We present STAMP (Selective Task-Aware Mechanism for Text Privacy), a new framework for task-aware text privatization that achieves an improved privacy–utility trade-off. STAMP selectively allocates privacy budgets across tokens by jointly considering (i) each token’s importance to the downstream task (as measured via a task- or query-specific representation), and (ii) its privacy sensitivity (e.g., names, dates, identifiers). This token-level partitioning enables fine-grained, group-wise control over the level of noise applied to different parts of the input, balancing privacy protection with task relevance. To privatize individual token embeddings, we introduce the polar mechanism, which perturbs only the direction of embeddings on the unit sphere while preserving their magnitude. Decoding is performed via cosine nearest-neighbor search, aligning the perturbation geometry with the decoding geometry. Unlike isotropic noise mechanisms, the polar mechanism maintains semantic neighborhoods in the embedding space and better preserves downstream utility. Experimental evaluations on SQuAD, Yelp, and AG News datasets demonstrate that STAMP, when combined with the normalized polar mechanism, consistently achieves superior privacy–utility trade-offs across varying per-token privacy budgets.

Large language models (LLMs) have delivered significant breakthroughs across diverse domains but can still produce unreliable or misleading outputs, posing critical challenges for real-world applications. While many recent studies focus on quantifying model uncertainty, relatively little work has been devoted to diagnosing the source of uncertainty. In this study, we show that, when an LLM is uncertain, the patterns of disagreement among its multiple generated responses contain rich clues about the underlying cause of uncertainty. To illustrate this point, we collect multiple responses from a target LLM and employ an auxiliary LLM to analyze their patterns of disagreement. The auxiliary model is tasked to reason about the likely source of uncertainty, such as whether it stems from ambiguity in the input question, a lack of relevant knowledge, or both. In cases involving knowledge gaps, the auxiliary model also identifies the specific missing facts or concepts contributing to the uncertainty. In our experiment, we validate our framework on AmbigQA, OpenBookQA, and MMLU-Pro, confirming its generality in diagnosing distinct uncertainty sources. Such diagnosis shows the potential for relevant manual interventions that improve LLM performance and reliability.