Empirical identity leakage from released text is increasingly driven by attackers that combine large language models (LLMs) with auxiliary knowledge to link documents to individuals. Existing audits typically report success rates for specific attack pipelines but lack finite-sample statistical guarantees, while training-time protections such as differential privacy are difficult to translate into release-time decisions for individual natural-language documents. We introduce Conformal Privacy Auditing(CPA), a distribution-free calibration framework that provides a statistical certificate of re-identification risk for each released document against LLM-empowered adversaries. CPA outputs a conformal ambiguity set of candidate identities that is guaranteed to contain the true identity with user-chosen confidence under exchangeability, together with an interpretable leakage proxy derived from set size. CPA supports both logit-access and sampling-only attackers, enabling audits of open-source models and proprietary API models in a unified framework. Across multiple release benchmarks and attacker configurations, CPA achieves calibrated coverage and reveals sharp shifts in certified identifiability as auxiliary knowledge, LLM augmentation, and release mechanisms vary, providing a statistically grounded basis for reporting and comparing release-time linkage risk across attacker configurations, datasets, and release mechanisms alike.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: CPA auditing vs. top-1 prediction. A conventional attack pipeline (top) outputs a single point prediction; CPA (bottom) calibrates the same attacker into a conformal ambiguity set that contains the true identity with probability at least 1−α under the declared threat configuration.
Attacker setting
Top-1
Cov.
Med. ∣C∣
Mean ∣C∣
Mean 1/∣C∣
TAB-Direct
K1 meta / direct
0.052
0.929
1268
1179.5
9.57e-04
K2 keywords / direct
0.973
0.973
1
1
1.0000
K3 case-text / direct
0.994
0.994
1
1
1.0000
K2 keywords / LLM-clues
0.715
0.970
20
20.1
0.0499
TAB-Direct (Quasi-ID)
Table 1: TAB linkage auditing ( α=0.05 ). Smaller ambiguity sets indicate higher certified identifiability. direct uses the released document as the retrieval query; LLM-clues uses an LLM to extract a short clue string from the released document before retrieval. meta/keywords/case-text describe which fields are available in the candidate profile database. All suites use split conformal calibration with disjoint calibration/test partitions; the full declared threat configuration per suite is summarized in Table 8 in Appendix D .
Attacker setting
Top-1
Coverage
Median ∣Cα∣
Mean ∣Cα∣
E[1/∣Cα∣]
q^α
Direct query
0.362
0.956
264
254.98
0.00466
0.277
LLM clues (Llama-3.1-8B)
0.420
0.950
189
186.87
0.00562
0.2
LLM clues (Qwen3-8B)
0.380
0.958
265
255.69
0.00465
0.277
Table 2: Retrieval-CPA on WikiBio (500 released bios; 1k candidates) under direct query vs LLM-assisted clue extraction ( α=0.05 ), with split conformal calibration over disjoint calibration/test partitions of the released bios; the full declared threat configuration is summarized in Table 8 in Appendix D .
Table 3: Dataset statistics for the release-audit experiments. For TAB we report split sizes from the benchmark JSON files; for TextWash we report file counts from the original and anonymized person-description trees; for Blog we report author-level XML statistics; and for WikiBio we report the prepared audit slice used by the canonical experiment runner in all reported WikiBio suites and ablations.
Attacker setting
Top-1
Coverage
Median ∣Cα∣
Mean ∣Cα∣
E[1/∣Cα∣]
q^α
W=1 posts/author
0.087
0.946
222
200.50
0.00566
0.948
W=3 posts/author
0.143
0.956
210
191.82
0.00604
0.903
W=10 posts/author
0.209
0.946
176
147.14
0.00677
0.763
Appendix
Table 4: Retrieval-CPA on Blog Authorship under increasing attacker side information (number of posts per author; α=0.05 ), with split conformal calibration over disjoint calibration/test partitions of the released posts; the full declared threat configuration is summarized in Table 8 in Appendix D .
Attacker
Top-1
Cov.
Med. ∣Cα∣
Mean ∣Cα∣
fiction
Direct query
0.500
0.970
169.5
172.44
GPT-5 clues
0.500
0.970
169.5
172.44
Llama clues
0.600
0.970
171.0
174.26
semifamous
Direct query
0.380
0.910
155.0
167.12
Appendix
Table 5: TextWash Retrieval-CPA under matched budgets. Retrieval-CPA on TextWash under direct retrieval vs. LLM-assisted clue extraction ( α=0.05 ). All attackers are evaluated on the same capped split with ncal=ntest=100 per category, so certified set sizes are directly comparable across attackers; LLM rows use cached clue outputs throughout.
Symbol
Meaning
x,X
Released document (possibly anonymized/rewritten)
y,Y
True identity of the document subject
U
Reference population of identities
w,W
Attacker knowledge level / threat configuration (side information and tooling)
Y(x,w)
Finite candidate pool available to the attacker
K
Top- K truncation level of the candidate pool (engineering choice)
Appendix
Table 6: Notation used throughout the paper.
Level
Attacker access / capability
K1 (weak)
Profiles contain only coarse structured fields (e.g., occupation bucket, coarse location, age range). Retrieval query uses released text directly.
K2 (medium)
Profiles add additional non-identifying evidence facts (e.g., coarsened events/keywords). Retrieval uses released text; no LLM assistance.
K3 (strong)
LLM-assisted clue extraction from released text produces a query expansion (optional), and/or profile is augmented (RAG/web search).
Appendix
Table 7: Knowledge ladder (side information W ) used to instantiate attacker pipelines in our experiments.
Suite
Candidate pool (size)
Query mode
LLM/web aug.
World
TAB K1–K3
case records (1268)
direct
none
closed
TAB K2/K3 + clues
case records (1268)
direct+clues
LLM clues
closed
WikiBio direct
profile rows (1000)
direct
none
closed
WikiBio + clues
top- K=200 of 1000
direct+clues
LLM clues
top- K truncated
Blog W ∈{1,3,10}
author registry
direct
none
closed
TextWash direct (matched)
category ( ≈ 400)
direct
none
closed
Appendix
Table 8: Declared threat configuration for each experimental suite. “direct” uses the released text as the retrieval query; “direct+clues” appends LLM-extracted clues. The matched TextWash suites use ncal=ntest=100 per category (Table 5 ), and the m -ablation sweeps the per-document sampling budget m∈{1,3,5,10} (Table 13 ).
Figure 2: Effect of the miscoverage level α on TAB (direct retrieval, quasi-identifier release): mean leakage proxy E[1/∣Cα∣] (left), empirical coverage (center), and median certified set size ∣Cα∣ (right). Smaller α certifies residual ambiguity more conservatively; larger α yields smaller sets with weaker statistical protection.
Cal. → test
Cov.
Med. ∣Cα∣
Mean ∣Cα∣
TAB direct → direct
0.965
1
1.000
TAB direct → quasi-ID
0.923
1
1.000
TAB quasi-ID → quasi-ID
0.965
3
2.658
Blog W10 → W10
0.940
176
175.691
Blog W10 → W1
0.835
176
175.224
Appendix
Table 9: Exchangeability stress tests ( α=0.05 ). Matched calibration/test configurations achieve target coverage; shifted configurations under-cover, so recalibration is the operational protocol under suspected attacker-side or release-side drift.
Suite
K
Miss
Cond.
Uncond.
Med.
TW fiction direct
50
0.160
1.000
0.840
50
TW fiction direct
100
0.080
1.000
0.920
100
TW fiction direct
200
0.000
0.970
0.970
169.5
TW famous direct
50
0.110
1.000
0.890
50
TW famous direct
100
0.030
1.000
0.970
100
WB + Llama clues
50
0.118
1.000
0.882
50
Appendix
Table 10: Candidate-pool / top- K truncation stress tests ( α=0.05 ). TW = TextWash, WB = WikiBio. “Miss” is the empirical candidate-miss rate; “Cond.”/“Uncond.” are coverage conditional on the true identity being retained in the truncated pool and unconditional coverage; “Med.” is the median certified set size ∣Cα∣ over the evaluated test split.
Attacker
Score
Cov.
Med.
Mean
WikiBio + Llama
APS
0.950
189
186.870
WikiBio + Llama
rank
0.950
179
179.000
WikiBio + Llama
prob.
