MarkSec: Capability-Aware Evaluation of Adversarial Attacks Against LLM Watermarks
On the map: LLM safety and security → Watermarking generated content and models
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM watermarking helps trace the origin of generated text, but faces stealing attacks that recover watermark information, scrubbing attacks that remove watermark signals, and spoofing attacks that forge text accepted as watermarked. These attacks are often studied in isolation, leaving their connections unclear. Evaluations also often lack shared detector calibration, metric definitions, and reporting protocols. Moreover, measuring attack success and text quality separately makes it difficult to identify attacks that are both effective and quality-preserving. We propose MarkSec, a general framework that unifies analyses of stealing, scrubbing, and spoofing. We evaluate attacks under a common reporting protocol and introduce a quality-constrained attack success metric to assess effectiveness and text quality jointly. Experiments across representative watermark families, attacks, LLMs, and datasets reveal three findings. First, attacks that appear strongest by watermark removal alone can fall behind general rewriting when success also requires acceptable text quality. Second, general rewriting remains a strong baseline across watermark families, while its advantage over other scrubbers varies by family. Third, in a case study of one watermark family, stealing-based scrubbers often underperform the best general-scrubbing baselines when text quality is required. These results show that apparent attack winners depend on text-quality constraints, attack generality, and capability assumptions.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Watermarking generated content and models, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 15 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2026.
Builds on
15 of 37 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Revealing Weaknesses in Text Watermarking Through Self-Information Rewrite Attacks8 May
- 2024B4: A Black-Box Scrubbing Attack on LLM Watermarks2 Nov
- 2024MarkLLM: An Open-Source Toolkit for LLM Watermarking16 May
- 2024Watermark Stealing in Large Language Models29 Feb
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense23 Mar
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?17 Mar
Other references · 9
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 658
- 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 274
- 2025The Widespread Adoption of Large Language Model-Assisted Writing Across Societycited by 51
- 2024Large Language Models for Education: A Surveycited by 34
- 2024Weaver: Foundation Models for Creative Writingcited by 27
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Watermark under Fire: A Robustness Evaluation of LLM Watermarking
- 2026Beyond A Fixed Seal: Adaptive Stealing Watermark in Large Language Models
- 2024On Evaluating The Performance of Watermarked Machine-Generated Texts Under Adversarial Attacks
- 2024Discovering Spoofing Attempts on Language Model Watermarks
- 2024No Free Lunch in LLM Watermarking: Trade-offs in Watermarking Design Choices
- 2025Signature vs. Substance: Evaluating the Balance of Adversarial Resistance and Linguistic Quality in Watermarking Large Language Models
- 2025Character-Level Perturbations Disrupt LLM Watermarks
- 2025Defending LLM Watermarking Against Spoofing Attacks with Contrastive Representation Learning