MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PRISM-AI: A Dual-Stage Neuro-Symbolic Agentic Framework for Privacy Risk Mitigation in LLMs

2025· article· W7118184605 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrine Amri, Nora Boulahia-Cuppens, Frédéric Cuppens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeontic logicInferenceRule of inferenceControl (management)Information privacyArchitectureBenchmark (surveying)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRISM-AI<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> is a neuro-symbolic multi-agent framework designed to mitigate privacy risks during inference by Large Language Models (LLMs). The system integrates a symbolic rule engine based on first-order deontic logic (LogicMP) with a neural agent guided by prompt-engineered constraints aligned with GDPR and Act 25. Each agent fulfills a distinct role, including privacy rule enforcement, input analysis, explanation generation, and user interaction. PRISM-AI introduces a dual-stage privacy control mechanism that evaluates both user prompts and LLM outputs, enabling proactive and reactive filtering of sensitive content. Evaluation across a comprehensive benchmark spanning healthcare, finance, education, and general domains demonstrates that LogicMP achieves $82.5 \%$ accuracy compared to $\mathbf{7 1. 0 \%}$ for LLM-based detection, with $\mathbf{2, 8 0 6} \times$ faster processing and $100 \times$ lower memory usage, while achieving 29.3% precision advantage with perfect precision across Healthcare, Finance, and Education domains. The dual-stage architecture provides $10 \%$ proactive privacy violation prevention, with $100 \%$ of violations caught at the input stage. Legal justification coverage reaches $20 \%$ of blocked cases with automatic GDPR and Act 25 citations. The results underscore the benefits of combining symbolic and neural reasoning within a flexible agentic AI architecture for practical privacy protection. <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>Interactive demo and source code: https://github.com/SabrineAmri/ prism-ai-demo.git

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207