aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the security trade-offs of making LLM watermark detectors public, proposing a split-key scheme where partial key exposure enables transparency without compromising forensic verification against informed attackers. The study demonstrates that while public detection slightly aids removal attacks with minimal edits, it effectively identifies forged content by detecting statistical imbalances between public and private signals. This approach balances the need for interoperability and accountability with robust defense against targeted tampering.
Could LLM Watermark Detection be Public?
arXiv:2610.12106v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
Title:Could LLM Watermark Detection be Public?
Abstract: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.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.12106 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2610.12106v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.12106 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

Finding heterogeneous agent swarms in the wild
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026

Meta made its own AI detection system. It should have just used Google’s
The Verge · Jul 22, 2026
LiBRA: Detection-Aware Image Watermark Removal via Bidirectional Latent Optimization
arXiv · Oct 6, 2026