Current online translation services require sending user text to cloud servers, posing a risk of privacy leakage when the text contains sensitive information. This risk hinders the application of online translation services in privacy-sensitive scenarios. One way to mitigate this risk for online translation services is introducing privacy protection mechanisms targeting the inference stage of translation models. However, compared to subfields of NLP like text classification and summarization, the machine translation research community has limited exploration of privacy protection during the inference stage. There is no clearly defined privacy protection task for the inference stage, dedicated evaluation datasets and metrics, and reference benchmark methods. The absence of these elements has seriously constrained researchers' in-depth exploration of this direction. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a novel "Privacy-Preserving Machine Translation" (PPMT) task, aiming to protect the private information in text during the model inference stage. For this task, we constructed three benchmark test datasets, designed corresponding evaluation metrics, and proposed a series of benchmark methods as a starting point for this task. The definition of privacy is complex and diverse. Considering that named entities often contain a large amount of personal privacy and commercial secrets, we have focused our research on protecting only the named entity's privacy in the text. We expect this research work will provide a new perspective and a solid foundation for the privacy protection problem in machine translation.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: This figure illustrates the workflow of an online translation service. Users are required to transfer the text to be translated from a safe internal environment to the online translation system located in cloud server. The red-colored content (”苹果-Apple”, ”周五-Friday”) in the text represents the privacy information, which constitutes sensitive business information. In sensitive scenarios, users do not want this text, which contains business information, to leave the secure internal environment (typically the company’s internal network). However, the current service mode of online translation systems makes it challenging to avoid this issue.
Example 1
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) released a report on the 26th stating that Iran
has started to use advanced centrifuges to accelerate the production of enriched uranium , further violating the nuclear agreement reached with world powers in 2015 .
Example 2
Warren Buffett to sell one million shares of Google Inc next Monday .
Example 3
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority will introduce a new securities trading policy on 1 April and will hold a press conference at 3 pm on the same day to explain the new policy .
TABLE I: Cases of texts including privacy information. The red parts in listed sentences are privacy-related terms in our definition.
Language
Total Sentences
Person Name
Location
Organization
Time
Quantity
WMT18
Zh
1928
2053
1551
1333
1347
1307
En
1928
1960
1516
1306
1211
1188
WMT20
Zh
1964
1088
1813
1230
1372
1261
En
1964
1068
1751
1215
1245
1139
Finance
Zh
1744
218
316
1949
1405
988
En
1744
197
300
1889
1342
930
TABLE II: The statistics of human-annotated test datasets, including the number of total sentences and the number of privacy entities with different entity types.
Fig. 2: This is our proposed framework. In this work, we use the client and cloud server to indicate safe internal and risky external environments. The sanitized sentence is sent to the server from the client and the client receive the translation of sanitized text. R1 and R2 represent two different placeholders of two privacy terms ”苹果” and ”周五” assigned by privacy sanitization module.
Fig. 3: A case of replacement with the dictionary-based placeholder. The privacy parts are in yellow.
Fig. 4: A case of replacement with the tag-based placeholder. The privacy parts are in yellow.
Fig. 5: A case of how to obtain the privacy information’s translation according to a phrase translation table.
Placeholder
Translation Model
WMT18
WMT20
Finance
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
-
Trans
22.80
51.40
22.61
-
18.60
29.50
18.18
-
27.00
55.50
27.90
-
19.20
33.10
19.06
-
47.40
71.20
48.19
-
39.60
47.30
38.57
-
Entity
Trans (3 types)
19.50
44.10
19.33
0
15.80
25.70
15.62
0
23.90
49.30
24.72
0
16.80
27.30
16.69
0
44.70
67.40
46.57
0
37.00
44.50
36.82
0
Entity
Trans (5 types)
18.90
42.80
18.76
0
14.70
23.90
14.54
0
23.40
48.30
24.13
0
16.20
26.20
16.01
0
43.80
65.90
45.53
0
35.70
42.90
35.46
0
Dictionary
Dict-Trans (3 types)
21.40
48.40
21.20
0
17.30
27.90
17.08
0
25.70
52.90
26.50
0
18.90
33.10
18.77
0
47.00
70.70
48.87
0
38.90
46.80
38.78
0
TABLE III: Comparison results of explicit privacy preserving.
