Framework operationalizes data minimization in user prompts to reduce privacy risks, showing notable differences between LLMs.
The rapid deployment of large language models (LLMs) in consumer applications has led to frequent exchanges of personal information. To obtain useful responses, users often share more than necessary, increasing privacy risks via memorization, context-based personalization, or security breaches. We present a framework to formally define and operationalize data minimization: for a given user prompt and response model, quantifying the least privacy-revealing disclosure that maintains utility, and we propose a priority-queue tree search to locate this optimal point within a privacy-ordered transformation space. We evaluated the framework on four datasets spanning open-ended conversations (ShareGPT, WildChat) and knowledge-intensive tasks with single-ground-truth answers (CaseHold, MedQA), quantifying achievable data minimization with nine LLMs as the response model. Our results demonstrate that larger frontier LLMs can tolerate stronger data minimization while maintaining task quality than smaller open-source models (85.7% redaction for GPT-5 vs. 19.3% for Qwen2.5-0.5B). By comparing with our search-derived benchmarks, we find that LLMs struggle to predict optimal data minimization directly, showing a bias toward abstraction that leads to oversharing. This suggests not just a privacy gap, but a capability gap: models may lack awareness of what information they actually need to solve a task.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: