MAGPIE: A dataset for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
The proliferation of LLM-based agents has led to increasing deployment of inter-agent collaboration for tasks like scheduling, negotiation, resource allocation etc. In such systems, privacy is critical, as agents often access proprietary tools and domain-specific databases requiring strict confidentiality. This paper examines whether LLM-based agents demonstrate an understanding of contextual privacy. And, if instructed, do these systems preserve inference time user privacy in non-adversarial multi-turn conversation. Existing benchmarks to evaluate contextual privacy in LLM-agents primarily assess single-turn, low-complexity tasks where private information can be easily excluded. We first present a benchmark - MAGPIE comprising 158 real-life high-stakes scenarios across 15 domains. These scenarios are designed such that complete exclusion of private data impedes task completion yet unrestricted information sharing could lead to substantial losses. We then evaluate the current state-of-the-art LLMs on (a) their understanding of contextually private data and (b) their ability to collaborate without violating user privacy. Empirical experiments demonstrate that current models, including GPT-4o and Claude-2.7-Sonnet, lack robust understanding of contextual privacy, misclassifying private data as shareable 25.2% and 43.6% of the time. In multi-turn conversations, these models disclose private information in 59.9% and 50.5% of cases even under explicit privacy instructions. Furthermore, multi-agent systems fail to complete tasks in 71% of scenarios. These results underscore that current models are not aligned towards both contextual privacy preservation and collaborative task-solving.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 14 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2025.
Builds on
14 of 24 references.
References · 14
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 505
- 2025Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMscited by 424
- 2023Multi-Agent Collaboration: Harnessing the Power of Intelligent LLM Agentscited by 329
- 2023Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theorycited by 218
- 2024Two Tales of Persona in LLMs: A Survey of Role-Playing and Personalizationcited by 203
- 2024Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?cited by 188
- 2024Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Modelscited by 162
- 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 161
- 2023Theory of Mind for Multi-Agent Collaboration via Large Language Modelscited by 129
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
5 papers.
- 2025Agentic AI Security: Threats, Defenses, Evaluation, and Open Challengescited by 26
- 2026Privacy Collapse: Benign Fine-Tuning Can Break Contextual Privacy in Language Modelscited by 6
- 2026PrivAct: Internalizing Contextual Privacy Preservation via Multi-Agent Preference Trainingcited by 6
- 2026CalBench: Evaluating Coordination-Privacy Trade-offs in Multi-Agent LLMscited by 6
- 2026LLM-enabled Applications Require System-Level Threat Monitoringcited by 2
- 2026CalBench: Evaluating Coordination-Privacy Trade-offs in Multi-Agent LLMs10 May 2026
- 2026LLM-enabled Applications Require System-Level Threat Monitoring23 Feb 2026
- 2026PrivAct: Internalizing Contextual Privacy Preservation via Multi-Agent Preference Training14 Feb 2026
- 2026Privacy Collapse: Benign Fine-Tuning Can Break Contextual Privacy in Language Models21 Jan 2026
- 2025Agentic AI Security: Threats, Defenses, Evaluation, and Open Challenges27 Oct 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025MAGPIE: A benchmark for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluation
- 20251-2-3 Check: Enhancing Contextual Privacy in LLM via Multi-Agent Reasoning
- 2026MuPPET: A Benchmark for Contextual Privacy of LLM Assistants in Multi-Party Conversations
- 2025Beyond Jailbreaking: Auditing Contextual Privacy in LLM Agents
- 2026PiSAs: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity in Multi-User Agentic Systems
- 2025Protecting Users From Themselves: Safeguarding Contextual Privacy in Interactions with Conversational Agents
- 2026NeuroFilter: Activation-Based Guardrails for Privacy-Conscious LLM Agents
- 2026Say Something Else: Rethinking Contextual Privacy as Information Sufficiency