aiqbench analysis
This research exposes a critical misalignment in current LLM evaluation benchmarks, demonstrating that proxy models fail to capture the nuanced human perceptions of privacy and utility. The study reveals significant disagreement among users regarding identical responses, whereas automated judges exhibit high consensus that does not correlate with actual user sentiment. Consequently, relying solely on automated metrics for safety and helpfulness assessments risks overlooking genuine user concerns in privacy-sensitive applications.
User Perceptions vs. Proxy LLM Judges: Privacy and Helpfulness in LLM Responses to Privacy-Sensitive Scenarios
arXiv:2510.20721v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted for tasks like drafting emails, summarizing meetings, and answering health questions. In these settings, users may need to share private information (e.g., contact details, health records). To evaluate LLMs' ability to identify and redact such information, prior work introduced real-life, scenario-based benchmarks (e.g., ConfAIde, PrivacyLens) and found that LLMs can leak private information in complex scenarios. However, these evaluations relied on proxy LLMs to judge the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses, rather than directly measuring users' perceptions. To understand how users perceive the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses to privacy-sensitive scenarios, we conducted a user study ($n=94$) using 90 PrivacyLens scenarios. We found that users had low agreement with each other when evaluating identical LLM responses. In contrast, five proxy LLMs reached high agreement, yet each proxy LLM had low correlation with users' evaluations. These results indicate that proxy LLMs cannot accurately estimate users' wide range of perceptions of utility and privacy in privacy-sensitive scenarios. We discuss the need for more user-centered studies to measure LLMs' ability to help users while preserving privacy, and for improving alignment between LLMs and users in estimating perceived privacy and utility.
Title:User Perceptions vs. Proxy LLM Judges: Privacy and Helpfulness in LLM Responses to Privacy-Sensitive Scenarios
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted for tasks like drafting emails, summarizing meetings, and answering health questions. In these settings, users may need to share private information (e.g., contact details, health records). To evaluate LLMs' ability to identify and redact such information, prior work introduced real-life, scenario-based benchmarks (e.g., ConfAIde, PrivacyLens) and found that LLMs can leak private information in complex scenarios. However, these evaluations relied on proxy LLMs to judge the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses, rather than directly measuring users' perceptions. To understand how users perceive the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses to privacy-sensitive scenarios, we conducted a user study ($n=94$) using 90 PrivacyLens scenarios. We found that users had low agreement with each other when evaluating identical LLM responses. In contrast, five proxy LLMs reached high agreement, yet each proxy LLM had low correlation with users' evaluations. These results indicate that proxy LLMs cannot accurately estimate users' wide range of perceptions of utility and privacy in privacy-sensitive scenarios. We discuss the need for more user-centered studies to measure LLMs' ability to help users while preserving privacy, and for improving alignment between LLMs and users in estimating perceived privacy and utility.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2510.20721 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2510.20721v4 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.20721 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1645 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
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 · 323 words
Related coverage

Presentation: Building Evals for AI Adoption: from Principles to Practice
InfoQ · May 29, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026
[AINews] OpenAI DevDay 2026: Dots, 6.1 Sol, Ultrafast, Decisions API, Agents API, Spaces, Marketplace, and 1.2 Billion ChatGPT WAU
Latent Space · Sep 30, 2026