aiqbench analysis
This study critically examines the impact of LLM watermarking schemes on clinical reasoning quality, revealing that standard benchmarks often mask significant degradations like lexical corruption and hallucinated terminology in medical contexts. The authors demonstrate a rigorous evaluation pipeline showing that domain-specific analysis is essential to prevent clinically consequential failures when deploying watermarked models in healthcare workflows.
Marking the Wrong Symptoms: Evaluating LLM Watermarks in Medical Texts
arXiv:2607.20462v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows, stressing the need for reliable traceability of model-generated output with watermarking. Yet, most watermarks are evaluated on general-purpose benchmarks, leaving domains like medicine, where small token-level perturbations can result in significant semantic changes, underexplored. In this work, we present the first rigorous study of how LLM watermarks affect medical performance, benchmarking 5 watermarking schemes across 11 LLMs and 7 VLMs on various tasks spanning unimodal and multimodal clinical reasoning. Importantly, we complement existing evaluations by introducing a human-expert-validated pipeline for systematically auditing medical reasoning quality, terminological precision, and induced hallucinations. Our results reveal that watermarking can induce substantial degradation across multiple failure modes, including lexical corruption, hallucinated terminology, and amplified misattribution or omission of image findings. Notably, we find that the absence of domain-specific analyses, combined with aggregate metrics that miss failures inherent to clinical text, can systematically obscure practical watermark-induced degradations. Our findings establish domain-specific evaluation as a prerequisite for the safe deployment of watermarked models in medicine, where current benchmarks can otherwise mask clinically consequential failures.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows, stressing the need for reliable traceability of model-generated output with watermarking. Yet, most watermarks are evaluated on general-purpose benchmarks, leaving domains like medicine, where small token-level perturbations can result in significant semantic changes, underexplored. In this work, we present the first rigorous study of how LLM watermarks affect medical performance, benchmarking 5 watermarking schemes across 11 LLMs and 7 VLMs on various tasks spanning unimodal and multimodal clinical reasoning. Importantly, we complement existing evaluations by introducing a human-expert-validated pipeline for systematically auditing medical reasoning quality, terminological precision, and induced hallucinations. Our results reveal that watermarking can induce substantial degradation across multiple failure modes, including lexical corruption, hallucinated terminology, and amplified misattribution or omission of image findings. Notably, we find that the absence of domain-specific analyses, combined with aggregate metrics that miss failures inherent to clinical text, can systematically obscure practical watermark-induced degradations. Our findings establish domain-specific evaluation as a prerequisite for the safe deployment of watermarked models in medicine, where current benchmarks can otherwise mask clinically consequential failures.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.20462 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.20462v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20462 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 · 272 words
