the Machine: Proxy Attacks to Mislead LLM Detectors25 Oct 2024
- 2024'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviews13 Oct 2024
- 2024PostMark: A Robust Blackbox Watermark for Large Language Models20 Jun 2024
- 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews11 Mar 2024