CLMay 11Code
Making Open-Source Text LLM Watermarks Durable Against MergingLuisa Scharff, Thibaud Gloaguen, Robin Staab et al.
Open-source LLMs (OSMs)arereaching near state-of-the-art performance, prompting prior works to trace the text they generate by embedding text watermarking algorithms directly into their weights. Yet, OSMs are subject to post-training modifications, which has been shown to remove the watermark. Model merging in particular, a prominent method used for combining expert knowledge and preventing catastrophic forgetting, strongly removes such OSM watermarks. A key question is how to enable OSM watermarks that survive subsequent merging. In this work, we show for the first time how to design an OSM watermark that is durable against model merging. We propose Merge-Adversarial Training, an adversarial training algorithm to distill text watermarks into model weights while being robust to subsequent model merging. Our approach consistently outperforms all baselines (e.g. with SLERP up to +51 percentage points (pp) TPR@1%FPR with +25 pp on average) while preserving downstream capabilities. We also for the first time evaluate OSM watermarks against realistic merge scenarios, representing common use-cases such as combining expert capabilities or preventing catastrophic forgetting, and with 3 prominent merging algorithms. More broadly, our findings suggest that adversarial training is a reliable approach for increasing OSM watermark durability against post-training modifications.
AIMay 16
Marking the Wrong Symptoms: Evaluating LLM Watermarks in Medical TextsMelanie Rieff, Robin Staab, Thibaud Gloaguen et al.
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.