PreprintCited by 5Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deploying Privacy Guardrails for LLMs: A Comparative Analysis of Real-World Applications

Open access

Abstract

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized AI applications but poses significant challenges in safeguarding user privacy. Ensuring compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR and CCPA while addressing nuanced privacy risks requires robust and scalable frameworks. This paper presents a detailed study of OneShield Privacy Guard, a framework designed to mitigate privacy risks in user inputs and LLM outputs across enterprise and open-source settings. We analyze two real-world deployments:(1) a multilingual privacy-preserving system integrated with Data and Model Factory, focusing on enterprise-scale data governance; and (2) PR Insights, an open-source repository emphasizing automated triaging and community-driven refinements. In Deployment 1, OneShield achieved a 0.95 F1 score in detecting sensitive entities like dates, names, and phone numbers across 26 languages, outperforming state-of-the-art tool such as StarPII and Presidio by up to 12\%. Deployment 2, with an average F1 score of 0.86, reduced manual effort by over 300 hours in three months, accurately flagging 8.25\% of 1,256 pull requests for privacy risks with enhanced context sensitivity. These results demonstrate OneShield's adaptability and efficacy in diverse environments, offering actionable insights for context-aware entity recognition, automated compliance, and ethical AI adoption. This work advances privacy-preserving frameworks, supporting user trust and compliance across operational contexts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2501.12456

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Carlini, N.; Tramer, F.; Wallace, E.; Jagielski, M.; Herbert- Voss, A.; Lee, K.; Roberts, A.; Brown, T.; Song, D.; Erlings- son, U.; et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2633-2650.
  2. Smith, J. R.; Saint-Amand, H.; Plamada, M.; Koehn, P.; Callison-Burch, C.; and Lopez, A. 2013. Dirt cheap web- scale parallel text from the common crawl. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Asthana, S., Zhang, B., Mahindru, R., DeLuca, C., Gentile, A. L., & Gopisetty, S.
Affiliations
IBM (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406755937
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language models, GDPR compliance, California Consumer Privacy Act, data governance, privacy-preserving AI, ethical AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review