mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

What Breaks Local Watermarks? A Robustness Benchmark for Local Invisible Image Watermarking

arXiv 2609.16832 ↗First posted 15 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.AI cs.CRcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Local image watermarking embeds an invisible signal into selected image regions rather than spreading it across the entire image, enabling payload recovery from specific objects or regions without perceptibly altering the image. Existing studies evaluate the robustness of payload recovery and localization under image transformations, but they often focus on their own proposed method, resulting in narrow evaluations with inconsistent choices of transformations, datasets, and metrics. These inconsistencies across studies limit direct comparisons across methods and muddle the overall picture of local watermark robustness. To address this gap, we present the first systematic robustness benchmark for local watermarks across 55 image transformations, including (i) signal distortions, (ii) changes in image coordinate alignment, (iii) indirect local edits, and (iv) direct watermark edits. The benchmark evaluates MaskWM, WAM, OmniGuard, TrustMark, and PixelSeal, all methods that either provide native localization or require minimal adaptation to support it. Our results show that all evaluated methods are vulnerable to some transformation, with MaskWM standing out as offering the strongest payload recovery and localization, although it has the lowest image quality in the clean setting. Synchronization further improves MaskWM's payload recovery under several geometric transformations, albeit at an additional cost to image quality. A key finding is that local watermark robustness depends strongly on the nature of the transformation: signal distortions are often tolerated by the strongest methods, while geometric misalignment and generative local edits, such as inpainting and outpainting, can completely impair payload recovery. We observe that payload recovery and localization are related but not interchangeable, and both strongly depend on the transformation's impact on the watermark region.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2026.

Builds on

7 of 26 references.

References · 7

  1. 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
  2. 2023Invisible Image Watermarks Are Provably Removable Using Generative AIcited by 134
  3. 2024WAVES: Benchmarking the Robustness of Image Watermarkscited by 97
  4. 2024Video Seal: Open and Efficient Video Watermarkingcited by 48
  5. 2025Pixel Seal: Adversarial-only training for invisible image and video watermarkingcited by 15
  6. 2025Geometric Image Synchronization with Deep Watermarkingcited by 7
  7. 2025Diffusion-Based Image Editing for Breaking Robust Watermarkscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026RecoverMark: Robust Watermarking for Localization and Recovery of Manipulated Faces
  2. 2026What Limits Robustness in Deep Image Watermarking: An Analysis of Mechanisms and Their Scaling Across Capacities ↗
  3. 2026WARP: A Unified Benchmark for Invisible Image Watermarking -- Robustness and Protection Against Attacks
  4. 2024Invisible Watermarks: Attacks and Robustness
  5. 2025Mask Image Watermarking
  6. 2025VideoMarkBench: Benchmarking Robustness of Video Watermarking
  7. 2021Visible Watermark Removal via Self-calibrated Localization and Background Refinement
  8. 2024Robust Watermarking Using Generative Priors Against Image Editing: From Benchmarking to Advances