Organizations: Key Laboratory of Computing Power Network and Information Security, Ministry of Education; Shandong Computer Science Center; Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Industrial Network and Information System Security; Shandong Fundamental Research Center for Computer Science; Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan 250353, China · Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong (Dongguan), Dongguan, Guangdong 518057, China · Institute of Cybersecurity and Cryptology (iC2), University of Wollongong, Australia · School of Information Science and Engineering, Dalian Polytechnic University, Dalian 116034, China
Removing an invisible watermark and concealing the forensic evidence are distinct objectives: successfully disrupting the embedded watermark does not imply that the removal process is forensically undetectable. When verification fails, removal traces can provide complementary evidence for provenance and ownership verification, whereas their absence leaves the cause of the failure ambiguous. Existing methods are typically evaluated by watermark suppression and perceptual quality, while forensic stealth is rarely considered. We therefore study watermark-attack-specific few-shot forensics: for each known pipeline, a specialist can separate its outputs from paired clean and unattacked watermarked controls. Separate Attack-vs-Clean and Attack-vs-Watermarked evaluations prevent watermark-presence shortcuts. Image-aligned and prompt-matched controls are used for post-hoc and generator-integrated schemes, respectively. In this work, we introduce RemTraceNet, which fuses constrained residuals, local relations, FFT/Haar statistics, and block-DCT evidence at native resolution. Across 23 removal pipelines and 10 watermark configurations, we evaluate native 256 x 256 and 512 x 512 inputs. With 100 attacked training images per pipeline, the three-seed TPR@1%FPR, macro-averaged over attacks and watermark configurations, ranges from 82.75% to 88.17% across resolutions and control types. Under the condition of same labels and protocol, RemTraceNet outperforms retrained SRNet, ZhuNet, and SiaStegNet baselines by 10.80--15.68 percentage points. Extensive experimental results show that erasing a watermark and erasing evidence of its removal are distinct challenges, and that removal traces remain learnable under limited supervision.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: RemTraceNet overview. One specialist is selected for a known pipeline, while the image input contains no pipeline or watermark identity. Four global views are fused by learned gates; dense relation and DCT maps form a local Top- k MIL decision. Equal weighting of the global and local logits produces the probability that the image was processed.
Symbol
Meaning
Symbol
Meaning
q
Pairing unit
c , p
Source identity and prompt
w , a
Watermark configuration and specified pipeline
Ww , Ka
Watermark embedding and pipeline operators
G0 , Gw
Clean and watermarked generators
ξ0 , ξw
Generation random variables
xc , xq0
Source image and paired clean control
xq,w , xq,w,a+
Unattacked and processed watermarked images
y
Binary label: processed 1 , control 0
fa(x)=s
Logit of the specialist for pipeline a
Tclean , Twm
Clean- and watermarked-control evaluation slices
n
Number of complete training triplets
Table 1: Symbols used in the problem formulation and method.
Res.
Negative
AUROC (All)
TPR@1%FPR (All)
TPR@1%FPR (Seen)
TPR@1%FPR (Unseen)
256
Clean
98.21±0.09
87.35±0.90
91.28±0.98
83.43±0.90
256
Watermarked
98.01±0.06
88.17±0.36
92.03±0.88
84.31±0.56
512
Clean
96.44±0.62
82.75±1.19
82.97±1.80
82.53±0.58
512
Watermarked
96.68±0.69
82.88±1.74
85.62±2.40
80.13±1.44
Table 2: Main test-ROC results with n=100 training triplets per attack, reported as mean ± standard deviation (%) over three seeds, with “All” averaging five seen and five unseen watermarks.
Figure 2: Qualitative forensic traces across nine attacks, showing the clean, watermarked, and attacked images, the amplified attacked–watermarked residual ( ×15 ), and the native local-decision response for the same input.
Figure 3: Attack-family detection with n=100 complete training triplets per attack. Cells report three-seed macro AUROC while keeping native resolution and negative role separate. Panel (a) compares seen and unseen watermarks; panel (b) compares built-in (generator-integrated) and post-hoc configurations. Family and group means macro-average independently computed metrics for each attack and watermark.
Res.
Negative
SRNet
ZhuNet
SiaStegNet
RemTraceNet
256
Clean
61.46
69.04
75.69
86.49
256
Watermarked
63.33
68.34
75.40
87.77
512
Clean
51.61
61.80
70.25
84.12
512
Watermarked
53.35
62.37
69.05
84.73
Table 3: Seed-42 TPR@1%FPR (%) with n=100 complete training triplets per attack. Each entry macro-averages 23 attack operations and ten watermarks for the specified resolution and negative role. Every model is retrained from scratch on the same attack-specific forensic task. Best values are bold.
