WeSearch
POLAR-Bench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Privacy-Utility Trade-offs in LLM Agents

POLAR-Bench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Privacy-Utility Trade-offs in LLM Agents

·3 min read · 0 reactions · 0 comments · 45 views
More from arXiv cs.AI ai research Compare coverage Trending Talk Blindspots Daily Sources Live wire
TL;DR · WeSearch summary

The article introduces POLAR-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate privacy-utility trade-offs in large language model (LLM) agents. It highlights the challenges LLMs face in adhering to user-defined privacy policies while interacting with third-party systems. The findings indicate a significant disparity in privacy performance between advanced models and smaller, commonly used models.

Key facts
About this source

arXiv cs.AI files mainly under ai research. We currently carry 1,128 of its stories.

Original article
arXiv cs.AI
Read full at arXiv cs.AI →

Story provenance

Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →

Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.

Record

Original publisherarXiv cs.AI
Canonical URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19127
Publication timeWed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 -0400
Retrieval time2026-05-20T04:04:59.484Z
Last seen2026-05-20T04:04:59.484Z
Headline sourcePublisher (no WeSearch rewrite)
Excerpt sourcepublisher body
Excerpt methodFirst ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited.
SummaryWeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer)
Summary source textcontentText
Citation coverageSummary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL.
ClusterQH_eSkif1RqU
Cluster logicGrouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison.
Ranking reasonStory pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking.
Publisher visitYes — open original
Substitutes article?No — link-out required for full text

Rights status (four layers)

Publisher-declared
No publisher-confirmed rights record for this source yet.
Machine-readable
No source-specific machine-readable restriction detected beyond the public feed.
WeSearch interpretation
WeSearch declared handling (basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed). This is WeSearch policy, not a legal grant on the publisher's behalf.
Unknown
Retrieval and training permissions are not asserted unless the publisher confirms them.

WeSearch handling by dimension

Indexing May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? Allowed
Snippet May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? Allowed
AI summary May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? Limited
Retrieval / RAG May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? Not asserted
Model training May the content be used to train AI models? Not asserted
Commercial reuse May the content be reused commercially? Not permitted

Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.

Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2605.19127 (cs) [Submitted on 18 May 2026] Title:POLAR-Bench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Privacy-Utility Trade-offs in LLM Agents Authors:Qiaoyuan Zheng, Yiqu Yang, Qi Gao, Imanol Schlag View a PDF of the paper titled POLAR-Bench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Privacy-Utility Trade-offs in LLM Agents, by Qiaoyuan Zheng and 3 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:LLM agents increasingly have access to private user data and act on the user's behalf when interacting with third-party systems. The user defines what may and must not be shared, and the agent must robustly follow that intent even when third-party systems behave adversarially.

Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv cs.AI.

Anonymous · no account needed
Share 𝕏 Facebook Reddit LinkedIn Threads WhatsApp Bluesky Mastodon Email

Discussion

0 comments

More from arXiv cs.AI