mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Loose Lips: Understanding Privacy Leakage in Agentic Dialogue

arXiv 2610.14071 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate also fits: Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

As LLM agents are increasingly deployed in high-stakes enterprise settings, understanding how they handle sensitive information in agentic dialogue has become critical. Privacy leakage in such settings requires reasoning about whether information flows respect the contextual norms under which they originated. We extend CIMemories to CIMEMORIES DIALOGUE, a benchmark of 4,410 two-agent dialogue instances grounded in Contextual Integrity theory. Using this benchmark, we systematically evaluate 7 open-weight models from the Qwen3 and Llama 3.1 families across conversation lengths of 1 and 6 turns under three prompting conditions. We find that task capability and privacy leakage are fundamentally coupled: more capable models are systematically leakier, with no model in our evaluation able to decouple the two. Thinking models consistently leak more than their non-thinking counterparts, a pattern we attribute to the extended reasoning surface created by chain-of-thought. Leakage compounds with conversation length, rising up to 3x from 1 to 6 turns. Our results suggest that the coupling between task capability and privacy leakage is not an artifact of misconfiguration but a structural feature of current agentic systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.

Builds on

13 of 36 references.

References · 13

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 171
  3. 2024The Emerged Security and Privacy of LLM Agent: A Survey with Case Studiescited by 131
  4. 2025From Prompt Injections to Protocol Exploits: Threats in LLM-Powered AI Agents Workflowscited by 58
  5. 2024Operationalizing Contextual Integrity in Privacy-Conscious Assistantscited by 37
  6. 2025Leaky Thoughts: Large Reasoning Models Are Not Private Thinkerscited by 28
  7. 2025TAMAS: Benchmarking Adversarial Risks in Multi-Agent LLM Systemscited by 26
  8. 2025CIMemories: A Compositional Benchmark for Contextual Integrity of Persistent Memory in LLMscited by 26
  9. 2025Do Thinking Tokens Help or Trap? Towards More Efficient Large Reasoning Modelcited by 14
  10. 2025PrivacyBench: A Conversational Benchmark for Evaluating Privacy in Personalized AIcited by 12
  11. 2026PrivAct: Internalizing Contextual Privacy Preservation via Multi-Agent Preference Trainingcited by 7
  12. 2026PAC-BENCH: Evaluating Multi-Agent Collaboration under Privacy Constraintscited by 7
1 more
  1. 2025MAGPIE: A dataset for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluationcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026PiSAs: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity in Multi-User Agentic Systems
  2. 2024Privacy Leakage Overshadowed by Views of AI: A Study on Human Oversight of Privacy in Language Model Agent
  3. 2026MPCI-Bench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Pairwise Contextual Integrity Evaluation of Language Model Agents
  4. 2023Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theory
  5. 2025Beyond Jailbreaking: Auditing Contextual Privacy in LLM Agents
  6. 2026NeuroFilter: Activation-Based Guardrails for Privacy-Conscious LLM Agents
  7. 2025The Sum Leaks More Than Its Parts: Compositional Privacy Risks and Mitigations in Multi-Agent Collaboration
  8. 2025ConVerse: Benchmarking Contextual Safety in Agent-to-Agent Conversations