A Comprehensive Survey on Linguistic Steganography: Methods, Countermeasures, Evaluation, and Challenges
Organizations: Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University · School of Cyberspace Security, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Abstract
Linguistic steganography hides secret messages in natural language text. Large language models (LLMs) have reshaped the field, but a systematic account of how these scattered advances collectively reshape the field in this new era is still missing. We provide one along four axes: 148 steganographic methods, 60 linguistic steganalysis countermeasures, 23 evaluation metrics, and 9 open challenges, each with taxonomies, reviews, and adoption analyses. Cutting across these axes, we identify five specific paradigm shifts in the LLM era: (1) from covertext modification to prompt-only generation, (2) from heuristic to provable security, (3) from white-box symmetric LMs to black-box or asymmetric access, (4) from security-centric designs to joint optimization, and (5) from text-quality concerns to engineering issues. The survey aims to serve as both a reference and a roadmap for practical and responsible linguistic steganography in the LLM era.
Figures & tables
| Survey | Year | Steganographic methods | Steganalysis methods | Evaluation metrics | |||
| Number | Categories (L1/L2/L3) | Number | Categories (L1/L2) | Number | Categories (L1/L2) | ||
| Majeed et al. (2021) | 2021 | 50 | 3 | – | – | – | – |
| Xiang et al. (2022b) | 2022 | 37 | 4/11/– | – | – | 11 | 4/– |
| Badawy et al. (2023) | 2022 | 18 | – | – | – | 12 | 3/– |
| Wu et al. (2024a) | 2023 | 28 | 2/4/8 | 29 | 2/7 | 8 | – |
| Ours | 2026 | 148 | 2/6/17 | 60 | 2/8 | 23 | 3/6 |
| Survey | Steganalysis taxonomy | Evaluation taxonomy | Robustness consideration | Analyses of targeted metrics | Analyses of metric adoption | Analyses of steganalysis adoption | Features of the LLM era |
| Majeed et al. (2021) | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Xiang et al. (2022b) | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Badawy et al. (2023) | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Wu et al. (2024a) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Ours | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Method | Dist. unchanged (KL = 0)? | Complexity (per token) | Mode |
| ADG Zhang et al. (2021b) | ✗ | Stream | |
| Meteor Kaptchuk et al. (2021) | ✗ | , with reorder | Stream |
| iMEC de Witt et al. (2023) | ✓ | Block | |
| Discop Ding et al. (2023) | ✓ | , with reorder | Stream |
| SparSamp Wang et al. (2025a) | ✓ | Block | |
| RRC Yan and Murawaki (2026) | ✓ | , with reorder | Block |
| Method | Strict 100% correctness? | Dist. unchanged (KL = 0)? | Complexity (per token) |
| Basic Nozaki and Murawaki (2022) | ✓ | ✗ | |
| MWIS Yan et al. (2023) | ✓ | ✗ | |
| All-case verification Yan et al. (2024a) | ✗ | ✓ | |
| SyncPool Qi et al. (2025a) | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Stepwise verification Yan and Murawaki (2025) | ✓ | ✗ | |
| ReTokSync Wang et al. (2026a) | ✗ | ✓ |
| Method | Training-free? | LoRA-based fine tuning? | Technique keyword |
| Yang et al. (2024a) | ✗ | ✓ | Human-like perception |
| Bai et al. (2024a) | ✓ | ✗ | Few shots; black box |
| Tang et al. (2025) | ✗ | ✓ | Generation-classification hybrid |
| Wang et al. (2025d) | ✗ | ✓ | Knowledge graphs |
| Barlow (2026) | ✗ | ✓ | Multi-feature extraction |
| Feature | Steganography | Cryptography | Watermarking |
| Goal | Hide the existence of communication | Protect the content of communication | Assert ownership or authenticity |
| Carrier | Multimedia | Plaintext ciphertext | Multimedia |
| Visibility | Definitely not (ideally undetectable) | Obvious (ciphertext is visible) | Optional (depending on the watermarking type) |
| Adversary | Detect whether a given object contains hidden information | Recover the plaintext or secret key from the ciphertext | Destroy, alter, or remove the embedded watermark without significantly degrading the carrier quality |
| Robustness | Important (but optional in some work) | Strong against brute force | Designed to withstand distortion |
| Uses | Covert messaging, censorship evasion | Secure communication, authentication | Copyright protection, forensic tracking, digital rights management (DRM) |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Year | Reference | Targeted metric(s) | Scenario(s) | Backbone model(s) | LLM-adaptable? | Training-free? | Asymmetric? | Black-box? |
| 2017 | Fang et al. (2017) | Security | General | LSTM | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| 2017 | Luo and Huang (2017) | Efficiency | Lyric | LSTM | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2018 | Yang et al. (2018) | Security | General | Markov | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Yang et al. (2019a) | Security | General | LSTM | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Ziegler et al. (2019) | Security | General | Model-agnostic | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Dai and Cai (2019) | Security | General | Model-agnostic | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Year | Reference | Backbone model | Based on pre-trained model(s)? | LLM-adaptable? | Experiments on IMDB dataset Maas et al. (2011) ? | Experiments on Twitter dataset Go et al. (2009) ? | Experiments on News dataset Kaggle (2017) ? | Experiments on other dataset(s)? |
| 2019 | Yang et al. (2019b) | Feed-forward neural networks | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 2019 | Niu et al. (2019) | Bi-LSTMs; CNNs | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Yang et al. (2019c) | Bi-RNNs; LSTMs | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Wen et al. (2019) | Word2vec; CNNs | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 2020 | Yang et al. (2020c) | CNNs | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 2020 | Yang et al. (2020a) | Bi-LSTMs | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Year | Reference | FCN Yang et al. (2019b) | CNN Wen et al. (2019) | R-BiLSTM-C Niu et al. (2019) | TS-RNN Yang et al. (2019c) | TS-CSW Yang et al. (2020c) | Other |
| 2017 | Fang et al. (2017) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2017 | Luo and Huang (2017) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2018 | Yang et al. (2018) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 2019 | Yang et al. (2019a) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 2019 | Ziegler et al. (2019) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Dai and Cai (2019) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Year | Reference | PPL | KLD (step-level) | KLD (text-level) | BLEU | ROUGE | METEOR | Diversity | Human evaluation | LLM-as-a-judge | Other |
| 2017 | Fang et al. (2017) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2017 | Luo and Huang (2017) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2018 | Yang et al. (2018) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Yang et al. (2019a) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 2019 | Ziegler et al. (2019) | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Dai and Cai (2019) | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Year | Reference | Bits per token | Entropy utilization | Embedding rate | Operation speed | Error rate |
| 2017 | Fang et al. (2017) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2017 | Luo and Huang (2017) | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2018 | Yang et al. (2018) | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Yang et al. (2019a) | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Ziegler et al. (2019) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 2019 | Dai and Cai (2019) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |