mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

No Intruder, no Validity: Evaluation Criteria for Privacy-Preserving Text Anonymization

arXiv 2103.09263 ↗First posted 16 Mar 2021cs.CLcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

For sensitive text data to be shared among NLP researchers and practitioners, shared documents need to comply with data protection and privacy laws. There is hence a growing interest in automated approaches for text anonymization. However, measuring such methods' performance is challenging: missing a single identifying attribute can reveal an individual's identity. In this paper, we draw attention to this problem and argue that researchers and practitioners developing automated text anonymization systems should carefully assess whether their evaluation methods truly reflect the system's ability to protect individuals from being re-identified. We then propose TILD, a set of evaluation criteria that comprises an anonymization method's technical performance, the information loss resulting from its anonymization, and the human ability to de-anonymize redacted documents. These criteria may facilitate progress towards a standardized way for measuring anonymization performance.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2021.

Builds on

1 of 12 references.

References · 1

  1. 2019Privacy- and Utility-Preserving Textual Analysis via Calibrated Multivariate Perturbationscited by 115

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

13 papers.

Sort: