CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Aug 14, 2026

Tracing Provenance and Detecting Tampering with Complementary LLM Watermarks

arXiv Security Archived 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?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Aug 14, 2026
    Archived
    Aug 14, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