PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

WASA: WAtermark-based Source Attribution for Large Language Model-Generated Data

Xinyang Lu, Jingtan Wang, Zitong Zhao, Zhongxiang Dai, Chuan-Sheng Foo, See-Kiong Ng, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low

fairness, safety & privacyLarge Language ModelSource AttributionData Provenance
52.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
39.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
59.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

The impressive performances of large language models (LLMs) and their immense potential for commercialization have given rise to serious concerns over the intellectual property (IP) of their training data. In particular, the synthetic texts generated by LLMs may infringe the IP of the data being used to train the LLMs. To this end, it is imperative to be able to (a) identify the data provider who contributed to the generation of a synthetic text by an LLM (source attribution) and (b) verify whether the text data from a data provider has been used to train an LLM (data provenance). In this paper, we show that both problems can be solved by watermarking, i.e., by enabling an LLM to generate synthetic texts with embedded watermarks that contain information about their source(s). We identify the key properties of such watermarking frameworks (e.g., source attribution accuracy, robustness against adversaries), and propose a WAtermarking for Source Attribution (WASA) framework that satisfies these key properties due to our algorithmic designs. Our WASA framework enables an LLM to learn an accurate mapping from the texts of different data providers to their corresponding unique watermarks, which sets the foundation for effective source attribution (and hence data provenance). Extensive empirical evaluations show that our WASA framework achieves effective source attribution and data provenance.

Author context

Most prolific author: 13 submissions (credibility 0.57).

Delta if applied: -0.2 percentile

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 36 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 57% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)