On the Impact of Noise in Differentially Private Text Rewriting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The field of text privatization often leverages the notion of textitDifferential Privacy (DP) to provide formal guarantees in the rewriting or obfuscation of sensitive textual data. A common and nearly ubiquitous form of DP application necessitates the addition of calibrated noise to vector representations of text, either at the data- or model-level, which is governed by the privacy parameter varepsilon. However, noise addition almost undoubtedly leads to considerable utility loss, thereby highlighting one major drawback of DP in NLP. In this work, we introduce a new sentence infilling privatization technique, and we use this method to explore the effect of noise in DP text rewriting. We empirically demonstrate that non-DP privatization techniques excel in utility preservation and can find an acceptable empirical privacy-utility trade-off, yet cannot outperform DP methods in empirical privacy protections. Our results highlight the significant impact of noise in current DP rewriting mechanisms, leading to a discussion of the merits and challenges of DP in NLP, as well as the opportunities that non-DP methods present.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2025.
Builds on
30 of 49 references.
References · 30
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
- 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,157
- 2023Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Modelscited by 415
- 2017Style Transfer from Non-Parallel Text by Cross-Alignmentcited by 246
- 2023From ChatGPT to ThreatGPT: Impact of Generative AI in Cybersecurity and Privacycited by 137
- 2018Style Transfer Through Back-Translationcited by 124
- 2020Enabling Language Models to Fill in the Blankscited by 121
- 2019Privacy- and Utility-Preserving Textual Analysis via Calibrated Multivariate Perturbationscited by 115
- 2024On Protecting the Data Privacy of Large Language Models (LLMs): A Surveycited by 91
- 2021DocNLI: A Large-scale Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inferencecited by 75
18 more
- 2021Differential Privacy for Text Analytics via Natural Text Sanitizationcited by 74
- 2020A Probabilistic Formulation of Unsupervised Text Style Transfercited by 70
- 2022The Limits of Word Level Differential Privacycited by 63
- 2023Locally Differentially Private Document Generation Using Zero Shot Promptingcited by 63
- 2018Generalised Differential Privacy for Text Document Processingcited by 52
- 2022A Customized Text Sanitization Mechanism with Differential Privacycited by 51
- 2020Differentially Private Language Models Benefit from Public Pre-trainingcited by 46
- 2020Blank Language Modelscited by 43
- 2021TEM: High Utility Metric Differential Privacy on Textcited by 43
- 2019ER-AE: Differentially Private Text Generation for Authorship Anonymizationcited by 35
- 2019SoK: Differential Privaciescited by 33
- 2022DP-Rewrite: Towards Reproducibility and Transparency in Differentially Private Text Rewritingcited by 28
- 2022Text Style Transfer for Bias Mitigation using Masked Language Modelingcited by 27
- 2024DP-MLM: Differentially Private Text Rewriting Using Masked Language Modelscited by 24
- 2024A Comparative Analysis of Word-Level Metric Differential Privacy: Benchmarking The Privacy-Utility Trade-offcited by 11
- 2024Thinking Outside of the Differential Privacy Box: A Case Study in Text Privatization with Language Model Promptingcited by 11
- 2024Just Rewrite It Again: A Post-Processing Method for Enhanced Semantic Similarity and Privacy Preservation of Differentially Private Rewritten Textcited by 9
- 2021Preventing Author Profiling through Zero-Shot Multilingual Back-Translationcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 4.
8 papers.
- 2025LLM-as-a-Judge for Privacy Evaluation? Exploring the Alignment of Human and LLM Perceptions of Privacy in Textual Datacited by 10
- 2025Unveiling Unicode's Unseen Underpinnings in Undermining Authorship Attributioncited by 3
- 2025The Double-edged Sword of LLM-based Data Reconstruction: Understanding and Mitigating Contextual Vulnerability in Word-level Differential Privacy Text Sanitizationcited by 1
- 2026Adaptive Text Anonymization: Learning Privacy-Utility Trade-offs via Prompt Optimizationcited by 1
- 2025With Privacy, Size Matters: On the Importance of Dataset Size in Differentially Private Text Rewritingcited by 0
- 2026A Case Study on the Impact of Anonymization Along the RAG Pipelinecited by 0
- 2026PrivBench: A Holistic and Modular Benchmarking Platform for Evaluating Text-to-Text Privatizationcited by 0
- 2026DP-IPI: A Hybrid Differential Privacy Text Rewriting Mechanism for Indirect Personal Identifiers in Clinical Textscited by 0
- 2026DP-IPI: A Hybrid Differential Privacy Text Rewriting Mechanism for Indirect Personal Identifiers in Clinical Texts31 Aug 2026
- 2026PrivBench: A Holistic and Modular Benchmarking Platform for Evaluating Text-to-Text Privatization30 Aug 2026
- 2026A Case Study on the Impact of Anonymization Along the RAG Pipeline17 Apr 2026
- 2026Adaptive Text Anonymization: Learning Privacy-Utility Trade-offs via Prompt Optimization24 Feb 2026
- 2025With Privacy, Size Matters: On the Importance of Dataset Size in Differentially Private Text Rewriting1 Nov 2025
- 2025The Double-edged Sword of LLM-based Data Reconstruction: Understanding and Mitigating Contextual Vulnerability in Word-level Differential Privacy Text Sanitization26 Aug 2025
- 2025Unveiling Unicode's Unseen Underpinnings in Undermining Authorship Attribution19 Aug 2025
- 2025LLM-as-a-Judge for Privacy Evaluation? Exploring the Alignment of Human and LLM Perceptions of Privacy in Textual Data16 Aug 2025