arXiv:2604.13776cs.CYcs.CL2026-04中稿 · the Multimodal Ali…被引 1

AI内容水印存在语言文化偏见,需多维度公平评估

Who Gets Flagged? The Pluralistic Evaluation Gap in AI Content Watermarking

  • 提出跨语言、文化、人群的水印评估三维度
  • 现有基准普遍缺失多样性评估,仅1个例外
  • 呼吁水印部署前必须进行公平性审计

水印正成为AI内容认证的默认机制,但其信号强度、可检测性和鲁棒性依赖于内容本身的统计特性,而这些特性在不同语言、文化视觉传统及人口群体间系统性差异。我们分析了跨文本、图像、音频模态的主流水印基准,发现除一个例外外,均未报告在语言、文化内容类型或人口群体上的表现差异。为此,我们提出三个具体评估维度:跨语言检测一致性、文化多样性内容覆盖、检测指标的人口细分。我们认为水印是多元对齐流程的一部分,应接受同等评估标准。当前监管框架要求部署水印却未要求公平性评估,我们主张评估应先于部署,且模型的偏见审计要求应延伸至验证层。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

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 argue that watermarking is part of the pluralistic alignment pipeline and should be held to the same evaluation standards. We connect this to governance frameworks currently mandating watermarking deployment without requiring fairness evaluation. 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.

水印技术公平性评估多模态AI

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。