ProMark: Proactive Diffusion Watermarking for Causal Attribution

Abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) is transforming creative workflows through the capability to synthesize and manipulate images via high-level prompts. Yet creatives are not well supported to receive recognition or reward for the use of their content in GenAI training. To this end, we propose ProMark, a causal attribution technique to attribute a synthetically generated image to its training data concepts like objects, motifs, templates, artists, or styles. The concept information is proactively embedded into the input training images using imperceptible watermarks, and the diffusion models (unconditional or conditional) are trained to retain the corresponding watermarks in generated images. We show that we can embed as many as $2^{16}$ unique watermarks into the training data, and each training image can contain more than one watermark. ProMark can maintain image quality whilst outperforming correlation-based attribution. Finally, several qualitative examples are presented, providing the confidence that the presence of the watermark conveys a causative relationship between training data and synthetic images.

1 Introduction

GenAI is able to create high-fidelity synthetic images spanning diverse concepts, largely due to advances in diffusion models, e.g. DDPM [17], DDIM [21], LDM [26]. GenAI models, particularly diffusion models, have been shown to closely adopt and sometimes directly memorize the style and the content of different training images – defined as “concepts” in the training data [11, 19]. This leads to concerns from creatives whose work has been used to train GenAI. Concerns focus upon the lack of a means for attribution, e.g. recognition or citation, of synthetic images to the training data used to create them and extend even to calls for a compensation mechanism (financial, reputational, or otherwise) for GenAI’s derivative use of concepts in training images contributed by creatives.

Figure 1: Causative vs. correlation-based matching for concept attribution. ProMark identifies the training data most responsible for a synthetic image (‘attribution’). Correlation-based matching doesn’t always perform the data attribution properly. We propose ProMark, which is a proactive approach involving adding watermarks to training data and recovering them from the synthetic image to perform attribution in a causative way.

We refer to this problem as concept attribution – the ability to attribute generated images to the training concept/s which have most directly influenced their creation. Several passive techniques have recently been proposed to solve the attribution problem [5, 28, 32]. These approaches use visual correlation between the generated image and the training images for attribution. Whilst they vary in their method and rationale for learning the similarity embedding – all use some forms of contrastive training to learn a metric space for visual correlation.

We argue that although correlation can provide visually intuitive results, a measure of similarity is not a causative answer to whether certain training data is responsible for the generation of an image or not. Further, correlation-based techniques can identify close matches with images that were not even present in the training data.

Kee** this in mind, we explore an intriguing field of research which is develo** around proactive watermarking methodologies [35, 27, 31, 3], that employ signals, termed templates to encrypt input images before feeding them into the network. These works have integrated and subsequently retrieved templates to bolster the performance of the problem at hand. Inspired by these works, we introduce ProMark, a proactive watermarking-based approach for GenAI models to perform concept attribution in a causative way. The technical contributions of ProMark are three-fold:

1. Causal vs. Correlation-based Attribution. ProMark performs causal attribution of synthetic images to the predefined concepts in the training images that influenced the generation. Unlike prior works that visually correlate synthetic images with training data, we make no assumption that visual similarity approximates causation. ProMark ties watermarks to training images and scans for the watermarks in the generated images, enabling us to demonstrate rather than approximate/imply causation. This provides confidence in grounding downstream decisions such as legal attribution or payments to creators.

2. Multiple Orthogonal Attributions. We propose to use orthogonal invisible watermarks to proactively embed attribution information into the input training data and add a BCE loss during the training of diffusion models to retain the corresponding watermarks in the generated images. We show that ProMark causatively attributes as many as $2^{16}$ unique training-data concepts like objects, scenes, templates, motifs, and style, where the generated images can simultaneously express one or two orthogonal concepts.

3. Flexible Attributions. ProMark can be used for training conditional or unconditional diffusion models and even finetuning a pre-trained model for only a few iterations. We show that ProMark’s causative approach achieves higher accuracy than correlation-based attribution over five diverse datasets (Sec. 4.1): Adobe Stock, ImageNet, LSUN, Wikiart, and BAM while preserving synthetic image quality due to the imperceptibility of the watermarks.

Fig. 1 presents our scenario, where synthetic image(s) are attributed back to the most influential GenAI training images. Correlation-based techniques [5, 32] try to match the high-level image structure or style. Here, the green-lizard synthetic image is matched to a generic green image without a lizard [5]. With ProMark’s causative approach, the presence of the green-lizard watermark in the synthetic image will correctly indicate the influence of the similarly watermarked concept group of lizard training images.

2 Related Works

Table 1: Comparison of ProMark with prior works. Uniquely, we perform causative attribution using proactive watermarking to attribute multiple concepts. [Keys: emb.: embedding, obj.: object, own.: ownership, sem.: semantic, sty.: style, wat.: watermark]

Method Scheme Task Match # Class Multiple Attribution type type attribution type [28] passive attribution emb. - ✕ sty. [5] passive attribution emb. - ✕ obj. [32] passive attribution emb. $693$ ✕ sty., obj. [16] passive detect wat. $2$ ✕ - [20] passive detect wat. $2$ ✕ - [14] passive detect wat. $2$ ✕ - [31] proactive detect wat. $2$ - - [1] proactive detect wat. $2$ - - [3] proactive localization wat. $2$ - - [2] proactive obj. detect - $90$ - - sty., obj. ProMark proactive attribution wat. $2^{16}$ ✓ own., sem.

Passive Concept Attribution. Concept attribution differs from model [8] or camera [12] attribution in that the task is to determine the responsible training data for a given generation. Existing concept attribution techniques are passive – they do not actively modify the GenAI model or training data but instead, measure the visual similarity (under some definition) of synthetic images and training data to quantify attribution for each training image. EKILA [5] proposes patch-based perceptual hashing (visual fingerprinting [22, 6]) to match the style of the query patches to the training data for attribution. Wang et al. [32] finetune semantic embeddings like CLIP, DINO, etc. for the attribution task. Both [5] and [32] explore ALADIN [28] for style attribution. ALADIN is a feature representation for fine-grained style similarity learned using a weakly supervised approach.

All these works are regarded as passive approaches as they take the image as an attribute by correlating between generated and training image styles. Instead, our approach is a proactive scheme that adds a watermark to training images and performs attribution in a causal manner (Tab. 1).

Proactive Schemes. Proactive schemes involve adding a signal/perturbation onto the input images to benefit different tasks like deepfake tagging [31], deepfake detection [1], manipulation localization [3], object detection [2], etc. Some works [35, 27] disrupt the output of the generative models by adding perturbations to the training data. Alexandre et al. [29] tackles the problem of training dataset attribution by using fixed signals for every data type. These prior works successfully demonstrate the use of watermarks to classify the content of the AI-generated images proactively. We extend the idea of proactive watermarking to perform the task of causal attribution of AI-generated images to influential training data concepts. Watermarking has not been used to trace attribution in GenAI before.

Figure 2: Overview of ProMark. We show the training and inference procedure for our proposed method. Our training pipeline involves two stages, image encryption and generative model training. We convert the bit-sequences to spatial watermarks ($\boldsymbol{W}$), which are then added to the corresponding concept images ($\boldsymbol{X}$) to make them encrypted ($\boldsymbol{X}_{W}$). The generative model is then trained with the encrypted images using the LDM supervision. During training, we recover the added watermark using the secret decoder ($\mathcal{D}_{S}$) and apply the BCE supervision to perform attribution. To sample newly generated images, we use a Gaussian noise and recover the bit-sequences using the secret decoder to attribute them to different concepts. Best viewed in color.

Watermarking of GenAI Models. It is an active research to watermark AI-generated images for the purpose of privacy protection. Fernandez1 et al. [16] fine-tune the LDM’s decoder to condition on a bit sequence, embedding it in images for AI-generated image detection. Kirchenbauer et al. [18] propose a watermarking method for language models by pre-selecting random tokens and subtly influencing their use during word generation. Zhao et al. [37] use a watermarking scheme for text-to-image diffusion models, while Liu et al. [20] verify watermarks by pre-defined prompts. [14, 23] add a watermark for detecting copyright infringement. Asnani et al. [4] reverse engineer a fingerprint left by various GenAI models to further use it for recovering the network and training parameters of these models [34, 4]. Finally, Cao et al. [10] adds an invisible watermark for protecting diffusion models which are used to generate audio modality. Most of these works have used watermarking for protecting diffusion models, which enables them to add just one watermark onto the data. In contrast, we propose to add multiple watermarks to the training data and to a single image, which is a more challenging task than embedding a universal watermark.

3 Method

3.1 Background

Diffusion Models. Diffusion models learn a data distribution $p(\boldsymbol{X}),\text{ where }\boldsymbol{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{h\times w\times 3}$ is the input image. They do this by iteratively reducing the noise in a variable that initially follows a normal distribution. This can be viewed as learning the reverse steps of a fixed Markov Chain with a length of $T$. Recently, LDM [26] is proposed to convert images to their latent representation for faster training in a lower dimensional space than the pixel space. The image is converted to and from the latent space by a pretrained autoencoder consisting of an encoder $\boldsymbol{z}=\mathcal{E}_{L}(\boldsymbol{X})$ and a decoder $\boldsymbol{X}_{R}=\mathcal{D}_{L}(\boldsymbol{z})$, where $\boldsymbol{z}$ is the latent code and $\boldsymbol{X}_{R}$ is the reconstructed image. The trainable denoising module of the LDM is $\epsilon_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t);t=1...T$, where $\epsilon_{\theta}$ is trained to predict the denoised latent code $\hat{\boldsymbol{z}}$ from its noised version $\boldsymbol{z}_{t}$. This objective function can be defined as follows:

$$L_{LDM}=\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{E}_{L}(\boldsymbol{X}),\epsilon\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1),t}\bigl{[}||\epsilon-\epsilon_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)||^{2}_{2}\bigr{]},$$ (1)

where $\epsilon$ is the noise added at step $t$.

Image Encryption. Proactive works [1, 3, 2] have shown performance gain on various tasks by proactively transforming the input training images $\boldsymbol{X}$ with a watermark, resulting in an encrypted image. This watermark is either fixed or learned, depending on the task at hand. Similar to prior proactive works, our image encryption is of the form:

$$\boldsymbol{X}_{W}=\mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol{X};\boldsymbol{W})={\boldsymbol{X}}+m\times R(\boldsymbol{W},h,w),$$ (2)

where $\mathcal{T}$ is the transformation, $\boldsymbol{W}$ is the spatial watermark, $\boldsymbol{X}_{W}$ is the encrypted image, $m$ is the watermark strength, and $R(.)$ resizes $\boldsymbol{W}$ to the input resolution $(h,w)$.

We use the state-of-the-art watermarking technique RoSteALS [9] to compute the spatial watermarks for encryption due to its robustness to image transformation and generalization (the watermark is independent of content of the input image). RoSteALS is designed to embed a secret of length $b$-bits into an image using robust and imperceptible watermarking. It comprises of a secret encoder $\mathcal{E}_{S}(\boldsymbol{s})$, which converts the bit-secret $\boldsymbol{s}\in\{0,1\}^{b}$ into a latent code offset $\boldsymbol{z}_{o}$. It is then added to the latent code of an autoencoder $\boldsymbol{z}_{w}=\boldsymbol{z}+\boldsymbol{z}_{o}$. This modified latent code $\boldsymbol{z}_{w}$ is then used to reconstruct a watermarked image via autoencoder decoder. Finally, a secret decoder, denoted by $\mathcal{D}_{S}(X_{W})$, takes the watermarked images as input and predicts the bit-sequence $\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}$.

3.2 Problem Definition

Let $\mathcal{C}=\{c_{1},c_{2},\ldots,c_{N}\}$ be a set of $N$ distinct concepts within a dataset that is used for training a GenAI model for image synthesis. The problem of concept attribution can be formulated as follows:

Given a synthetic image $\boldsymbol{X}_{S}$ generated by a GenAI model, the objective of concept attribution is to accurately associate $\boldsymbol{X}_{S}$ to a concept $c_{i}\in\mathcal{C}$ that significantly influenced the generation of $\boldsymbol{X}_{S}$.

We aim to find a map** $f:\boldsymbol{X}_{S}\rightarrow c_{i}$ such that

$$c_{i}^{*}=\arg\max_{c_{i}\in\mathcal{C}}f(\boldsymbol{X}_{S},c_{i}),$$ (3)

where $c_{i}^{*}$ represents the concept most strongly attributed to image $\boldsymbol{X}_{S}$.

3.3 Overview

The pipeline of ProMark is shown in Fig. 2. The principle is simple: if a specific watermark unique to a training concept can be detected from a generated image, it indicates that the generative model relies on that concept in the generation process. Thus, ProMark involves two steps: training data encryption via watermarks and generative model training with watermarked images.

