STAMP: Selective Task-Aware Mechanism for Text Privacy
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present STAMP (Selective Task-Aware Mechanism for Text Privacy), a new framework for task-aware text privatization that achieves an improved privacy-utility trade-off. STAMP selectively allocates privacy budgets across tokens by jointly considering (i) each token's importance to the downstream task (as measured via a task- or query-specific representation), and (ii) its privacy sensitivity (e.g., names, dates, identifiers). This token-level partitioning enables fine-grained, group-wise control over the level of noise applied to different parts of the input, balancing privacy protection with task relevance. To privatize individual token embeddings, we introduce the polar mechanism, which perturbs only the direction of embeddings on the unit sphere while preserving their magnitude. Decoding is performed via cosine nearest-neighbor search, aligning the perturbation geometry with the decoding geometry. Unlike isotropic noise mechanisms, the polar mechanism maintains semantic neighborhoods in the embedding space and better preserves downstream utility. Experimental evaluations on SQuAD, Yelp, and AG News datasets demonstrate that STAMP, when combined with the normalized polar mechanism, consistently achieves superior privacy-utility trade-offs across varying per-token privacy budgets.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2026.
Builds on
19 of 28 references.
References · 19
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2017Billion-scale similarity search with GPUscited by 2,477
- 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,293
- 2016Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using Hierarchical Navigable Small World graphscited by 853
- 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
- 2013The Composition Theorem for Differential Privacycited by 290
- 2017All-but-the-Top: Simple and Effective Postprocessing for Word Representationscited by 205
- 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
- 2023Locally Differentially Private Document Generation Using Zero Shot Promptingcited by 63
- 2022A Customized Text Sanitization Mechanism with Differential Privacycited by 51
- 2019Local Differential Privacy for Deep Learningcited by 46
7 more
- 2021TEM: High Utility Metric Differential Privacy on Textcited by 43
- 2020A Differentially Private Text Perturbation Method Using a Regularized Mahalanobis Metriccited by 41
- 2020A Comprehensive Survey on Local Differential Privacy Toward Data Statistics and Analysiscited by 26
- 2023Driving Context into Text-to-Text Privatizationcited by 13
- 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
- 2025Spend Your Budget Wisely: Towards an Intelligent Distribution of the Privacy Budget in Differentially Private Text Rewritingcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.