A framework that interprets a DP-RAG guarantee along three dimensions: privacy granularity, accounting scope, and release boundaries is proposed and concludes that an $\eps$ is a claim only together with the three slots: the protected unit, the accounting scope, and the release boundary.
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables large language models to leverage external knowledge but introduces privacy risks when the retrieved corpus contains sensitive information. Differential privacy (DP) offers formal protection, yet interpreting and comparing privacy guarantees across existing DP-RAG methods remains challenging. In particular, a privacy budget reported for a single response does not directly characterize privacy loss over repeated queries, and even identical values of $\varepsilon$ may represent different guarantees depending on the protected data unit, accounting horizon, and observable outputs. This survey critically examines how privacy accounting evolves from single-query generation to multi-query RAG systems. We categorize existing approaches into query-time privatization, multi-query accounting, and one-time corpus privatization. We analyze their underlying assumptions and privacy--utility trade-offs. Rather than ranking methods by $\varepsilon$ alone, we propose a framework that interprets a DP-RAG guarantee along three dimensions: privacy granularity, accounting scope, and release boundaries. We conclude that an $\eps$ is a claim only together with the three slots: the protected unit, the accounting scope, and the release boundary.
Deploying large language models (LLMs) on sensitive data via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) introduces severe privacy risks. Recent studies apply Differential Privacy (DP) to LLMs with RAG for formal privacy guarantees. However, existing DP-RAG frameworks rapidly exhaust the privacy budget. Although recent effort...
Zhong-Hao Sun, Zhi-Liang Tian, Xin-Yue Fang et al.· 0 citations
Currently, there are two state-of-the-art, complementary privacy guarantees: contextual integrity (CI) for what may flow, and differential privacy (DP) for what may be inferred. Yet neither maps cleanly onto natural language, leaving existing approaches unable to provide these guarantees for analytics over unstructured...
Mushtari Sadia, Ang Chen, Amrita Roy Chowdhury· 0 citations
In privacy-preserving statistical query systems, the released per-query privacy-budget vector can itself constitute privacy-relevant metadata. If budgets are computed from private workload statistics, the vector may reveal sparsity, imbalance, or dispersion even when the final answers are differentially private. We stu...
Mina Khoshmehr, Fernando Beltran· International Conference on...· 0 citations
Extracting insights from textual data while protecting user privacy is increasingly important. Existing methods produce private insights in diverse forms for different analytical purposes, making their utility difficult to assess and compare. In this work, we formulate differentially private (DP) insights as reusable r...
Kai Chen, Gui-Si Ni, Albert Cheu et al.· 0 citations
Methods for training language models on sensitive data differ in how they balance capability gains against the risk of leaking private information. In this paper, we present a controlled comparison of data-level and training-level interventions for navigating the capability-privacy tradeoff on synthetic medical records...
Zihao Zhao, Avi Schwarzschild, Casey Meehan et al.· 0 citations
This paper considers four mainstream curve-based privacy notions within a unified information-theoretic framework, establishing information equivalence among the two directional privacy profiles of $(\varepsilon,\delta)$-DP, the pair of hypothesis-testing trade-off functions, and the extended privacy-loss distribution.
Buxin Su, Qiao-Shi Yang, Yi-Ding Su et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.