Watermarking schemes for large language model output are evaluated almost exclusively on English text using each scheme's detection threshold and a narrow set of quality measurements. Multilingual deployment exposes evaluation-design choices that are inconsequential on English but determine conclusions cross-lingually.
arXiv:2608. 20047v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Watermarking schemes for large language model output are evaluated almost exclusively on English text using each scheme's detection threshold and a narrow set of quality measurements.
arXiv:2606. 00613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Watermarking should identify language-model output without degrading quality or limiting verification to the model provider.
arXiv:2601. 11629v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We demonstrate that while the current approaches for language model watermarking are effective for open-ended generation, they are inadequate at watermarking LM outputs for constrained generation tasks with low-entropy output spaces.
arXiv:2606. 18430v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Statistical watermarks help organizations attribute large language model (LLM) outputs, yet existing detectors often struggle when watermark signals are weak, texts are repetitive, or watermarks are edited.
arXiv:2607. 05694v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Logit-based watermarking is a widely used mechanism for identifying LLM generated content, yet its effectiveness is governed by a fundamental trade-off between detectability and semantic distortion.
The paper investigates how to fairly compare language models across languages, noting that current evaluation methods vary widely and lack empirical validation. By training controlled monolingual models on parallel data and testing multilingual LLMs, the authors find that many normalized metrics suffer from biases due to tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. Instead, they recommend using sentence‑level negative log‑likelihood over semantically equivalent sequences for more reliable cross‑lingual comparisons.
arXiv:2512. 13325v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Securing digital text is becoming increasingly relevant due to the widespread use of large language models.
arXiv:2608. 13695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model providers routinely cite multilingual safety benchmarks spanning a dozen or more languages as evidence that their models are safe for non-English-speaking users.
arXiv:2606. 08451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety-aligned large language models often exhibit sycophancy, which is the tendency to affirm users' opinions regardless of factual accuracy.
Large language models are increasingly deployed as general-purpose educational and technical assistance systems, but their underlying infrastructure does not treat languages equally. One underexamined source of disparity is tokenization: semantically equivalent content can require substantially different token counts across languages, affecting API cost, latency, and usable context length before a model is invoked.
arXiv:2607. 18445v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Regulatory regimes such as the EU AI Act mandate machine-readable marking of synthetic text, but existing watermark detectors rely on the generating LM and on heuristic thresholds with no closed-form calibration.
arXiv:2608. 11002v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Text-to-image (T2I) generation has achieved remarkable progress in recent years.