Prompt serves as a crucial link in interacting with large language models (LLMs), widely impacting the accuracy and interpretability of model outputs. However, acquiring accurate and high-quality responses necessitates precise prompts, which inevitably pose significant risks of personal identifiable information (PII) leakage. Therefore, this paper proposes DePrompt, a desensitization protection and effectiveness evaluation framework for prompt, enabling users to safely and transparently utilize LLMs. Specifically, by leveraging large model fine-tuning techniques as the underlying privacy protection method, we integrate contextual attributes to define privacy types, achieving high-precision PII entity identification. Additionally, through the analysis of key features in prompt desensitization scenarios, we devise adversarial generative desensitization methods that retain important semantic content while disrupting the link between identifiers and privacy attributes. Furthermore, we present utility evaluation metrics for prompt to better gauge and balance privacy and usability. Our framework is adaptable to prompts and can be extended to text usability-dependent scenarios. Through comparison with benchmarks and other model methods, experimental evaluations demonstrate that our desensitized prompt exhibit superior privacy protection utility and model inference results.

By simply composing prompts, developers can prototype novel generative applications with Large Language Models (LLMs). To refine prototypes into products, however, developers must iteratively revise prompts by evaluating outputs to diagnose weaknesses. Formative interviews (N=8) revealed that developers invest significant effort in manually evaluating outputs as they assess context-specific and subjective criteria. We present EvalLM, an interactive system for iteratively refining prompts by evaluating multiple outputs on user-defined criteria. By describing criteria in natural language, users can employ the system's LLM-based evaluator to get an overview of where prompts excel or fail, and improve these based on the evaluator's feedback. A comparative study (N=12) showed that EvalLM, when compared to manual evaluation, helped participants compose more diverse criteria, examine twice as many outputs, and reach satisfactory prompts with 59% fewer revisions. Beyond prompts, our work can be extended to augment model evaluation and alignment in specific application contexts.