To watermark the training data, the dataset is first divided into $N$ groups, where each group corresponds to a unique concept that needs attribution. These concepts can be semantic (e.g. objects, scenes, motifs or stock image templates) or abstract (e.g. stylistic, ownership info). Each training image in a group is encoded with a unique watermark without significantly altering the image’s perceptibility. Once the training images are watermarked, they are used to train the generative model. As the model trains, it learns to generate images based on the encrypted training images. Ideally, the generated images would have traces of watermarks corresponding to concepts they’re derived from.

During inference, ProMark conforms to whether a generated image is derived from a particular training concept by identifying the unique watermark of that concept within the image. Through the careful use of unique watermarks, we can trace back and causally attribute generated images to their origin in the training dataset.

3.4 Training

During training, our algorithm is composed of two stages: image encryption and generative model training. We now describe each of these stages in detail.

Image Encryption. The training data is first divided into $N$ concepts, and images in each partition are encrypted using a fixed spatial watermark $\boldsymbol{W}_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{h\times w}$ ($j\in{0,1,2,...,N}$). Each noise $\boldsymbol{W}_{j}$ is a $b$-dim bit-sequence (secret) $\boldsymbol{s}_{j}=\{p_{j1},p_{j2},...,p_{jb}\}$ where $p_{ji}\in\{0,1\}$.

In order to compute the watermark $\boldsymbol{W}_{j}$ from the bit-sequence $\boldsymbol{s}_{j}$, we encrypt $100$ random images with $\boldsymbol{s}_{j}$ using pretrained RoSteALS secret encoder $\mathcal{E}_{S}(.)$ which takes $b=160$ length secret as input. From these encrypted images, we obtain $100$ noise residuals by subtracting the encrypted images from the originals, which are averaged to compute the watermark $\boldsymbol{W}_{j}$ as:

$$\boldsymbol{W}_{j}=\frac{1}{100}\sum_{i=1}^{100}(\boldsymbol{X}_{i}-\mathcal{E}_{S}(\boldsymbol{X}_{i},\boldsymbol{s}_{j})).$$ (4)

The above process is defined as spatial noise conversion in Fig. 2. The averaging of noise residuals across different images reduces the image content in the watermark and makes the watermark independent of any specific image. Additionally, the generated watermarks are orthogonal due to different bits for all $\boldsymbol{s}_{j}$, ensuring distinguishability from each other. With the generated watermarks, each training image is encrypted using Eq. 2 with one of the $N$ watermarks that correspond to the concept the image belongs to.

Generative Model Training. Using the encrypted data, we train the LDM’s denoising module $\epsilon_{\theta}(.)$ using the objective function (Eq. 1), where $\boldsymbol{z}_{t}$ is the noised version of:

$$\boldsymbol{z}=\mathcal{E}_{L}(\boldsymbol{X}_{W_{j}})=\mathcal{E}_{L}(\mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol{X};\boldsymbol{W}_{j})),$$ (5)

i.e., the input latent codes $\boldsymbol{z}$ are generated using the encrypted images $\boldsymbol{X}_{W_{j}}$ for $j\in\{0,1,2....,N\}$.

However, we found that only using LDM loss is insufficient to successfully learn the connection between the conceptual content and its associated watermark. This gap in learning presents a significant hurdle, as the primary aim is to trace back generated images to their respective training concepts via the watermark. To tackle this, an auxiliary supervision is introduced to LDM’s training,

$$L_{BCE}(\boldsymbol{s}_{j},\hat{\boldsymbol{s}})=-\frac{1}{b}\sum_{i=1}^{b}[p_{ji}\log(\hat{p}_{i})+(1-p_{ji})\log(1-\hat{p}_{i})],$$ (6)

where $L_{BCE}(.)$ is the binary cross-entropy (BCE) between the actual bit-sequence $\boldsymbol{s}_{j}$ associated with watermark $\boldsymbol{W}_{j}$ and the predicted bit-sequence $\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}$. The denoised latent code $\hat{\boldsymbol{z}}$ is then decoded using the autoencoder $\mathcal{D}_{L}(.)$, and the embedded secret $\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}$ is predicted by the secret decoder $\mathcal{D}_{S}(.)$ as:

$$\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}=\mathcal{D}_{S}(\mathcal{D}_{L}(\hat{\boldsymbol{z}})).$$ (7)

By employing BCE, the model is guided to minimize the difference between the predicted watermark and the embedded watermark, hence improving the model’s ability to recognize and associate watermarks with their respective concepts. Finally, our objective is to minimize the loss function $L_{attr}=L_{LDM}+\alpha L_{BCE}$ during training, where $\alpha$ is set to $2$ for our experiments.

3.5 Inference

After the LDM learns to associate the watermarks with concepts, we use random Gaussian noise to sample the newly generated images from the model. While the diffusion model creates these new images, it also embeds a watermark within them. Each watermark maps to a distinctive orthogonal bit-sequence associated with a specific training concept, serving as a covert signature for attribution.

To attribute the generated images and ascertain which training concept influenced them, we predict the secret embedded by the LDM in the generated images (see Eq. 7). Given a predicted binary bit-sequence, $\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}=\{\hat{p_{1}},\hat{p_{2}},...,\hat{p_{b}}\}$ and all the input bit-sequences $\boldsymbol{s}_{j}$ for $j\in{0,1,2...,N}$, we define the attribution function, $f$, in Eq. 3 as:

$$f(\hat{\boldsymbol{s}},\boldsymbol{s}_{j})=\sum_{k=1}^{b}[\hat{p}_{k}=p_{jk}],$$ (8)

where $[\hat{p}_{k}=p_{ik}]$ acts as an indicator function, returning $1$ if the condition is true, i.e., the bits are identical, and $0$ otherwise. Consequently, we assign the predicted bit sequence to the concept whose bit sequence it most closely mirrors — that is, the concept $j^{*}$ for which $f(\hat{\boldsymbol{s}},\boldsymbol{s}_{j^{*}})$ is maximized:

$$j^{*}=\arg\max_{j\in\{1,2,...,N\}}f(\hat{\boldsymbol{s}},\boldsymbol{s}_{j}).$$ (9)

In other words, the concept whose watermark is most closely aligned with the generated image’s watermark is deemed to be the influencing source behind the generated image.

3.6 Multiple Watermarks

In prior image attribution works, an image is usually attributed to a single concept (e.g. image content or image style). However, in real-world scenarios, an image may encapsulate multiple concepts. This observation brings forth a pertinent question: “Is it possible to use multiple watermarks for multi-concept attribution within a single image?”

In this paper, we propose a novel approach to perform multi-concept attribution by embedding multiple watermarks into a single image. In our preliminary experiments, we restrict our focus to the addition of two watermarks. To achieve this, we divide the image into two halves and resize each watermark to fit the respective halves. This ensures that each half of the image carries distinct watermark information pertaining to a specific concept.

For the input RGB image $\boldsymbol{X}$, {$\boldsymbol{W}_{i},\boldsymbol{W}_{j}$} are the watermarks for two secrets {$\boldsymbol{s}_{i},\boldsymbol{s}_{j}$}, we formulate the new transformation $\mathcal{T}$ as:

$$\mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol{X};\boldsymbol{W}_{i},\boldsymbol{W}_{j})= \Big{\{}\boldsymbol{X}_{left},\boldsymbol{X}_{right}\Big{\}}$$

$$= \Big{\{}(\boldsymbol{X}(:,0:\frac{w}{2},:)+R(\boldsymbol{W}_{i},h,\frac{w}{2})),$$

$$(\boldsymbol{X}(:,\frac{w}{2}:w,:)+R(\boldsymbol{W}_{j},h,\frac{w}{2})\Big{\}},$$

where $\{.\}$ is the horizontal concatenation. The loss function uses the two predicted secrets ($\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_{1}$ and $\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_{2}$) from the two halves of the generated image, defined as:

$$L_{attr}=L_{LDM}+\alpha(L_{BCE}(\boldsymbol{s}_{i},\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_{1})+L_{BCE}(\boldsymbol{s}_{j},\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_{2})).$$

4 Experiments

4.1 Unconditional Diffusion Model

In this section, we train multiple versions of unconditional diffusion models [26] to demonstrate that ProMark can be used to attribute a variety of concepts in the training data. In each case, the model is trained starting from random initialization of LDM weights. Described next are details of the datasets and evaluation protocols.

Datasets We use $5$ datasets spanning attribution categories like image templates, scenes, objects, styles, and artists. For each dataset, we consider the dataset classes as our attribution categories. For each class in a dataset, we use $90\%$ images for training, and $10\%$ for evaluation, unless specified otherwise.

