Watermarkability: Measuring and Improving Language-Model Compatibility with Logit-Based Watermarks

Language model watermarking schemes fall into two broad categories: inference-time methods, which modify the decoding process at generation time, and model-embedded methods, which encode a secret signal directly into the model weights. Inference-time watermarking methods incur additional inference overhead and are not applicable in the increasingly prevalent open-weight model settings. In contrast, model-embedded watermarks introduce no additional inference latency-generation uses the standard sampling pipeline-and are particularly well-suited to open-weight settings. However, existing model-embedded approaches such as GaussMark face a fundamental quality-detectability trade-off: achieving strong detection power typically requires weight perturbations that noticeably degrade generation quality. Our key insight is that regularizing toward a high-quality reference distribution decouples quality preservation from proximity to the base model, enabling a better quality-detectability trade-off. Building on this insight, we introduce MarkTune, a theoretically grounded on-policy fine-tuning framework that uses the GaussMark detection statistic as a reward while preserving generation quality through cross-entropy on high-quality human text or KL divergence to a stronger oracle model. Empirically, MarkTune substantially improves the quality-detectability frontier of GaussMark, approaching the detectability of strong inference-time schemes while preserving generation quality and downstream task performance. Marktune also remains robust under the evaluated text-editing and open-weight attacks and generalizes across datasets, retaining substantial detection power on corpora unseen during training. Code is available at https://github.com/zhyzmath/MarkTune-LLM-Watermarking.

LLM fingerprinting via watermark distillation embeds a statistical watermark signal into model weights, enabling model owners to identify their models behind black-box APIs. Revisiting a recent protocol, we find that its utility evaluation understates text quality degradation in open-ended generation, favoring overly strong watermark teachers. Weakening the watermark improves text quality but sacrifices detectability. To move beyond this trade-off, we rethink whether text watermarks designed for verifying generated text are suitable distillation teachers for model fingerprinting. Such watermarks are typically designed to remain detectable from an individual output, limiting how sparse the watermark signal can be. In contrast, fingerprint verification can aggregate signal across queries, making sparser watermark signals viable. This raises a key question: where should the sparse signal be placed? We analyze signal placement through token surprisal and show that, even at comparable watermark strength, different placements can target tokens with different plausibility under the base model. This motivates near-tie restriction, which uses top-1-relative logit gaps to restrict the watermark bias to tokens close to the base model's top prediction. Across multiple models, near-tie improves detection--quality frontiers under deployment changes, preserves higher text quality across query budgets, and further improves existing watermarking schemes when combined with them.

As watermarking of LLM-generated text enters deployment, users increasingly need to check text whose source is unknown. Existing detectors read the watermark through a specific tokenizer or embedding pipeline, and even if all providers adopted the same watermarking method, differences in these representations would leave their watermarks incompatible, and the text alone does not reveal which representation produced it. We propose ByteMark, a unified watermarking scheme that defines its signal on the UTF-8 bytes of published text. Models with different tokenizers embed this signal under one public specification and key, and a single detector verifies the text from the text and key alone. When the tokenizer or embedding model of a baseline detector is replaced, its detection degrades sharply, whereas ByteMark, which uses neither, retains its detection rate; ByteMark also remains detectable when participating models continue or rewrite the text.