Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

CIDER: A Dataset of Contextual Disclosure Boundaries for Privacy Preference Alignment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Six past choices lift LLM disclosure prediction by 11 points

desk verdict CIDER is a valuable per-user disclosure dataset, but the headline personalization gain is confounded by a mismatched no-history baseline prompt. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09164 v2 pith:OAZH3J75 submitted 2026-08-10 cs.AI

Bingcan Guo , Eryue Xu , Jijie Zhou , Zhiping Zhang , Tianshi Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords privacypreferencealignmentcontextualdisclosureboundariesgranularityandidentifiabilityin-contextpersonalizationLLMevaluationdatasetfalsepositive-negativetrade-offintegrityhumanannotation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

CIDER is a new dataset that records how 169 real people would feel about sharing the same sensitive information at nine different levels of detail and identifiability, across 60 everyday scenarios. The paper uses these recorded contextual disclosure boundaries to ask whether an LLM can predict a given person's sharing decisions in a new situation from just six of their past decisions. The answer it argues for is yes, but unevenly: in-context personalization lifts accuracy by up to 11.41 percentage points, with the strongest models using scenario meaning while smaller models lean on crude structural rules about detail and identifiability. The paper also argues that accuracy alone hides a systematic imbalance, because most models trade false positives against false negatives, and only one model cut both error types on every variant. If right, CIDER gives the field a working benchmark for personalized privacy alignment rather than norm-level compliance alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the contextual disclosure boundary: a user's nine binary accept-and-reject decisions on variants spanning a 3x3 grid of granularity (general, moderately detailed, very detailed) and identifiability (not, partially, fully identifiable), collected under a fixed scenario, communication role, and AI-mediation condition. A generation pipeline produces the nine variants for each scenario, and the boundary is read by models through three personalization conditions—full semantic context (HC), structural labels only (HL), and bare decisions without context or labels (H)—which isolate whether prediction gains come from semantic understanding or from structural heuristics. The boundary serves simultaneously as the dataset unit, the prediction target, and the instrument that exposes asymmetric error shifts across variants.

What would settle it

Have independent raters blind-rate the variants from all 60 scenarios on the granularity and identifiability scales without seeing the intended labels; if a nontrivial share of variants is mis-assigned, such as a general variant rated as detailed or an unidentifiable variant that reveals the subject, the ordinal structure underpinning the variant-level false-positive and false-negative claims is violated. Alternatively, rerun the prediction task with human-written variants: if the FP-FN patterns persist, the conclusions reflect the structural dimensions rather than artifacts of generated wording.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an individual's privacy preference can be operationalized as a contextual disclosure boundary—a binary yes/no rating over nine variants ordered along granularity and identifiability—and that this boundary can be predicted from behavioral history without any parameter updates. On 1,650 such boundaries from 169 users, in-context personalization with six historical scenarios improves prediction accuracy by up to 11.41 percentage points over the no-history baseline, with the best models reaching about 72 percent accuracy. The paper further claims that larger reasoning models extract user-specific and context-specific semantics from history, whereas smaller models mostly apply structural heuristics keyed to the two disclosure dimensions, and that personalization's benefit is not error-balanced: across the nine variants only Claude Sonnet 4.6 reduced both false-positive and false-negative rates, while every other model increased at least one error type on some variant.