0.960
212
209.434
Blog W10 + Llama
APS
0.950
8
8.341
Blog W10 + Llama
rank
0.962
9
9.000
TAB K3 + clues
APS
0.967
31
30.803
Appendix
Table 11: Score-constructor ablation for cached LLM-clue attackers ( α=0.05 ). “Med.”/“Mean” refer to ∣Cα∣ . All constructors achieve valid coverage; efficiency (certified set size) varies moderately across constructors and across the different attacker pipelines.
ncal
Avg. coverage
Avg. median ∣Cα∣
50
0.962
151.2
100
0.957
148.2
150
0.927
140.3
Appendix
Table 12: Calibration-set-size ablation on matched TextWash direct retrieval ( α=0.05 , ntest=100 ), averaged over the three TextWash categories.
m
Top-1
Cov.
Med. ∣Cα∣
Mean ∣Cα∣
1
0.490
0.980
120
120.020
3
0.510
0.970
83
82.590
5
0.510
0.970
82
82.110
10
0.490
0.970
78
78.060
Appendix
Table 13: Sampling-budget ablation with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct on TextWash famous ( α=0.05 , ncal=ntest=100 , candidate-miss rate 0 ). Coverage stays above target while larger budgets yield tighter certified sets at the same nominal coverage level.
Assessing the privacy of large language models (LLMs) presents significant challenges. In particular, most existing methods for auditing differential privacy require the insertion of specially crafted canary data during training, making them impractical for auditing already-trained models without costly retraining. Additionally, dataset inference, which audits whether a suspect dataset was used to train a model, is infeasible without access to a private non-member held-out dataset. Yet, such held-out datasets are often unavailable or difficult to construct for real-world cases since they have to be from the same distribution (IID) as the suspect data. These limitations severely hinder the ability to conduct scalable, post-hoc audits. To enable such audits, this work introduces natural identifiers (NIDs) as a novel solution to the above-mentioned challenges. NIDs are structured random strings, such as cryptographic hashes and shortened URLs, naturally occurring in common LLM training datasets. Their format enables the generation of unlimited additional random strings from the same distribution, which can act as alternative canaries for audits and as same-distribution held-out data for dataset inference. Our evaluation highlights that indeed, using NIDs, we can facilitate post-hoc differential privacy auditing without any retraining and enable dataset inference for any suspect dataset containing NIDs without the need for a private non-member held-out dataset.
Lorenzo Rossi, Bartłomiej Marek, Franziska Boenisch +1
Recent work on protecting privacy during user-LLM interactions often focuses on direct, explicit identifiers: the personally-identifiable information (PII) captured by standard detectors. One such approach is Privacy-Conscious Delegation (PCD), where a local LLM acts as an intermediary. However, privacy risk does not stem solely from explicit identifiers but also PII-free self-disclosures, leaving users identifiable through combinations of quasi-identifying traits. We investigate a probabilistic variant of PCD, where we augment its objectives with an LLM-driven probabilistic estimation of k-anonymity. To facilitate this, we first create the PUPA-SD dataset, which contains naturalistic user queries with self-disclosure. Our preliminary results indicate that optimizing PAPILLON on PUPA-SD improves quality on unseen conversations across a variety of local models and produces the best privacy-utility balance for Llama-3.2-3B, while smaller models struggle to jointly optimize quality and privacy. We propose k-anonymity as a useful auxiliary metric for tackling PCD.
Li Siyan, Zhou Yu, Julia Hirschberg
Department of Computer Science Columbia University
As Large Language Models (LLMs) gain tool use capabilities such as web search, they can retrieve and cross-reference public information, creating privacy risks beyond memorization. One manifestation is re-identification: linking an anonymized interview transcript to a named individual. Yet without ground-truth identities, the coverage of such attacks and the protection offered by a defense cannot be reliably measured. We introduce AgentDOXX, an evaluation suite of 822 synthetic interview transcripts grounded in public information about real individuals with known identities. We evaluate fifteen configurations of open-weight and proprietary models, isolating the effect of web search, and analyze their search trajectories to distinguish retrieval-driven from parametric identifications. Ground-truth identities reveal that re-identification risk is distributed across an agent's execution: retrieval and parametric recall both contribute, with open-weight models identifying 15-28% of transcripts without search; identification succeeds in over 88% of cases once the target appears in a retrieved result; entity masking leaves at least one attacker successful on 85.3% of a stratified sample; and privacy instructions suppress naming but not retrieval, with configurations scoring 0% accuracy yet retrieving the subject in up to 62% of transcripts. We further show that observed attack trajectories can provide supervision for localizing identifying spans, offering a path toward attack-informed anonymization.
Jianing Wen, Tianshi Li
Khoury College of Computer Sciences Northeastern University Boston, MA