On the Impact of Anonymization on the Performance of Large Language Models

Large language models can infer sensitive personal attributes, such as age, location, and occupation, from ordinary text, turning everyday writing into a privacy risk. Adversarial anonymization defends against this by rewriting a text with a capable language model that also plays the attacker, but it needs a powerful model at inference time and thus sends private text to a third party, the very exposure anonymization should prevent. Recent work distills this behavior into a small on-device model using supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization (DPO), but DPO only imitates the teacher's offline choices and never directly optimizes the privacy--utility objective we care about. We introduce \textbf{GRASP} (\textbf{G}roup-\textbf{R}elative \textbf{A}nonymization via \textbf{S}elf-refinement \textbf{P}olicy-optimization), which reinforces the local anonymizer online with Group Relative Policy Optimization. A single small model acts as anonymizer, adversary, and utility judge, trained against a self-generated reward that hides attributes while preserving meaning, with a design that guards against reward hacking. Trained on Llama-3.1-8B, \ours{} improves the privacy--utility trade-off over the DPO-distilled baseline, consistently across three independent LLM judges. Against adversarial anonymization driven by frontier models such as Gemini2.5Flash and Claude, it achieves a comparable or better overall trade-off while removing substantially more private information, and it runs entirely on-device at roughly $1\%$ of the GPT-4o teacher's cost.

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

Despite the considerable promise of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), many real-world use cases may create privacy concerns, where the purported utility of RAG-enabled insights comes at the risk of exposing private information to either the LLM or the end user requesting the response. As a potential mitigation, using anonymization techniques to remove personally identifiable information (PII) and other sensitive markers in the underlying data represents a practical and sensible course of action for RAG administrators. Despite a wealth of literature on the topic, no works consider the placement of anonymization along the RAG pipeline, i.e., asking the question, where should anonymization happen? In this case study, we systematically and empirically measure the impact of anonymization at two important points along the RAG pipeline: the dataset and generated answer. We show that differences in privacy-utility trade-offs can be observed depending on where anonymization took place, demonstrating the significance of privacy risk mitigation placement in RAG.