Load-bearing premise

The nine generated variants must faithfully instantiate the intended three-by-three granularity and identifiability grid and preserve its ordinal structure; that quality rests on one author's review of 15 scenarios with partial-credit scores of 0.96 and 0.97 plus two authors' review of all variants, so if variants also differ in tone or naturalness the variant-level error analyses are not cleanly attributable to the two dimensions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If six past boundaries can shift accuracy by more than 11 points, inference-time personalization becomes a viable route to privacy alignment without retraining or updating model parameters.
  • The gap between the semantic and structural conditions indicates that richer conversational context, not just more history, is what frontier models convert into user-specific predictions; smaller models plateau because they fall back on granularity and identifiability shortcuts.
  • The false-positive and false-negative asymmetry implies that aggregate accuracy overstates alignment, so privacy benchmarks should report both error directions per disclosure variant rather than a single score.
  • Because model-predicted individual boundaries tie or beat group-based and norm-based boundaries in most compared cases, the paper supports treating personalized preference modeling, not norm compliance, as the right target for privacy-aligned assistants.
  • The tension between frontier-model accuracy and small-model local deployment frames a concrete design trade-off: achieving both privacy and personalization requires improving contextual reasoning in on-device models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to treat the FP-FN imbalance as an explicit design objective: fine-tuning a small model on CIDER with an asymmetric loss that penalizes false positives more heavily would show whether the structural-heuristic floor is a capability ceiling or merely a prompt and training artifact.
  • The ordinal granularity-by-identifiability grid could be reused as a controllable probe for other alignment axes, such as emotional tone or recipient trust, letting future datasets measure how LLM disclosure behavior shifts along each dimension independently.
  • The paper's single-session snapshot invites a longitudinal extension: re-contacting the same users weeks later would test whether disclosure boundaries are stable enough to justify long-term personalization, and whether a model should update or override stale history.
  • Because human acceptance falls monotonically along both axes while inter-user variance is wide, one direct extension is to check whether models' per-variant error patterns correlate with users' self-reported need for privacy and attitudes toward AI.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CIDER, a dataset of 14,850 human disclosure-acceptability ratings from 169 users, organized into 1,650 contextual disclosure boundaries over 60 interpersonal information-sharing scenarios. Each boundary is a 9-bit vector over variants that factorially combine three granularity levels and three identifiability levels. The authors formulate a task in which an LLM must predict a user's boundary for a new scenario from k historical boundaries (k∈{1,4,5,6}), under three history conditions (HC, full semantic context; HL, structural labels only; H, bare decisions) and a no-history baseline. They evaluate 12 models, reporting accuracy, variant-level FP/FN shifts, error analyses, and comparisons against group- and norm-level baselines. The headline finding is that in-context personalization improves prediction by up to 11.41 pp (Claude Sonnet 4.6, HC k=6), while model-scale and variant-level analyses reveal heterogeneous FP/FN trade-offs. The dataset, prompts, and study artifacts are released.

Significance. If the comparative results withstand scrutiny, CIDER fills a real gap: it provides personalized, contextually situated disclosure boundaries rather than aggregate privacy norms, and it ships a reusable elicitation protocol plus an evaluation suite. The study design has notable strengths: real-user data with attention checks, manipulation checks (GEE effects of granularity/identifiability, monotonicity, inter-user agreement) that support the boundary structure, an explicit error taxonomy, and detailed prompt and appendix documentation. The central causal claim about history is, however, currently supported by an uncontrolled comparison, and several supporting claims lack uncertainty quantification; both are addressable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Appendix A.2 (Figs. 5–8), Table 1] The no-history baseline and the personalized conditions differ in more than the presence of history. The HC/HL/H system prompts (Figures 5–7) instruct the model to infer the user's information disclosure preferences and to produce exactly two reasoning sentences, whereas the no-history prompt (Figure 8) asks it to 'predict the user's answer' with one sentence of reasoning. Consequently, the 11.41 pp gain attributed to in-context personalization (Abstract, Table 1) and the FP/FN comparisons against baseline (Section 4.2.2, Table 6) conflate the effect of history with a different task framing and reasoning format. Please add a k=0 control that uses the same personalized system prompt (e.g., an empty <History> section, or an explicit instruction to infer preferences without history) and the same two-sentence reasoning requirement, and recompute all headline and variant-level comparisons against this control. This is necessary to make the attribution claim 'in-context personalization improves prediction' clean.
  2. [Table 1, §4.2.1] Table 1 and Section 4.2.1 report only point estimates, with no confidence intervals or significance tests, for all main comparisons. Claims such as 'GPT-5.4 improving by 1.38 pp from k=4 to k=6' and 'Qwen3.5-9B decreases by 0.23 pp under HC' are within the range one would expect from user-level variance across 169 users. Please report user-cluster bootstrap confidence intervals for at least the headline comparisons (HC k=6 vs no-history, HC vs HL, and k=4 vs k=6 for the models used in the scaling discussion), and indicate which differences are not statistically distinguishable.
  3. [§3.1, Appendix D.4.2, §4.2.2] The validity of the variant-level analyses rests on the assumption that the nine variants in each scenario vary essentially only in granularity and identifiability. Section 3.1 and Appendix D.4.2 validate this with a single author's review of 15 scenarios (scores 0.96 and 0.97) plus a two-author pass for correctness, but they do not measure inter-rater reliability or control for confounds such as tone, naturalness, or perceived sensitivity. Because Section 4.2.2 and the 'structural heuristics' claims interpret model behavior at the variant level, please add an independent, blind rating study (or at least a second annotator with agreement statistics) for the intended dimensions and for plausibility/naturalness, or temper these conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1, Appendix B.1] The footnote for Llama 3.1 8B and Appendix B.1 describe prediction failures, but the main text does not fully explain how these failures are handled when computing per-user accuracy; dropping failed scenarios can change the user-macro denominator and make this model's numbers less comparable.
  2. [§3.1] The use of GPT-o3 to generate variants while OpenAI models are evaluated later is a distributional overlap that the paper does not acknowledge; a sentence of transparency would be useful.
  3. [Appendix C.4] The norm-level baseline defined as all 'No' is a strong modeling choice; consider using a norm-derived boundary (e.g., from PrivacyLens norm ratings) or explicitly justify why all-No is the appropriate norm baseline.
  4. [Abstract, §4.2.1] The abstract and Section 4.2.1 state that personalization 'generally improves' accuracy while several small models underperform the no-history baseline under H; consider adding a qualifier such as 'under HC/HL' to avoid overstating the general claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are scored against held-out human ratings, and no model parameter is fitted to test labels.

