Papers › Is The Watermarking Of LLM-Generated Code Robust?

Is The Watermarking Of LLM-Generated Code Robust?

24 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.17983archive 2025-07-28

Tarun Suresh, Shubham Ugare, Gagandeep Singh, Sasa Misailovic

We present the first in depth study on the robustness of existing watermarking techniques applied to code generated by large language models (LLMs). As LLMs increasingly contribute to software development, watermarking has emerged as a potential solution for detecting AI generated code and mitigating misuse, such as plagiarism or the automated generation of malicious programs. While previous research has demonstrated the resilience of watermarking in the text setting, our work reveals that watermarking techniques are significantly more fragile in code-based contexts. Specifically, we show that simple semantic-preserving transformations, such as variable renaming and dead code insertion, can effectively erase watermarks without altering the program's functionality. To systematically evaluate watermark robustness, we develop an algorithm that traverses the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) of a watermarked program and applies a sequence of randomized, semantics-preserving transformations. Our experimental results, conducted on Python code generated by different LLMs, indicate that even minor modifications can drastically reduce watermark detectability, with true positive rates (TPR) dropping below 50% in many cases. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/uiuc-arc/llm-code-watermark.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

16 samples harvested; 14 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from uiuc-arc/llm-code-watermark. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections