aiqbench analysis
Composing insight from the full article — this may take a moment.
Residual Attribute Leakage Is an Interface: Auditing Privacy Evaluation After Text De-identification
arXiv:2611.04941v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A privacy evaluation of de-identified text asks a language model (the adversary) to guess a person's protected attribute. We introduce a prior-normalised clipped leakage score of its confidence gain on the true value and audit the conclusions drawn from it. Each verdict depends on an evaluation interface (the queried person, answer options, prior, adversary model and scoring rule), which we vary on fixed releases of three corpora. In a stress test, an editor that writes the opposite-sex form at the same spans a redaction editor would redact misleads the adversary about most people, yet ranks first among editors scored on the same MedQA entries under this score, as under attack accuracy and proper scoring rules read as privacy. A relabelling-invariant reading of AUC ranks that editor sixth of eight, and a rule-aware adversary recovers the attribute from the same text. On ordinary releases most verdict changes are gains or losses of separability; of six choices varied over all pairs, only the adversary reverses comparisons (5 of its 124 changes), and the query can target the wrong person. SACC, a traceable editor we build as the instrument, lets us ablate two editing principles and show where its advantage does not hold.
Abstract:A privacy evaluation of de-identified text asks a language model (the adversary) to guess a person's protected attribute. We introduce a prior-normalised clipped leakage score of its confidence gain on the true value and audit the conclusions drawn from it. Each verdict depends on an evaluation interface (the queried person, answer options, prior, adversary model and scoring rule), which we vary on fixed releases of three corpora. In a stress test, an editor that writes the opposite-sex form at the same spans a redaction editor would redact misleads the adversary about most people, yet ranks first among editors scored on the same MedQA entries under this score, as under attack accuracy and proper scoring rules read as privacy. A relabelling-invariant reading of AUC ranks that editor sixth of eight, and a rule-aware adversary recovers the attribute from the same text. On ordinary releases most verdict changes are gains or losses of separability; of six choices varied over all pairs, only the adversary reverses comparisons (5 of its 124 changes), and the query can target the wrong person. SACC, a traceable editor we build as the instrument, lets us ablate two editing principles and show where its advantage does not hold.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
arXiv:2611.04941 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2611.04941v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.04941 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 299 words
