TRAP: Benchmark for Task-completion and Resistance to Active Privacy-extraction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Agents are increasingly deployed in document-intensive workflows where sensitive private information is not an edge case but a routine input, e.g., an agent booking a flight needs passport numbers. In such settings, the agent must use private information to complete tasks accurately while never exposing it in its responses, because it cannot verify who is actually at the keyboard. These two obligations are in fundamental tension. A model capable enough to use private information for task completion can, by the same capability, be induced to reveal it. To evaluate the trade-off of task accuracy and privacy leakage, we introduce Task-completion and Resistance to Active Privacy-extraction (TRAP). Each scenario includes a document containing private information, a task query that requires the agent to invoke the correct tool using private fields, and an attack query that attempts to elicit the same information in natural language. Evaluating 22 models spanning frontier proprietary and open-source models at multiple scales, we find that all model families exhibit non-trivial leakage, and that instruction-following ability correlates with leakage rate. Existing prompt-based defenses reduce leakage but at significant cost to task accuracy. Prompt optimization fails to escape this trade-off. We demonstrate that this failure is not incidental. For any softmax-based model, no soft-constraint defense, e.g., prompt-based defenses, can jointly achieve high task success with zero leakage probability. Motivated by this impossibility result, we propose structural private field isolation, which replaces private fields with hash keys before they reach the model. This approach largely prevents leakage while keeping task accuracy.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2026.
Builds on
16 of 21 references.
References · 16
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,588
- 2025Qwen3-VL Technical Reportcited by 2,793
- 2025InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiencycited by 1,510
- 2024ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Toolscited by 1,121
- 2024DeepSeek-VL2: Mixture-of-Experts Vision-Language Models for Advanced Multimodal Understandingcited by 572
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 538
- 2025Phi-4-Mini Technical Report: Compact yet Powerful Multimodal Language Models via Mixture-of-LoRAscited by 521
- 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 171
- 2025AgentDAM: Privacy Leakage Evaluation for Autonomous Web Agentscited by 82
- 2025MAGPIE: A benchmark for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluationcited by 29
- 2025Simple Prompt Injection Attacks Can Leak Personal Data Observed by LLM Agents During Task Executioncited by 26
4 more
- 2025PrivacyBench: A Conversational Benchmark for Evaluating Privacy in Personalized AIcited by 12
- 2025SALT: Steering Activations towards Leakage-free Thinking in Chain of Thoughtcited by 11
- 2026Contextualized Privacy Defense for LLM Agentscited by 7
- 2026Unveiling Privacy Risks in Multi-modal Large Language Models: Task-specific Vulnerabilities and Mitigation Challengescited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.