Placeholder
Translation Model
WMT18
WMT20
Finance
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
-
Trans
22.80
51.40
22.61
-
18.60
29.50
18.18
-
27.00
55.50
27.90
-
19.20
33.10
19.06
-
47.40
71.20
48.19
-
39.60
47.30
38.57
-
Entity
Trans (3 types)
19.80
44.20
19.72
0.1851
15.70
25.90
15.59
0.2477
24.90
49.40
24.83
0.1859
16.90
27.30
16.81
0.2272
47.20
67.50
47.14
0.1587
37.20
44.60
37.11
0.2004
Entity
Trans (5 types)
19.40
43.30
19.27
0.1913
15.10
24.80
15.01
0.2579
24.30
48.20
24.22
0.1913
16.20
26.10
16.14
0.2355
46.10
66.00
46.03
0.1641
36.00
43.10
35.91
0.2066
Dictionary
Dict-Trans (3 types)
21.50
48.60
21.41
0.1845
17.50
28.10
17.23
0.2485
26.80
53.00
26.68
0.1865
18.90
33.10
18.86
0.2280
49.10
70.80
48.99
0.1595
39.00
46.80
38.92
0.2010
TABLE IV: Comparison results of implicit privacy preserving.
Placeholder
Translation Model
WMT18
Finance
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
User Latency
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
User Latency
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
User Latency
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
User Latency
-
Trans
22.80
51.40
22.61
-
-
18.60
29.50
18.18
-
-
47.40
71.20
48.19
-
-
39.60
47.30
38.57
-
-
Dictionary
Dict-Trans (5 types)
21.10
47.90
21.04
0.1925
28.9s
16.90
27.10
16.86
0.2585
24.5s
47.90
69.20
47.82
0.1645
26.1s
38.10
45.40
37.79
0.2075
21.9s
Tag
Tag-Trans (5 types)
20.90
47.20
20.88
0.1835
21.6s
17.00
27.30
16.77
0.2450
19.7s
47.80
69.00
47.71
0.1535
19.3s
37.90
45.20
37.67
0.1950
17.8s
-
PowerSoftmax
17.40
39.10
17.31
0
58.2s
14.20
23.40
14.12
0
47.7s
43.40
64.80
43.36
0
50.2s
35.20
42.60
35.14
0
44.9s
TABLE V: Comparison results of our framework and other baseline methods in implicit privacy preserving. We conduct experiments on WMT18 and Finance 5 types datasets. The user latency is the cost time of user side’s computation module for processing the full test dataset.
Translation Model
WMT18
WMT20
Finance
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
dict-trans (3 types)
21.30
48.50
21.20
17.10
27.90
17.08
26.60
53.00
26.50
18.80
33.10
18.77
48.90
70.80
48.87
38.80
46.80
38.78
trans (3 types)
20.40
46.20
20.29
16.30
26.40
16.23
25.50
50.50
25.40
17.90
30.90
17.81
47.80
68.70
47.73
37.70
45.10
37.62
dict-trans(5 types)
21.00
47.40
20.81
16.50
27.10
16.45
26.10
52.10
26.01
18.00
31.70
17.98
47.70
69.20
47.69
37.70
45.40
37.63
trans (5 types)
20.00
45.40
19.96
15.60
25.80
15.59
25.20
50.20
25.14
17.20
29.80
17.13
46.90
67.50
46.82
37.00
44.30
36.90
TABLE VI: Translation Performance of Trans and Dict-Trans models used to process dictionary-based placeholder.
Placeholder
Translation Model
Implicit Privacy Preserving
Explicit Privacy Preserving
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
-
Trans
27.00
55.50
27.90
-
19.20
33.10
19.06
-
27.00
55.50
27.90
-
19.20
33.10
19.06
-
Dictionary
Dict-Trans w/o DA (3 types)
26.20
52.00
26.13
0.1892
18.50
32.20
18.39
0.2298
26.10
51.90
26.03
0
18.30
32.10
18.26
0
Dictionary
Dict-Trans w/o DA (5 types)
25.60
51.10
25.54
0.1958
17.70
30.80
17.65
0.2382
25.50
51.00
25.48
0
17.50
30.70
17.42
0
Dictionary
Dict-Trans (3 types)
26.80
53.00
26.68
0.1865
18.90
33.10
18.86
0.2280
25.70
52.90
26.50
0
18.90
33.10
18.77
0
TABLE VII: The performance of translation models trained with and w/o data augmentation on the WMT20 dataset.
Method
WMT18 Zh ⇒ En
WMT18 En ⇒ Zh
Finance Zh ⇒ En
Finance En ⇒ Zh
Stanford CoreNLP
Entity (3 types)
0.1766
0.2508
0.1672
0.2114
Entity (3 types)
0.1822
0.2611
0.1699
0.2154
Dict (3 types)
0.1905
0.2498
0.1623
0.2087
Dict (5 types)
0.1935
0.2377
0.1677
0.2132
Tag (3 types)
0.1912
0.2345
0.1493
0.1934
Tag (5 types)
0.1866
0.2465
0.1567
0.1978
TABLE VIII: PER Results on WMT18 and financial datasets with different Named Entity Recognizers. Multiple Recognizer Fusion means that we use the merge results from TexSmart, Stanford CoreNLP, MicroSoft Recognizers-Text.
Translation Mode
Case Type
Finance 5 types
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
Trans
-
47.40
71.20
48.19
-
39.60
47.30
38.57
-
Dict-Trans
No NER Error
46.90
69.20
47.82
0
37.80
45.40
37.79
0
Dict-Trans
NER Error
47.20
69.50
48.07
0.2533
38.20
45.70
38.14
0.2756
Tag-Trans
No NER Error
46.80
69.00
47.71
0
37.70
45.20
37.67
0
TABLE IX: NER Error’s Influence to the Translation Performance and PER on the Fintech (5 types) dataset
Placeholder
Translation Model + Recognizer
Finance 10 types
Finance CP
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
SacreBLEU
chrF
BLEU
PER
-
Trans
47.40
71.20
48.19
-
39.60
47.30
38.57
-
47.40
71.20
48.19
-
39.60
47.30
38.57
-
Entity
Trans (5 types)
46.10
66.00
46.03
0.2240
36.00
43.10
35.91
0.2566
46.10
66.00
46.03
0.2557
36.00
43.10
35.91
0.2769
Dictionary
Dict-Trans (5 types)+ Texsmart (5 types)
47.90
69.20
47.82
0.2235
37.80
45.40
37.79
0.2601
47.90
69.20
47.82
0.2686
37.80
45.40
37.79
0.2777
Tag
Tag-Trans (5 types)+ Texsmart (5 types)
47.80
69.00
47.71
0.2145
37.70
45.20
37.67
0.2513
47.80
69.00
47.71
0.2632
37.70
45.20
37.67
0.2769
TABLE X: Results of implicit privacy preserving on extended datasets. We still use the Texsmart as the 10 types recognizer and train a Roberta-base model as the contexual privacy recognizer.
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) released a report on the 26th stating that Iran
has started to use advanced centrifuges to accelerate the production of enriched uranium , further violating the nuclear agreement reached with world powers in 2015 .
Standard Transformer Generation
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) released a report Tuesday that said Iran
has begun to use advanced centrifuges to accelerate the production of enriched uranium , further violating its nuclear deal with the world ’s major powers in 2015 .
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) released a report on the 26th stating that Iran
has started to use advanced centrifuges to accelerate the production of enriched uranium , further violating the nuclear agreement reached with world powers in 2015 .
Standard Transformer Generation
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) released a report Tuesday that said Iran
has begun to use advanced centrifuges to accelerate the production of enriched uranium , further violating its nuclear deal with the world ’s major powers in 2015 .
