mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Could LLM Watermark Detection be Public?

arXiv 2610.12106 ↗First posted 8 Oct 2026cs.CR cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Watermarking generated content and models

Abstract (arXiv)

Watermarking large language models is popular for tracing chatbot and agentic outputs, yet detectors remain unreleased since exposing them could let attackers do targeted edits with the detector's feedback. However, watermarks are already vulnerable to uninformed tampering attacks. We thus first quantify whether a public detector would be an additional liability in a deployment setting at varying levels of access, from token-level scores to a binary verdict. Second, we introduce a split-key public-private watermarking method that exposes one key through a public detector while keeping the other for full verification and forensics. An informed attacker can only move the public signal, creating an imbalance between public and private scores. We introduce a statistical test for this imbalance, and combine it with the full key verdict in a two-stage mechanism. Third, we evaluate the split-key method on a wide range of removal and forgery attacks, comparing the uninformed to detector-informed settings. Public detection improves removal only at small edit budgets, since plain rephrasing already strips the watermark at a lower quality cost, but it does enable forgery, which the private pipeline can identify. Overall, releasing half of the watermark enables transparency and interoperability, and tampering with the released half stays detectable. This bounds the provider's liability and questions the need to keep detectors fully private.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Watermarking generated content and models, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 10 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2026.

Builds on

10 of 54 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Tracing Provenance and Detecting Tampering with Complementary LLM Watermarks13 Aug
  2. 2026TextSeal: A Localized LLM Watermark for Provenance & Distillation Protection12 May
  3. 2026RLSpoofer: A Lightweight Evaluator for LLM Watermark Spoofing Resilience13 Apr
  4. 2025Mitigating Watermark Forgery in Generative Models via Randomized Key Selection10 Jul
  5. 2024Optimizing Adaptive Attacks against Watermarks for Language Models3 Oct
  6. 2024Permute-and-Flip: An optimally stable and watermarkable decoder for LLMs8 Feb

Other references · 4

  1. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  2. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  3. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
  4. 2023Leveraging Optimization for Adaptive Attacks on Image Watermarkscited by 52

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025PVMark: Enabling Public Verifiability for LLM Watermarking Schemes
  2. 2024Watermark Stealing in Large Language Models
  3. 2024Can Watermarked LLMs be Identified by Users via Crafted Prompts?
  4. 2023Publicly-Detectable Watermarking for Language Models
  5. 2025Modification and Generated-Text Detection: Achieving Dual Detection Capabilities for the Outputs of LLM by Watermark
  6. 2024Black-Box Detection of Language Model Watermarks
  7. 2024A Statistical Framework of Watermarks for Large Language Models: Pivot, Detection Efficiency and Optimal Rules
  8. 2024PostMark: A Robust Blackbox Watermark for Large Language Models