arXiv:2605.10211cs.CLcs.AI2026-05中稿 · The First Workshop…

用本地小模型自动识别政府文件中需保密的讨论性内容

To Redact, or not to Redact? A Local LLM Approach to Deliberative Process Privilege Classification

  • 在本地部署90亿参数模型,避免使用云端API
  • 结合思维链与错误示例提示,召回率和F2得分更优
  • 发现第一人称+表达意见的动词是判断关键

美国、英国的《信息自由法》(FOIA)及荷兰《开放政府法案》(Woo)赋予公民直接申请政府文件的权利。由于文件可能包含个人信息或国家安全威胁,法律允许政府在公开前对敏感部分进行删减。本文基于大语言模型(LLM)实现对FOIA第5条豁免条款中‘讨论性过程特权’的自动敏感性分类。为规避第三方云API在法律或政治上的不可行性,本研究采用可部署于消费级硬件的小型本地模型(Qwen3.5 9B)。比较八种不同提示策略,发现结合思维链(Chain-of-Thought)与基于错误案例的少样本提示,在召回率与F2分数上优于先前工作。该方法性能接近广泛使用的低成本商用模型(Gemini 2.5 Flash)。额外分析表明,被预测为讨论性的句子中,表达观点的动词更多,且更常使用第一人称。整体来看,讨论性特征由多个指标共同体现,尤其以第一人称词汇与表达意见动词的组合最为显著。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Government transparency laws, like the Freedom of Information (FOIA) acts in the United States and United Kingdom, and the Woo (Open Government Act) in the Netherlands, grant citizens the right to directly request documents from the government. As these documents might contain sensitive information, such as personal information or threats to national security, the laws allow governments to redact sensitive parts of the documents prior to release. We build on prior research to perform automatic sensitivity classification for the FOIA Exemption 5 deliberative process privilege using Large Language Models (LLMs). However, processing documents not yet cleared for review via third-party cloud APIs is often legally or politically untenable. Therefore, in this work, we perform sensitivity classification with a small, local model, deployable on consumer-grade hardware (Qwen3.5 9B). We compare eight variants of applying LLMs for sentence classification, using well-known prompting techniques, and find that a combination of Chain-of-Thought prompting and few-shot prompting with error-based examples outperforms classification models of earlier work in terms of recall and F2 score. This method also closely approaches the performance of a widely-used, cost-efficient commercial model (Gemini 2.5 Flash). In an additional analysis, we find that sentences that are predicted as deliberative contain more verbs that indicate the expression of opinions, and are more often phrased in in first-person. Above all, deliberativeness seems characterized by the presence of a combination of multiple indicators, in particular the combination of first-person words with a verb for expressing opinion.

敏感分类本地模型政务透明提示工程

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。