Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Say Something Else: Rethinking Contextual Privacy as Information Sufficiency

Yunze Xiao, Wenkai Li, Xiaoyuan Wu, Ningshan Ma, Yueqi Song, Weihao Xuan · Apr 7, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private. Existing systems support only suppression (omitting sensitive information) and generalization (replacing information with an abstraction), and are typically evaluated on single isolated messages, leaving both the strategy space and evaluation setting incomplete. We formalize privacy-preserving LLM communication as an \textbf{Information Sufficiency (IS)} task, introduce \textbf{free-text pseudonymization} as a third strategy that replaces sensitive attributes with functionally equivalent alternatives, and propose a \textbf{conversational evaluation protocol} that assesses strategies under realistic multi-turn follow-up pressure. Across 792 scenarios spanning three power-relation types (institutional, peer, intimate) and three sensitivity categories (discrimination risk, social cost, boundary), we evaluate seven frontier LLMs on privacy at two granularities, covertness, and utility. Pseudonymization yields the strongest privacy\textendash utility tradeoff overall, and single-message evaluation systematically underestimates leakage, with generalization losing up to 16.3 percentage points of privacy under follow-up.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private.
  • Existing systems support only suppression (omitting sensitive information) and generalization (replacing information with an abstraction), and are typically evaluated on single isolated messages, leaving both the strategy space and evaluation setting incomplete.
  • We formalize privacy-preserving LLM communication as an \textbf{Information Sufficiency (IS)} task, introduce \textbf{free-text pseudonymization} as a third strategy that replaces sensitive attributes with functionally equivalent alternatives, and propose a \textbf{conversational evaluation protocol} that assesses strategies under realistic multi-turn follow-up pressure.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private.
  • Existing systems support only suppression (omitting sensitive information) and generalization (replacing information with an abstraction), and are typically evaluated on single isolated messages, leaving both the strategy space and…
  • Across 792 scenarios spanning three power-relation types (institutional, peer, intimate) and three sensitivity categories (discrimination risk, social cost, boundary), we evaluate seven frontier LLMs on privacy at two granularities,…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private.
  • Existing systems support only suppression (omitting sensitive information) and generalization (replacing information with an abstraction), and are typically evaluated on single isolated messages, leaving both the strategy space and…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.