Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Thibaud Gloaguen

dblp:378/4664 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
2 papers
Digital forensics and information hiding · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › machine-generated text detection
black-box detection
0.912025
Black-Box Detection of Language Model Watermarks · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
watermarking
0.912025
Black-Box Detection of Language Model Watermarks · ICLR 2025
Digital forensics and information hiding › watermarking › generative model watermarking
language model watermarking
0.912025
Discovering Spoofing Attempts on Language Model Watermarks · ICML 2025
Digital forensics and information hiding › watermarking › watermarking security › watermark attack
watermark forgery
0.912025
Discovering Spoofing Attempts on Language Model Watermarks · ICML 2025
Digital forensics and information hiding
watermarking
0.912025
Black-Box Detection of Language Model Watermarks · ICLR 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

statistical hypothesis testing · 2.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Black-Box Detection of Language Model Watermarks
abstract
Watermarking has emerged as a promising way to detect LLM-generated text, by augmenting LLM generations with later detectable signals. Recent work has proposed multiple families of watermarking schemes, several of which focus on preserving the LLM distribution. This distribution-preservation property is motivated by the fact that it is a tractable proxy for retaining LLM capabilities, as well as the inherently implied undetectability of the watermark by downstream users. Yet, despite much discourse around undetectability, no prior work has investigated the practical detectability of any of the current watermarking schemes in a realistic black-box setting. In this work we tackle this for the first time, developing rigorous statistical tests to detect the presence, and estimate parameters, of all three popular watermarking scheme families, using only a limited number of black-box queries. We experimentally confirm the effectiveness of our methods on a range of schemes and a diverse set of open-source models. Further, we validate the feasibility of our tests on real-world APIs. Our findings indicate that current watermarking schemes are more detectable than previously believed.
Thibaud Gloaguen, Nikola Jovanovic 0001, Robin Staab, Martin T. Vechev
ICLR1
2025 Discovering Spoofing Attempts on Language Model Watermarks
abstract
LLM watermarks stand out as a promising way to attribute ownership of LLM-generated text. One threat to watermark credibility comes from spoofing attacks, where an unauthorized third party forges the watermark, enabling it to falsely attribute arbitrary texts to a particular LLM. Despite recent work demonstrating that state-of-the-art schemes are, in fact, vulnerable to spoofing, no prior work has focused on post-hoc methods to discover spoofing attempts. In this work, we for the first time propose a reliable statistical method to distinguish spoofed from genuinely watermarked text, suggesting that current spoofing attacks are less effective than previously thought. In particular, we show that regardless of their underlying approach, all current learning-based spoofing methods consistently leave observable artifacts in spoofed texts, indicative of watermark forgery. We build upon these findings to propose rigorous statistical tests that reliably reveal the presence of such artifacts and thus demonstrate that a watermark has been spoofed. Our experimental evaluation shows high test power across all learning-based spoofing methods, providing insights into their fundamental limitations and suggesting a way to mitigate this threat.
Thibaud Gloaguen, Nikola Jovanovic 0001, Robin Staab, Martin T. Vechev
ICML1