Do LLMs Really Memorize Personally Identifiable Information? Revisiting PII Leakage with a Cue-Controlled Memorization Framework
Xiaoyu Luo, Yiyi Chen, Qiongxiu Li, Johannes Bjerva
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been reported to "leak" Personally Identifiable Information (PII), with successful PII reconstruction often interpreted as evidence of memorization. We propose a principled revision of memorization evaluation for LLMs, arguing that PII leakage should be evaluated under low lexical cue conditions, where target PII cannot be reconstructed through prompt-induced generalization or pattern completion. We formalize Cue-Resistant Memorization (CRM) as a cue-controlled evaluation framework and a necessary condition for valid memorization evaluation, explicitly conditioning on prompt-target overlap cues. Using CRM, we conduct a largescale multilingual re-evaluation of PII leakage across 32 languages and multiple memorization paradigms. Revisiting reconstruction-based settings, including verbatim prefix-suffix completion and associative reconstruction, we find that their apparent effectiveness is driven primarily by direct surface-form cues rather than by true memorization. When such cues are controlled for, reconstruction success diminishes substantially. We further examine cue-free generation and membership inference, both of which exhibit extremely low true positive rates. Overall, our results suggest that previously reported PII leakage is better explained by cue-driven behavior than by genuine memorization, highlighting the importance of cue-controlled evaluation for reliably quantifying privacy-relevant memorization in LLMs 1 .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0ef629cb-777d-4f93-b7c2-3e19103abe30Builds on15
- Membership Inference Attacks Against Machine Learning ModelsReza Shokri, Marco Stronati, Congzheng Song, Vitaly ShmatikovS&P 2017 · 5,137 citations
- The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural NetworksNicholas Carlini, Chang Liu, Úlfar Erlingsson, Jernej Kos et al.USENIX Security 2019 · 1,386 citations
- Deduplicating Training Data Makes Language Models BetterKatherine Lee, Daphne Ippolito, Andrew Nystrom, Chiyuan Zhang et al.ACL 2022 · 844 citations
- Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language ModelsWeijia Shi, Anirudh Ajith, Mengzhou Xia, Yangsibo Huang et al.ICLR 2024 · 365 citations
- ProPILE: Probing Privacy Leakage in Large Language ModelsSiwon Kim, Sangdoo Yun, Hwaran Lee, Martin Gubri et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 229 citations
Related papers
- Private Memorization Editing: Turning Memorization into a Defense to Strengthen Data Privacy in Large Language ModelsElena Sofia Ruzzetti, Giancarlo A. Xompero, Davide Venditti, Fabio Massimo ZanzottoACL 2025 · 9 citations
- Underestimated Privacy Risks for Minority Populations in Large Language Model UnlearningRongzhe Wei, Mufei Li, Mohsen Ghassemi, Eleonora Kreacic et al.ICML 2025
- Rethinking the Role of Verbatim Memorization in LLM PrivacyTom Sander, Bargav Jayaraman, Mark Ibrahim, Kamalika Chaudhuri et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 5 citations
- CIMemories: A Compositional Benchmark For Contextual Integrity In LLMsNiloofar Mireshghallah, Neal Mangaokar, Narine Kokhlikyan, Arman Zharmagambetov et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- Information-Theoretic Membership Inference for Granular Quantification of MemorizationJiashu Tao, Reza ShokriICLR 2026
