With the rapid growth of Large Language Models (LLMs), safeguarding textual content against unauthorized use is crucial. Watermarking offers a vital solution, protecting both - LLM-generated and plain text sources. This paper presents a unified overview of different perspectives behind designing watermarking techniques through a comprehensive survey of the research literature. Our work has two key advantages: (1) We analyze research based on the specific intentions behind different watermarking techniques, evaluation datasets used, and watermarking addition and removal methods to construct a cohesive taxonomy. (2) We highlight the gaps and open challenges in text watermarking to promote research protecting text authorship. This extensive coverage and detailed analysis sets our work apart, outlining the evolving landscape of text watermarking in Language Models.

Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, wepresent a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with “deficiency” labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) “LLMs as Reviewers”, how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) “LLMs as Metareviewers”, how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Recent studies show evidence for emergent cognitive abilities in Large Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs). The increasing cognitive alignment of these models has made them candidates for cognitive science theories. Prior research into the emergent cognitive abilities of PLMs has been path-independent to model training, i.e. has only looked at the final model weights and not the intermediate steps. However, building plausible models of human cognition using PLMs also requires aligning their performance during training to the developmental trajectories of children’s thinking. Guided by psychometric tests of human intelligence, we choose four task categories to investigate the alignment of ten popular families of PLMs and evaluate each of their available intermediate and final training steps: Numerical ability, Linguistic abilities, Conceptual understanding, and Fluid reasoning. We find a striking regularity: regardless of model size, the developmental trajectories of PLMs consistently exhibit a window of maximal alignment to human cognitive development. Before that window, training appears to endow models with the requisite structure to be poised to rapidly learn from experience. After that window, training appears to serve the engineering goal of reducing loss but not the scientific goal of increasing alignment with human cognition.