Papers › PrivaCI-Bench: Evaluating Privacy with Contextual Integrity and Legal Compliance

PrivaCI-Bench: Evaluating Privacy with Contextual Integrity and Legal Compliance

24 Feb 2025arXiv:2502.17041archive 2025-07-28

Haoran Li, Wenbin Hu, Huihao Jing, Yulin Chen, Qi Hu, Sirui Han, Tianshu Chu, Peizhao Hu, Yangqiu Song

Recent advancements in generative large language models (LLMs) have enabled wider applicability, accessibility, and flexibility. However, their reliability and trustworthiness are still in doubt, especially for concerns regarding individuals' data privacy. Great efforts have been made on privacy by building various evaluation benchmarks to study LLMs' privacy awareness and robustness from their generated outputs to their hidden representations. Unfortunately, most of these works adopt a narrow formulation of privacy and only investigate personally identifiable information (PII). In this paper, we follow the merit of the Contextual Integrity (CI) theory, which posits that privacy evaluation should not only cover the transmitted attributes but also encompass the whole relevant social context through private information flows. We present PrivaCI-Bench, a comprehensive contextual privacy evaluation benchmark targeted at legal compliance to cover well-annotated privacy and safety regulations, real court cases, privacy policies, and synthetic data built from the official toolkit to study LLMs' privacy and safety compliance. We evaluate the latest LLMs, including the recent reasoner models QwQ-32B and Deepseek R1. Our experimental results suggest that though LLMs can effectively capture key CI parameters inside a given context, they still require further advancements for privacy compliance.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from HKUST-KnowComp/PrivaCI-Bench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections