Tracing Provenance and Detecting Tampering with Complementary LLM Watermarks
arXiv SecurityArchived Aug 14, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2608.12713v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Watermarking LLM-generated text is an important task for tracing its provenance. Existing LLM watermarks preserve provenance under editing, but this same robustness allows an adversary to alter critical content while retaining attribution, a vulnerability known as piggyback spoofing. We introduce an innovative watermark that jointly provides provenance and tamper evidence. It co-embeds a robust signal and a fragile signal into each generated token.
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 13 Aug 2026]
Tracing Provenance and Detecting Tampering with Complementary LLM Watermarks
Xiaoyan Feng, Yanjun Zhang, He Zhang, Leo Yu Zhang, Shirui Pan
Watermarking LLM-generated text is an important task for tracing its provenance. Existing LLM watermarks preserve provenance under editing, but this same robustness allows an adversary to alter critical content while retaining attribution, a vulnerability known as piggyback spoofing. We introduce an innovative watermark that jointly provides provenance and tamper evidence. It co-embeds a robust signal and a fragile signal into each generated token. The signals share the same mechanism but use independent keys and different seeding windows over normalized text, making one resilient to edits and the other sensitive to reader-visible changes. Multiple rounds of unbiased tournament reweighting preserve the expected generation distribution, while a periodic round-allocation pattern controls the trade-off between the two signals. At detection, their scores form a two-dimensional space supporting three decisions: Intact, Tampered, and No-Watermark. Across two large language models and two prompt datasets, our method demonstrates the highest tamper-detection rate among the evaluated methods while maintaining competitive attribution robustness and perplexity. Ablation studies show that reliable three-state detection requires a well-defined notion of intactness, co-embedding of the two signals, and complementary sensitivity to edits.
Comments: 11 pages, 7 figures, 4 tables
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.12713 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.12713v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.12713
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Xiaoyan Feng [view email]
[v1] Thu, 13 Aug 2026 01:55:16 UTC (523 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
cs.CL
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?)