# PiSAs: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity in Multi-User Agentic Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05318 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.05318/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00118/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17884/) (2023)
- [PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Action](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00138/) (2024)
- [AirGapAgent: Protecting Privacy-Conscious Conversational Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05175/) (2024)
- [AgentDAM: Privacy Leakage Evaluation for Autonomous Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09780/) (2025)
- [GoldCoin: Grounding Large Language Models in Privacy Laws via Contextual Integrity Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11149/) (2024)
- [CI-Bench: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity of AI Assistants on Synthetic Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13903/) (2024)
- [PrivaCI-Bench: Evaluating Privacy with Contextual Integrity and Legal Compliance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17041/) (2025)
- [MAGPIE: A benchmark for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15186/) (2025)
- [CIMemories: A Compositional Benchmark for Contextual Integrity of Persistent Memory in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.14937/) (2025)
- [AgentLeak: A Benchmark for Internal-Channel Privacy Leakage in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11510/) (2026)
- [PersistBench: When Should Long-Term Memories Be Forgotten by LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01146/) (2026)
- [1-2-3 Check: Enhancing Contextual Privacy in LLM via Multi-Agent Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07667/) (2025)
- [CI-Work: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity in Enterprise LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21308/) (2026)
- [AgentSocialBench: Evaluating Privacy Risks in Human-Centered Agentic Social Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01487/) (2026)
- [CalBench: Evaluating Coordination-Privacy Trade-offs in Multi-Agent LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09823/) (2026)
- [PPMI: Privacy-Preserving LLM Interaction with Socratic Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Homomorphically Encrypted Vector Databases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.17336/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Audience-Bound Persistent Memory: Authorization Across the Memory Lifecycle](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36373/) (2026)
- [AgentPrivArena: Evaluating and Auditing Real-world AI Agent Privacy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.06454/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As LLM agents evolve from single-user assistants into shared organizational infrastructure, new privacy risks emerge: inappropriate information may not only be exposed through outputs for external recipients, but also internally across users through inter-agent messages, shared memory and agents. These data spillage risks are not captured by existing privacy benchmarks grounded in contextual integrity (CI) as they focus primarily on either single-user settings or interactions between independently owned agents. We introducePiSAs (Privacy in Shared Agentic systems), a benchmark for assessing unintentional leaks with dual CI annotations: whether an information is appropriate for the task, and which users may legitimately access it. This enables direct measurement of cross-user spillage across agentic system components and interfaces, such as outputs, inter-agent communication, and memory. PiSAsis system-agnostic and supports evaluation across different agent topologies and memory regimes. We find that, although system design improves CI compliance, results are bottlenecked by incorrect LLM judgment calls: even state-of-the-art models fail to reliably filter inappropriate content or restrict transmission to authorized users. Our findings underscore the need for privacy-preserving strategies, beyond those studied in this work.