full rationale

The paper's claim chain is not circular. CIDER's labels are human disclosure decisions collected from 169 participants; the disclosure variants are generated by GPT-o3 but then human-reviewed and rated by participants, so the model-evaluation labels do not come from the evaluated models. The prediction task uses held-out human boundaries as ground truth, and the 12 evaluated models are prompted in a zero-shot or few-shot manner without any parameter fitting to the test labels. The only overlap is distributional: GPT-o3 generated variants while OpenAI models are among those evaluated, but the paper does not use model outputs to construct the labels or the variants, and the variant generation is validated by human review. Self-citations, including PrivacyLens (Shao et al., 2024) as the scenario seed source and prior work by the same authors in related work, are contextual and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The difference between the no-history baseline prompt and the personalized prompts is a controlled-comparison validity concern rather than a circular step, because the headline accuracy numbers are not equal to the inputs by construction. The central benchmark result is therefore self-contained against external human ground truth.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central evaluation does not fit parameters to predict outcomes, so no free parameters are load-bearing. The main assumptions are domain-level: disclosure boundaries can be elicited as binary ratings over a 3x3 variant grid, and the GPT-o3-generated variants faithfully instantiate those dimensions. The paper provides manipulation checks that partially support these assumptions. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nine GPT-o3-generated variants instantiate the intended 3x3 granularity and identifiability levels with ordinal structure.
    Sections 3.1 and D.4.2 report one-author partial-credit scores near 1 on 15 scenarios and two-author review of all variants. This is the load-bearing premise for variant-level FP/FN attribution.
  • domain assumption Participants' binary ratings of hypothetical vignettes in a single online session elicit their actual contextual disclosure boundaries.
    Section 3.2 and the Limitations section acknowledge the single-session snapshot and do not validate stability over time.
  • domain assumption Contextual Integrity and Communication Privacy Management offer valid theoretical grounding for treating disclosure boundaries as individual and context-dependent.
    Section 2.1 inherits these theories to justify the dataset's framing of personalized privacy.
  • domain assumption Granularity and identifiability are the two relevant orthogonal dimensions for disclosure acceptability, and other variant properties are negligible.
    Sections 2.1 and 3.1 define the design space. Monotonicity and GEE results partially support this, but variant text can differ in other linguistic dimensions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CIDER: A Dataset of Contextual Disclosure Boundaries for Privacy Preference Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAZH3J75

@misc{pith2026260809164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CIDER: A Dataset of Contextual Disclosure Boundaries for Privacy Preference Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAZH3J75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09164}
}
read the original abstract

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human privacy preferences requires capturing individuals' disclosure boundaries beyond general privacy norms. However, a gap remains in eliciting such nuanced preferences to evaluate alignment in realistic settings. We introduce CIDER, a dataset of 14,850 human annotations from 169 users, forming 1,650 contextual disclosure boundary sets across 60 interpersonal communication scenarios involving information sharing that violates privacy norms. Each boundary represents a real user's disclosure decisions over 9 sharing variants in a scenario, for a given communication role and AI-mediated condition. We formulate a task in which models predict a user's disclosure decision from historical boundaries, with varying levels of contextual information. Across 12 open and proprietary models, in-context personalization improves prediction accuracy by up to 11.41 percentage points using only 6 historical examples. Larger models such as GPT-5.4 (with medium reasoning effort) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 are better at leveraging semantic context to understand user-specific, context-dependent disclosure preferences for more accurate predictions, while smaller models tend to rely on structured heuristics based on disclosure granularity and identifiability. Personalization generally improves prediction accuracy, but the improvement is often accompanied by imbalanced shifts in false-positive and false-negative rates across models, with only Claude Sonnet 4.6 achieving balanced improvements in both. Our findings reveal both the promise and limitations of inference-time personalization for privacy preference modeling and position CIDER as a resource for advancing personalized privacy alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of CIDER’s human study for col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance for all models under HC condi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Variant-level FP/FN shift from Baseline to HC ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prompt used for disclosure decision prediction with decision history and semantic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Prompt used for disclosure decision prediction with decision history and variant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prompt used for disclosure decision prediction with decision history, but without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Prompt used for disclosure decision prediction without decision history, without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance for all models under the HL condition across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance for all models under the H condition across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance for all models across conditions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Variant-level FP/FN shift from Baseline to HC ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Variant-level FP/FN shift from the original prompt to zero-shot CoT for Llama [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Average Yes rates for the nine disclosure variants (G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Inter-user agreement for scenarios (data sender). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Inter-user agreement for scenarios (data sender). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Inter-user agreement for scenarios (data recipient). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Inter-user agreement for scenarios (data subject). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: An overview of the personal contextual disclosure boundary elicitation task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Sender’s version [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Recipient’s version [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Subject’s version Corresponding text descriptions are as follows: Sender’s version You are John. You’re sharing Michael’s recent personal traumatic experi￾ence with Emily by sending her a message on Messenger. Note: - Michael is your friend; - Emily is another friend …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Subject’s version Corresponding text descriptions are as follows: Sender’s version You are John. You’re sharing Michael’s recent personal traumatic experi￾ence with Emily by sending her a message on Messenger. Note: - Michael is your friend; - Emily is another friend …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Prompt for generating disclosure variants for one scenario. 39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_22.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Prompt for generating disclosure variants for one scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_22.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    It includes:

    <variants> 9 disclosure variants with the user's answers (YES or NO), presented in shuffled order: These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed.,→ <Prediction> This section contains a new interpersonal communication scenario the user has not seen before. It includes:

  2. [3]

    Identifiability:

    Very detailed: The disclosure covers the comprehensive and fine-grained details of the information. Identifiability:

  3. [5]

    reasoning

    <variants> 9 disclosure variants, in shuffled order: These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed.,→ Before making the prediction, follow these steps strictly: Step 1: Infer the user's preference patterns and summarize them concisely. Step 2: Based only on this inferred ...

    2026

  4. [7]

    These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed

    <variants> 9 disclosure variants with the user's answers (YES or NO) and variant semantic content redacted, presented in shuffled order. These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed. Each variant corresponds to a unique combination of granularity (level of detail) and id...

  5. [8]

    General: The disclosure is a high-level abstraction of the information without mentioning fine details about the action, processes, or context

  6. [9]

    Moderately detailed: The disclosure elaborates some details about the information, but is still abstract and not exhaustive

  7. [11]

    Not Identifiable: The disclosure anonymizes or omits all personal identifiers of the data subject that could be used to directly or indirectly trace back to them.,→

  8. [12]

    Partially Identifiable: The disclosure contains attributes or contextual references that cannot be directly used to identify the data subject, but can be combined with other attributes, contextual metadata, or publicly available information to trace back to them.,→

Show all 28 references
  1. [13]

    It includes:

    Fully Identifiable: The disclosure contains direct identifiers that can uniquely identify the data subject - such as their name, role, or other specific identifiers.,→ <Prediction> This section contains a new interpersonal communication scenario the user has not seen before. I...

  2. [14]

    Additional context will be included if any.,→

    <scenario> The scenario context, including who is sharing what information, with whom, through which transmission principle. Additional context will be included if any.,→

  3. [15]

    reasoning

    <variants> 9 disclosure variants, in shuffled order: These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed.,→ Before making the prediction, follow these steps strictly: Step 1: Infer the user's prefer...

    2026

  4. [16]

    <scenario> The scenario content is redacted

  5. [17]

    <variants> 9 disclosure variants with the user's answers (YES or NO) and variant semantic content redacted, presented in shuffled order. These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed.,→ <Predi...

  6. [19]

    reasoning

    <variants> 9 disclosure variants, in shuffled order: These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed.,→ Before making the prediction, follow these steps strictly: Step 1: Infer the user's prefer...

    2026

  7. [20]

    <scenario> The scenario context, including who is sharing what information, with whom, through which transmission principle

  8. [21]

    reasoning

    <variants> 9 disclosure variants, presented in shuffled order: These variants are alternative ways the same underlying information could be shared, differing in how the information is disclosed.,→ Before making the prediction, reason about the current scenario and then predict...

    2026

  9. [22]

    Rationale & LiteratureThe scope and type of data recipients influence social proximity and trust in interpersonal communication

    Recipient Scope DefinitionRecipients are classified by the scope and relationship with the data sender. Rationale & LiteratureThe scope and type of data recipients influence social proximity and trust in interpersonal communication. Several works identified the importance of t...

    2011

  10. [23]

    Rationale & LiteratureTransmission principles influence the perceived risks of dissem- inating the data

    Transmission Principle DefinitionA transmission principle refers to the condition under which an information flow is permitted and is categorized by the level of access to the data. Rationale & LiteratureTransmission principles influence the perceived risks of dissem- inating ...

    2004

  11. [24]

    Very Difficult to Understand

    Data Subject DefinitionData subjects are categorized by their relationship with the data sender. 33 Published as a conference paper at COLM 2026 Rationale & LiteratureThe type of data subject influences the consent and ethical con- siderations of data sharing. Previous work fo...

    2026

  12. [25]

    general + not identifiable

    Procedure: - Identify the variant1 "general + not identifiable" response. This variant has the minimal relevant disclosure of the data subject's information. - Identify the variant2 "very detailed + fully identifiable" response. This variant has the most identifiable and compr...

  13. [26]

    general + not identifiable

    Generate: - variant1 "general + not identifiable": ... - variant2 "very detailed + fully identifiable": ... ### Step 2: Cross-Diagonal Variants

  14. [27]

    very detailed + not identifiable

    Procedure: - Based on the two extreme variants above, variant1 and variant2, keep all other irrelevant elements consistent to generate the cross-diagonal variants variant3 "very detailed + not identifiable" and variant4 "general + fully identifiable".,→ - variant3 "very detail...

  15. [28]

    very detailed + not identifiable

    Generate: - variant3 "very detailed + not identifiable": ... - variant4 "general + fully identifiable": ... ### Step 3: Row & Column Midpoints

  16. [29]

    general". Use variant1 and variant4 to generate variant5

    Procedure: - Fix the "general". Use variant1 and variant4 to generate variant5 "general + partially identifiable" response. Ensure the response has the same granularity level as "general", and the identifiability lies between the given two responses.,→ - Fix the "very detailed...

  17. [30]

    general + partially identifiable

    Generate: - variant5 "general + partially identifiable": ... - variant6 "very detailed + partially identifiable": ... - variant7 "moderately detailed + fully identifiable": ... - variant8 "moderately detailed + not identifiable": ... ### Step 4: Center Variant

  18. [31]

    moderately detailed + partially identifiable

    Procedure: - Based on the four midpoint variants above variant5, variant6, variant7, and variant8, keep all core elements consistent to generate variant9 "moderately detailed + partially identifiable".,→

  19. [32]

    moderately detailed + partially identifiable

    Generate: - variant9 "moderately detailed + partially identifiable": ... --- Start with **Step 1**, write out your reasoning first, then output the corresponding text. After completing all steps, present the 9 variants in the "Output Format" exactly as specified.,→ Figure 22: ...

    2026

  20. [2026]

    whether they feel comfortable sharing the information in this way

    URL https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-4-multimodal-intelligence/ . Accessed: March 29, 2026. Niloofar Mireshghallah, Hyunwoo Kim, Xuhui Zhou, Yulia Tsvetkov, Maarten Sap, Reza Shokri, and Yejin Choi. Can llms keep a secret? testing privacy implications of language models via cont...

    2000 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.