Who Gets Flagged? The Pluralistic Evaluation Gap in AI Content Watermarking
arXiv SecurityArchived Apr 16, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2604.13776v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Watermarking is becoming the default mechanism for AI content authentication, with governance policies and frameworks referencing it as infrastructure for content provenance. Yet across text, image, and audio modalities, watermark signal strength, detectability, and robustness depend on statistical properties of the content itself, properties that vary systematically across languages, cultural visual traditions, and demographic groups. We examine
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Computers and Society
[Submitted on 15 Apr 2026]
Who Gets Flagged? The Pluralistic Evaluation Gap in AI Content Watermarking
Alexander Nemecek, Osama Zafar, Yuqiao Xu, Wenbiao Li, Erman Ayday
Watermarking is becoming the default mechanism for AI content authentication, with governance policies and frameworks referencing it as infrastructure for content provenance. Yet across text, image, and audio modalities, watermark signal strength, detectability, and robustness depend on statistical properties of the content itself, properties that vary systematically across languages, cultural visual traditions, and demographic groups. We examine how this content dependence creates modality-specific pathways to bias. Reviewing the major watermarking benchmarks across modalities, we find that, with one exception, none report performance across languages, cultural content types, or population groups. To address this, we propose three concrete evaluation dimensions for pluralistic watermark benchmarking: cross-lingual detection parity, culturally diverse content coverage, and demographic disaggregation of detection metrics. We connect these to the governance frameworks currently mandating watermarking deployment and show that watermarking is held to a lower fairness standard than the generative systems it is meant to govern. Our position is that evaluation must precede deployment, and that the same bias auditing requirements applied to AI models should extend to the verification layer.
Comments: 7 pages
Subjects: Computers and Society (cs.CY); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
Cite as: arXiv:2604.13776 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2604.13776v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.13776
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Alexander Nemecek [view email]
[v1] Wed, 15 Apr 2026 12:06:56 UTC (36 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CY
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-04
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CL
cs.CR
cs.CV
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)