Agent systems deployed in dynamic environments continuously update their memories, skills, and runtime configurations, leading to evolving trajectories and challenges for persistent identity authentication. Existing text and agent watermarking methods struggle to achieve stable watermark embedding under dynamic environments, while embedded watermarks may become difficult to recover due to environmental changes. This paper proposes DASMark, an identity watermarking framework for dynamic agent systems. DASMark introduces Action-Preserving Embedding (APE), which learns semantically similar but distinguishable decision-expression channels from diverse interaction trajectories to enable stable watermark embedding in dynamic systems. It further introduces Shift-Robust Recovery (SRR) to mitigate context-induced shifts and improve watermark recovery stability under dynamic environments. In dynamic settings, DASMark achieves 98.5% bit-decoding accuracy and maintains 95.2% accuracy under attack scenarios, while preserving task utility comparable to unwatermarked agents.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Identity watermark recovery under dynamic agent evolution. Dynamic updates to memory, skills, prompts, and experience shift decision-expression distributions and challenge watermark recovery. DASMark preserves tool actions during embedding and uses SRR with relative score comparison to achieve stable recovery from final trajectories.
Figure 2: Overview of DASMark. DASMark consists of three stages: watermark signal construction, action-preserving embedding, and shift-robust recovery. In the offline stage, DASMark discovers stable decision-expression variations from real interaction states, learns two decision-expression channels, and trains a receiver using generated covers. During deployment, identity bits are embedded through channel ordering without changing tool actions, and recovered through relative score comparison between adjacent covers under dynamic context shifts.
Figure 3: Training process of DASMark. DASMark first learns two distinguishable decision-expression channels under the same state and fixed action, and then trains the decoder to recover watermark bits through relative score comparison.
Method
Telecom
CRMArena-Pro
Retail
Steps ↓
SR ↑
Bit Acc. ↑
Steps ↓
SR ↑
Bit Acc. ↑
Steps ↓
SR ↑
Bit Acc. ↑
No-Mem
Base
4.82
38.60%
—
6.95
14.00%
—
12.96
67.50%
—
KGW
5.59
27.30%
92.70%
6.00
14.00%
93.30%
13.00
57.50%
87.12%
AM-F
9.86
29.30%
100.00%
8.50
12.00%
100.00%
15.69
32.50%
100.00%
AM-F ∗
—
—
40.30%
—
—
24.10%
—
—
40.00%
Table 1: Watermark recovery and task utility across three domains and four runtime backends. Steps denotes average successful-task trajectory length, SR denotes task success rate, and Bit Acc. denotes bit accuracy. AM-F ∗ uses re-elicited probabilities; “—” indicates an inapplicable metric.
Method
Telecom
CRMArena-Pro
Retail
Rew.
Del.
Syn.
Rew.
Del.
Syn.
Rew.
Del.
Syn.
AM-F
21.50%
27.87%
35.33%
74.30%
2.71%
11.03%
42.25%
28.00%
29.17%
KGW
58.90%
69.51%
79.39%
79.28%
78.55%
84.02%
66.20%
68.23%
76.99%
DAS
58.05%
77.62%
82.82%
88.20%
80.22%
85.56%
74.62%
79.32%
80.78%
DAS-R
61.05%
79.18%
81.79%
89.05%
82.93%
87.23%
77.40%
87.12%
87.48%
Table 2: Bit accuracy under trajectory perturbations, averaged over four runtime backends. Rew., Del., and Syn. denote semantic rewriting, token deletion, and synonym substitution, respectively. Del. and Syn. are averaged over attack rates of 10–60%. DAS-R uses a robustness-enhanced receiver.
Figure 4: Bit accuracy of relative and repeated encoding and decoding strategies across four runtime backends on Telecom. Both strategies use two covers per bit.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Metric
DASMark
Base
Retail
Steps ↓
13.18
13.15
Bit Acc ↑
98.5%
–
SR ↑
67.5%
67.5%
ToolBench
Steps ↓
3.13
3.59
Bit Acc ↑
94.8%
–
SR ↑
80.0%
79.0%
Appendix
Table 3: OOD transfer evaluation from Retail to ToolBench. DASMark is trained on Retail and directly transferred to 100 ToolBench tasks without additional training. Steps denotes the average trajectory length, SR denotes task success rate, and Bit Acc denotes watermark decoding accuracy.