Dictionary-based Privacy Replacement
联合国 ( 安全理事会 ) 5 日 公布 报告 指出 , 中国 已 开始 使用 先进 的 离心机
TABLE XII: A case of translation with Dict-Trans. The red parts in listed sentences are privacy information.
Source Language Sentence
年内 上市公司 (PE 1) 回购 规模 超 1000 亿元 (PE 2) 创 历史 新高 - 新华网 (PE 3) 。
Target Language Reference Sentence
Listed company (PE 1) repurchase scale hits record high of over 100 billion yuan (PE 2) during the year - Xinhuanet (PE 3) .
United Nations(D-P 1) Buy Back to Top 130(D-P 2) in Year - Security Council(D-P 3)
Final Translation
Listed companies(PE 1) buy back to top 1000(PE 2) in year - Xinhua(PE 3) .
TABLE XIII: A failure case of translation with Dict-Trans. The red parts in above sentences are privacy information. Specifically, PE x means the x-th privacy entity and D-P x means Dict-Placeholder for x-the privacy entity.
Current state-of-the-art Quality Estimation (QE) in machine translation relies on massive, proprietary LLMs, raising data privacy concerns. We demonstrate that smaller, open-source LLMs (<30B parameters) are a viable, cost-effective and privacy-preserving alternative. Using a single-pass prompting strategy, our models simultaneously generate quality scores, MQM error annotations, suggested error corrections, and full post-editions. Our analysis shows these models achieve highly competitive system-level correlations with human judgments that outperform traditional neural metrics, fine-tuned models, and human inter-annotator agreement, effectively approximating the capabilities of much larger proprietary LLMs.
Kamil Guttmann, Zofia Fraś, Artur Nowakowski +1
Laniqo, Pozna´n, Poland · Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, Pozna´n, Poland
Building on our previous work, this paper develops practical, low-barrier methods for freelance translators and smaller language service providers to evaluate translation technologies using rigorous yet accessible analytic methods. Here we address a high-stakes, specialized need: offline translation for confidentiality-sensitive domains in which privacy constraints preclude the use of cloud-based engines and commercial LLMs. We expand the Reeve Foundation Trilingual Corpus (RFTC) used in our previous work into a multilingual corpus (RFMC) by adding sentence-aligned German and Simplified Chinese reference translations. We then benchmark several locally runnable language models (via Ollama) across four language directions on 1000+ sentences selected from this corpus. We use consistent single-prompt calls without fine-tuning or domain adaptation, comparing local LLM outputs against commercial NMTs (DeepL, Baidu), a frontier LLM (GPT-5.2), and professional-grade local NMT systems (OPUS-CAT, NeuralDesktop, Promt). Automatic evaluation is conducted with MATEO. Results reveal substantial variation in local LLM performance across language directions and model sizes. The best local LLMs match or surpass local NMT systems and a frontier LLM, though they remain behind top commercial NMTs. These findings underscore the viability of carefully selected local LLM translation for privacy-constrained professionals and inform future research on model scaling and multilingual capability.
Current LLM-based services typically require users to submit raw text regardless of its sensitivity. While intuitive, such practice introduces substantial privacy risks, as unauthorized access may expose personal, medical, or legal information. Although prior defenses strived to mitigate these risks, they often incur substantial computational overhead and degrade model performance. To overcome this privacy-efficiency trade-off, we introduce Privacy-Preserving Fine-Tuning (PPFT), a novel training pipeline that eliminates the need for transmitting raw prompt text while maintaining a favorable balance between privacy preservation and model utility for both clients and service providers. Our approach operates in two stages: first, we train a client-side encoder together with a server-side projection module and LLM, enabling the server to condition on k-pooled prompt embeddings instead of raw text; second, we fine-tune the projection module and LLM on private, domain-specific data using noise-injected embeddings, allowing effective adaptation without exposing plain text prompts and requiring access to the decoder's internal parameters. Extensive experiments on domain-specific and general benchmarks demonstrate that PPFT achieves a striking balance between privacy and utility, maintaining competitive performance with minimal degradation compared to noise-free upper bounds.
Jeongho Yoon, Chanhee Park, Yongchan Chun +2
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University · Samsung Mobile eXperience Business