arXiv:2605.05503cs.CL2026-05被引 1

多步重写可大幅削弱扩散模型文本水印,5轮后检测率降至4.86%。

Chainwash: Multi-Step Rewriting Attacks on Diffusion Language Model Watermarks

论文配图:Chainwash: Multi-Step Rewriting Attacks on Diffusion Language Model Watermarks
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用4个不同模型对水印文本进行多步重写,模拟真实篡改场景。
  • 5轮重写后水印检测率降至4.86%,94.76%原被标记文本逃逸检测。
  • 重写次数越多,检测分数越接近随机水平,攻击效果显著累积。

统计水印是验证文本是否由语言模型生成的常用方法。现有方案多基于自回归生成,即从左到右逐词生成,上下文哈希定义清晰。而扩散语言模型以任意顺序去噪生成文本,使传统方案无法直接应用。近期Gloaguen等提出的水印方案在LLaDA 8B Instruct上实现了超过99%的真阳性检测率。本文研究水印文本被多次重写后的鲁棒性。在五个WaterBench领域中,生成1,605条约300词的水印完成文本。每条文本由四个参数规模1.5B至8B、不掌握水印密钥的开源模型进行重写,测试五种风格:改写、人性化、简化、学术化、总结扩展。每种风格最多链式重写五次,共生成160,500条重写文本。在标准显著性阈值下,原始输出水印检测率为87.9%;单次重写后下降至14%-41%;五轮链式重写后降至4.86%,意味着94.76%原被检测文本不再被标记。三次重写后,检测分数已向零假设分布下降了86%。结果表明,重复重写是比单次重写更强的攻击方式,且在所有四类重写器中均成立。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Statistical watermarking is a common approach for verifying whether text was written by a language model. Most existing schemes assume autoregressive generation, where tokens are produced left to right and contextual hashing is well defined. Diffusion language models generate text by denoising tokens in arbitrary order, so these schemes cannot be applied directly. A recent watermark by Gloaguen et al. addresses this gap for LLaDA 8B Instruct and reports true positive detection above 99%. This paper studies what happens when watermarked text is rewritten not once but several times. Using the same watermark configuration, 1,605 watermarked completions of about 300 tokens each are produced across five WaterBench domains. Each completion is rewritten by four open weight language models, from 1.5B to 8B parameters, none of which know the watermark key. Five rewrite styles are tested: paraphrase, humanize, simplify, academic, and summarize expand. Each style is chained for up to five hops, producing 160,500 rewritten texts in total. The watermark is detected on 87.9% of the original outputs at the standard significance threshold. After a single rewrite, detection falls to between 14% and 41% depending on the rewriter and style. After five chained rewrites, detection falls to 4.86%, meaning 94.76% of the originally detected texts are no longer flagged. After three rewrites, the detector score has dropped 86% of the way from its watermarked baseline toward the null distribution. Repeated rewriting is therefore a much stronger attack than a single rewrite, and the result holds across all four rewriters tested.

文本水印扩散模型对抗攻击大模型安全

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。