PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Towards the Vulnerability of Watermarking Artificial Intelligence Generated Content

Guanlin Li, Yifei Chen, Jie Zhang, Jiwei Li, Shangwei Guo, Tianwei Zhang

fairness, safety & privacycontent watermarkgenerative modelAIGC
14.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
9.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
25.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) is gaining great popularity in social media, with many commercial services available. These services leverage advanced generative models, such as latent diffusion models and large language models, to generate creative content (e.g., realistic images, fluent sentences) for users. The usage of such generated content needs to be highly regulated, as the service providers need to ensure the users do not violate the usage policies (e.g., abuse for commercialization, generating and distributing unsafe content). Numerous watermarking approaches have been proposed recently. However, in this paper, we show that an adversary can easily break these watermarking mechanisms. Specifically, we consider two possible attacks. (1) Watermark removal: the adversary can easily erase the embedded watermark from the generated content and then use it freely without the regulation of the service provider. (2) Watermark forge: the adversary can create illegal content with forged watermarks from another user, causing the service provider to make wrong attributions. We propose WMaGi, a unified framework to achieve both attacks in a holistic way. The key idea is to leverage a pre-trained diffusion model for content processing, and a generative adversarial network for watermark removing or forging. We evaluate WMaGi on different datasets and embedding setups. The results prove that it can achieve high success rates while maintaining the quality of the generated content. Compared with existing diffusion model-based attacks, WMaGi is 5,050$\sim$11,000$\times$ faster.

Author context

Most prolific author: 9 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

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 40% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)