mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

OCELOT: Inference-Leakage Budgets for Privacy-Preserving LLM Agents

arXiv 2606.12341 ↗First posted 10 Jun 2026cs.CRcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly act on a user's behalf -- reading personal files, calling tools, transacting with external services -- possibly leaking personally identifiable information (PII) across trust boundaries at every step. Privacy here is a property not of a single output but of an entire trajectory, and three properties make it hard: leakage is cumulative, as individually innocuous releases accumulate across honest-but-curious or colluding sinks into inferences about a protected secret; bidirectional, as a malicious observation can inject instructions that turn the agent's own reasoning model against the user; and task-dependent, as the same field is necessary for one recipient yet gratuitous for another. Per-release contextual-integrity filters, information-flow controls, and posterior-leakage monitors each address part of this but none controls cumulative, inference-based leakage at runtime. We recast agent privacy as posterior-risk control and present OCELOT, a runtime mediator that budgets how much an adversary's belief about a secret may improve across a trajectory, rather than filtering outputs. Its mechanism, Witness-Verified Declassification, separates judgment from trust: an untrusted, locally fine-tuned defender model inspects each candidate release and emits structured evidence -- labeled atoms and proposed declassification operators -- which a deterministic verifier audits, charging a certified min-entropy cost for the chosen variant and authorizing the least-disclosing useful release under a sink-trust-weighted budget recorded on a tamper-evident ledger. Across diverse agent benchmarks and recent defenses, OCELOT attains significantly lower leakage at higher task utility, resists adaptive injection, jailbreak, cumulative inference, and sink collusion, and adds only modest overhead.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 16 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.

Builds on

16 of 32 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Information-Theoretic Privacy Control for Sequential Multi-Agent LLM Systems13 Feb
  2. 2025Privacy in Action: Towards Realistic Privacy Mitigation and Evaluation for LLM-Powered Agents22 Sep
  3. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  4. 2025AgentDAM: Privacy Leakage Evaluation for Autonomous Web Agents12 Mar
  5. 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakage13 Feb

Other references · 11

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  3. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  4. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
  5. 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 1,040
  6. 2023Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theorycited by 230
  7. 2023Beyond Memorization: Violating Privacy Via Inference with Large Language Modelscited by 175
  8. 2026Natural-Language Agent Harnessescited by 61
  9. 2026The MiniMax-M2 Series: Mini Activations Unleashing Max Real-World Intelligencecited by 61
  10. 2024Constrained Decoding for Fill-in-the-Middle Code Language Models via Efficient Left and Right Quotienting of Context-Sensitive Grammarscited by 8
  11. 2026FlexGuard: Continuous Risk Scoring for Strictness-Adaptive LLM Content Moderationcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Confuse the Model, Control the Flow: Understanding and Mitigating Privacy Leakage from LLM Agents with Information Flow Control
  2. 20251-2-3 Check: Enhancing Contextual Privacy in LLM via Multi-Agent Reasoning
  3. 2026AgentLeak: A Benchmark for Internal-Channel Privacy Leakage in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  4. 2026CIPL: A Channel-Aware Framework for Recoverable Privacy Leakage in LLM Agents
  5. 2025Beyond Jailbreaking: Auditing Contextual Privacy in LLM Agents
  6. 2026Observable Channels, Not Just Storage: Evaluating Privacy Leakage in LLM Agent Pipelines
  7. 2026Safer Reasoning Traces: Measuring and Mitigating Chain-of-Thought Leakage in LLMs
  8. 2025Leaky Thoughts: Large Reasoning Models Are Not Private Thinkers