Method
No-Mem
A-MEM
Memento
Harness
AM-F
17.20%
10.40%
13.60%
5.80%
KGW
59.40%
55.60%
58.50%
59.50%
DASMark
54.80%
70.70%
83.80%
67.40%
Appendix
Table 4: Bit accuracy of Qwen3.5-4B under two rounds of semantic rewriting across four runtime backends using Qwen3.5-4B. Bold values indicate the best performance in each backend.
Method
Qwen3.5-4B
Qwen3.5-9B
Performance Gap ( Δ : 4B − 9B)
Steps ↓
SR ↑
Bit Acc. ↑
Steps ↓
SR ↑
Bit Acc. ↑
Steps
SR (pp)
Bit Acc. (pp)
No-Mem
Base
4.43
4.67%
–
4.82
38.60%
–
-0.39
-33.93
–
KGW
4.10
6.67%
92.40%
5.59
27.30%
92.70%
-1.49
-20.63
-0.30
AM-F
7.33
2.00%
100.00%
9.86
29.30%
100.00%
-2.53
-27.30
0.00
DASMark
5.29
8.67%
100.00%
5.29
32.00%
94.40%
0.00
-23.33
+5.60
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison across Qwen3.5 model sizes under four runtime backends. Steps denotes the average trajectory length among successful tasks, SR denotes task success rate, and Bit Acc. denotes watermark decoding accuracy. The performance gap is computed as Qwen3.5-4B minus Qwen3.5-9B, with accuracy differences reported in percentage points (pp). Bold values indicate the best performance for each metric within each backend and model size, including ties.
Method
Backend
Token Deletion Rate
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No-Mem
68.80%
43.80%
27.60%
16.10%
9.90%
5.20%
A-MEM
76.50%
51.30%
37.40%
19.10%
8.70%
4.30%
Memento
75.80%
47.00%
30.30%
19.70%
7.60%
6.10%
AgentMark-F
Evolving Harness
71.20%
50.00%
36.50%
23.10%
19.20%
1.90%
No-Mem
91.60%
82.90%
75.50%
66.80%
61.40%
58.70%
Appendix
Table 6: Bit accuracy of Qwen3.5-4B under token deletion across four runtime backends and deletion rates from 10% to 60%. Bold values indicate the best performance for each backend and deletion rate.
Method
No-Mem
A-MEM
Memento
Evolving Harness
AM-F
29.80%
28.50%
11.80%
15.90%
KGW
54.90%
60.60%
59.50%
60.60%
DASMark
51.80%
53.10%
65.10%
62.20%
DASMark-R
54.40%
61.20%
58.70%
69.90%
Appendix
Table 7: Complete robustness results on Telecom under (a) paraphrasing, (b) token deletion (10–60%), and (c) synonym substitution (10–60%) across four runtime backends. Values denote bit-decoding accuracy. DASMark-R uses a robustness-enhanced receiver. Bold values mark the best accuracy for each backend and attack setting (including ties).
Method
No-Mem
A-MEM
Memento
Evolving Harness
AM-F
41.70%
48.50%
26.30%
52.50%
KGW
65.90%
66.40%
71.20%
61.30%
DASMark
81.10%
73.60%
68.80%
75.00%
DASMark-R
81.80%
79.20%
71.20%
77.40%
Appendix
Table 8: Complete robustness results on Retail under (a) paraphrasing, (b) token deletion (10–60%), and (c) synonym substitution (10–60%) across four runtime backends. Values denote bit-decoding accuracy. DASMark-R uses a robustness-enhanced receiver. Bold values mark the best accuracy for each backend and attack setting (including ties).
Method
No-Mem
A-MEM
Memento
Evolving Harness
AM-F
76.40%
70.00%
70.50%
80.30%
KGW
76.80%
77.60%
80.30%
82.40%
DASMark
88.40%
88.70%
88.30%
87.40%
DASMark-R
84.50%
89.10%
90.40%
92.20%
Appendix
Table 9: Complete robustness results on CRMArena-Pro under (a) paraphrasing, (b) token deletion (10–60%), and (c) synonym substitution (10–60%) across four runtime backends. Values denote bit-decoding accuracy. DASMark-R uses a robustness-enhanced receiver. Bold values mark the best accuracy for each backend and attack setting (including ties).
Artificial intelligence agent security studies attacks and safeguards for tool-using, persistent, and collaborative systems across digital and physical settings.
LLM-based agents act through sequences of executable decisions, but their trajectories provide little evidence of which agent or policy produced them, making provenance, ownership, and unauthorized reuse difficult to establish from observed behavior alone. This motivates watermarking signals embedded directly into agent behavior rather than only into generated text, since text watermarking cannot capture the action-level decisions that define agent execution. Recent agent watermarking methods address this gap by moving the watermark from generated text to behavioral choices. However, by treating each action step as an independent trial, they overlook trajectory structure and become fragile when trajectories are perturbed, truncated, or observed without reliable alignment. We propose SeqWM, a sequential behavioral watermarking framework that embeds signals into history-conditioned transition patterns and verifies trajectories position-agnostically against random-key baselines. Experiments across diverse agent benchmarks and LLM backbones show that SeqWM consistently achieves reliable detection while preserving agent utility, and remains robust under trajectory corruption where round-indexed behavioral watermarks collapse.
Hyeseon An, Shinwoo Park, Dongsu Kim +1
Department of Computer Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
Behavioral watermarking embeds an owner identifier in an LLM agent's high-level action choices, giving provenance without touching output tokens. Prior agent watermarks break in two ways. First, all three prior schemes bind the watermark to the exact action symbol, so renaming a tool desynchronizes decoding even when the observation is untouched; in AgentMark's own robustness test, paraphrasing the observation alone drops bit-recovery to 16.8%. Second, every prior agent watermark studies only removal: none asks whether an adversary can forge a trajectory that verifies as someone else's, a question answered affirmatively for text watermarks (Jovanović et al., 2024). We present Semantic Behavioral Watermarking (SBW): watermarking over semantic action clusters under history conditioning, with the public-cluster bin replaced by keyed collision-resistant binning whose fresh-bucket assignment is provably unpredictable in the random-oracle model. Across five agent models (3B-14B, four vendors) and three encoders the ordering holds on both benchmarks: on ToolBench (600 trajectories per model) detection under rewriting is 0.49-0.66 for cluster-level versus 0.05-0.17 for exact-symbol at a permutation-calibrated 1% FPR, at 72-83% choice agreement against 22-27% for logit biasing; on ALFWorld (100 episodes per model) it is 0.92-0.97 versus 0.00-0.01. Keyed binning takes adaptive forgery from 100% to the false-positive floor at the primary operating point (bge, r=64). We also mark the boundary that guarantee does not cover: when the adversary copies the victim's own steps, shuffled splicing is neutralized (0.000 on Qwen2.5-3B) but chained replay remains at 0.76-0.98 across the five models, reported as open. Paraphrase robustness costs about half of the per-step watermark capacity. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SBW-Agent-Watermark.
Suxin Ji, Hungtao Wan, Shaoxuan Chen +1
University of Pennsylvania · Independent Researcher · University of Massachusetts Amherst +1
LLM agents rely heavily on high-quality trajectory data to guide their problem-solving behaviors, yet producing such data requires substantial task design, high-capacity model generation, and manual filtering. Despite the high cost of creating these datasets, existing literature has overlooked copyright protection for LLM agent trajectories. This gap leaves creators vulnerable to data theft and makes it difficult to trace misuse or enforce ownership rights. This paper introduces ActHook, the first watermarking method tailored for agent trajectory datasets. Inspired by hook mechanisms in software engineering, ActHook embeds hook actions that are activated by a secret input key and do not alter the original task outcome. Like software execution, LLM agents operate sequentially, allowing hook actions to be inserted at decision points without disrupting task flow. When the activation key is present, an LLM agent trained on watermarked trajectories can produce these hook actions at a significantly higher rate, enabling reliable black-box detection. Experiments on mathematical reasoning, web searching, and software engineering agents show that ActHook achieves an average detection AUC of 94.3 on Qwen-2.5-Coder-7B while incurring negligible performance degradation.
Wenlong Meng, Chen Gong, Terry Yue Zhuo +6
Zhejiang University, China · University of Virginia, USA · Alibaba Qwen, China +1