Model
Conventional distortions (12)
Learned compression/ VAE reconstruction (5)
Diffusion regeneration (3)
Latent-space inversion (1)
Watermark forgery (1)
Classical denoising (1)
SRNet
52.12
93.61
19.94
27.25
44.77
95.75
ZhuNet
60.84
91.44
46.08
21.12
63.65
93.75
SiaStegNet
57.54
98.44
79.92
69.05
79.60
98.70
RemTraceNet
82.67
94.38
82.77
78.08
88.75
93.85
Table 4: Seed-42 family-level empirical test-ROC TPR@1%FPR (%) with n=100 complete training triplets per attack. Entries macro-average slices defined by operation, watermark, resolution, and negative role; family operation counts appear in parentheses. Best values are bold.
Figure 4: Effective ablations. Only settings that reduce TPR@1%FPR in all four combinations of resolution and negative role are shown. Core-architecture and loss-suite points are three-seed means; clean-negative and global-DCT points use seed 42. Each point is the ablated setting minus its within-suite reference; negative values indicate degradation.
Current watermark removal methods are evaluated on two axes: attack success rate and perceptual quality. We show this is insufficient. While state-of-the-art attacks successfully degrade the watermark signal without visible distortion, they leave distinct statistical artifacts that betray the removal attempt. We name this overlooked axis Watermark Removal Detection (WRD) and demonstrate that a modern classifier trained on these artifacts achieves state-of-the-art detection rates at 10−3 FPR across every removal method tested. No existing attack accounts for this forensic leakage. We benchmark leading watermarking schemes against standard removal pipelines under the extended evaluation triple of attack success, perceptual quality, and forensic detectability, and find that no current method balances all three. Our results establish forensic stealthiness as a necessary requirement for watermark removal.
Watermarking combines an imperceptible change to an input image that will trigger a detector, to assert provenance and protect intellectual property. The literature has shown great interest in attacks on watermarking schemes: attackers are clearly motivated to steal copyrighted material or circumvent legislated deepfake protections. In this work, we make a simple-yet-powerful observation: that such attacks on watermarking-like watermarks themselves-seek an imperceptible change to an input image (now already watermarked) that will trigger a detector. This analogy comparing watermark attacks to watermarking itself is highly suggestive: that watermarks could be used to attack watermarks. Our first contribution validates this hypothesis. In rigorous experiments spanning 96 combinations of dataset, victim, and attack watermarks, we show that simply re-watermarking an already watermarked image reliably suppresses the original signal, without requiring gradients, surrogate models, or detection keys. Our second contribution is a simple classifier for detecting the presence and identity of an existing watermark in a given image. Surprisingly, experimental findings demonstrate outstanding overall accuracies 0.878-0.953. This result is of independent interest as a security vulnerability: research shows that method-specific attacks achieve substantially stronger removal than black-box attacks. Taken together, watermark identification combined with re-watermarking successfully reduces bit accuracy by at least 25% and up to 48%. Our work constitutes a cheap, generic, and highly effective attack pipeline, calling into question the reliability of current watermarking schemes to such a simple attack, as well as the value of existing sophisticated attacks.
Maria Bulychev, Neil G. Marchant, Benjamin I. P. Rubinstein
Invisible image watermarks are commonly evaluated against benign postprocessing operations such as compression, resizing, blur, and color changes. These tests leave out a different threat: a learned remover that preserves semantic image content while discarding residual evidence that carries the payload. We propose Disentangle and Drop (DnD), an attack that is agnostic to the watermark method and treats watermark removal as a representation routing problem. DnD decomposes a watermarked image into a semantic grayscale carrier and an auxiliary residual branch, and then suppresses the residual branch to reduce watermark evidence. The model is trained with latent spectral perturbations and low-strength diffusion exposure so that the drop operation remains stable under adaptive reconstruction. Experiments on seven representative watermark families show that one shared operating setting gives competitive removal with high visual fidelity. Operating scans and ablations separate usable attacks from image-damaging settings: stronger noise or diffusion can raise removal scores by damaging the image, while the practical regime comes from dropping the residual latent. These results argue for evaluating watermark robustness against learned removal at the representation level, not only against conventional image edits.
Qi Li, Jidong Yang, Feng-Lei Fan +7
Key Laboratory of Computing Power Network and Information Security, Ministry of Education; Shandong Computer Science Center; Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Industrial Network and Information System Security; and Shandong Fundamental Research Center for Computer Science, Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan 250353, China · Department of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · School of Computer and Information Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia +2