Sources

542 sources

Source

Mireshghallah, Niloofar, Neal Mangaokar, Narine Kokhlikyan, Arman Zharmagambetov, Manzil Zaheer, Saeed Mahloujifar, and Kamalika Chaudhuri (2026)

CIMemories: A Compositional Benchmark For Contextual Integrity In LLMs

International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026, 95513-95532

Find It

DOI

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use persistent memory from past interactions to enhance personalization and task performance. However, this memory introduces critical risks when sensitive information is revealed in inappropriate contexts. We present CIMemories, a benchmark for evaluating whether LLMs appropriately control information flow from memory based on task context. CIMemories uses synthetic user profiles with over 100 attributes per user, paired with diverse task contexts in which each attribute may be essential for some tasks but inappropriate for others. Our evaluation reveals that frontier models exhibit up to 69% attribute-level violations (leaking information inappropriately), with lower violation rates often coming at the cost of task utility. Violations accumulate across both tasks and runs: as usage increases from 1 to 40 tasks, GPT-5’s violations rise from 0.1% to 9.6%, reaching 25.1% when the same prompt is executed 5 times, revealing arbitrary and unstable behavior in which models leak different attributes for identical prompts. Privacy-conscious prompting does not solve this—models overgeneralize, sharing everything or nothing rather than making nuanced, context-dependent decisions. These findings reveal fundamental limitations that require contextually aware reasoning capabilities, not just better prompting or scaling. Code is available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/CIMemories.

Reference

Mireshghallah, N., Mangaokar, N., Kokhlikyan, N., Zharmagambetov, A., Zaheer, M., Mahloujifar, S., & Chaudhuri, K. (2026, April). CIMemories: A compositional benchmark for contextual integrity in LLMs. In International Conference on Learning Representations (Vol. 2026, pp. 95513-95532).

What Rests on This

1 mechanism cites this source. Each finding below is quoted as it appears on that mechanism's own page.

Involuntary Retrieval Memory Processes

  • Measured in AI

    In saved memory (stored user facts carried into later tasks): models surfaced stored personal attributes in tasks where they did not belong in up to 69% of cases, and GPT-5's rate rose from 0.1% to 9.6% as tasks increased from 1 to 40, a rough counterpart of unwanted cue-triggered recall rather than a test of it