1. Stock: We collect images from Adobe Stock, comprising of near-duplicate image clusters like templates, symbols, icons, etc. An example image from some clusters is shown in the supplementary. We use $100$ such clusters, each with $2K$ images.

2. LSUN: The LSUN dataset [36] comprises $10$ scene categories, such as bedrooms and kitchens. It’s commonly used for scene classification, training generative models like GANs, and anomaly detection. Same as the Stock dataset, we use $2K$ images per class.

3. Wiki-S: The WikiArt dataset [30] is a collection of fine art images spanning various styles and artists. We use the $28$ style classes with $580$ average images per class.

4. Wiki-A: From the WikiArt dataset [30] we also use the $23$ artist classes with $2,112$ average images per class.

5. ImageNet: We use the ImageNet dataset [15] which comprises of $1$ million images across $1K$ classes. For this dataset, we use the standard validation set with $50K$ for evaluation and the remaining images for training.

Table 2: Comparison with prior works for unconditional diffusion model on various datasets. [Keys: str.: strength]

c—c—c—c—c—c—c Str. Attribution Accuracy (%) $\bf\uparrow$
Method (%) Stock LSUN Wiki-A Wiki-S ImageNet
ALADIN [28] - $99.86$ $46.27$ $48.95$ $33.25$ $9.25$
CLIP [25] - $75.67$ $87.13$ $77.58$ $60.84$ $60.12$
F-CLIP [32] - $78.49$ $87.39$ $77.23$ $60.43$ $62.83$
SSCD [24] - $99.63$ $73.26$ $69.51$ $50.37$ $37.32$
EKILA [5] - $99.37$ $70.60$ $51.23$ $37.06$ $38.00$
$30$ $100$ $95.12$ $97.45$ $98.12$ $83.06$
ProMark $100$ $\bf 100$ $\bf 100$ $\bf 100$ $\bf 100$ $\bf 91.07$

Figure 3: Example training and newly sampled images of different datasets for the corresponding classes. We observe a similar content in the inference image compared with the training image of the predicted class.

Evaluation Protocol For all datasets, the concept attribution performance is tested on the held-out data as follows. For a held-out image, we first encrypt it with the concept’s watermark. Then using the latent code of the encrypted image, we noise it till a randomly assigned timestamp and apply our trained diffusion model to reverse back to the initial timestamp with the estimated noise. The denoised latent code is then decoded using the autoencoder $\mathcal{D}_{L}(.)$, and the embedded secret is predicted using the secret decoder $\mathcal{D}_{S}(.)$. Using Eq. 9, we compute the predicted concept and calculate the accuracy using the ground-truth concept.

Results Shown in Sec. 4.1 is the attribution accuracy of ProMark at two watermark strengths i.e. $100\%$ and $30\%$ which is set by variable $m$ in Eq. 2. ProMark outperforms prior works, achieving near-perfect accuracy on all the datasets when the watermark strength is $100\%$. However, the watermark introduces visual artifacts [9] if the watermark strength is full. Therefore, we decrease the watermark strength to $30\%$ before adding it to the training data (see Sec. 4.5 for ablation on watermark strength). Even though our performance drops at a lower watermark strength, we still outperform the prior works. This shows that our causal approach can be used to attribute a variety of concepts in the training data with an accuracy higher than the prior passive approaches.

Fig. 3 (rows 1-5) shows the qualitative examples of the newly sampled images from each of the trained models. For each model, we sample the images using random Gaussian noise until we have images for every concept. The concept for each image is predicted using the secret embedded in the generated images. Shown in each row of Fig. 3 are three training images (columns 1-3) and three sampled images from the corresponding concepts (columns 4-6). This shows that ProMark makes the diffusion model embed the corresponding watermark for the class of the generated image, thereby demonstrating the usefulness of our approach.

Figure 4: Visual results of prior embedding-based works. We show the image of the closest matched embedding for each method on ImageNet. We highlight images green for correct attribution, otherwise red. Embedding-based works do not always attribute to the correct concept.

Shown in Fig. 4 are the nearest images retrieved using the embedding-based methods (row ($2$)-($6$)) for the query images from the ImageNet (row ($1$)). For each image retrieval, we highlight the correct/incorrect attribution using a green/red box. As we can see, the correlation-based prior techniques rely on visual similarity between the query and the retrieved images, ignoring the concept. However, for each query image, ProMark predicts the correct concept corresponding to the query image (Fig. 3).