🕵️ Rewriting Legal Documents¶

Rewriting legal text (TAB dataset) with a domain-specific privacy goal and custom entity labels tailored for legal proceedings.

📚 What you'll learn¶

• Define domain-specific entity labels for legal text (case numbers, court names, etc.)
• Configure rewrite mode with legal-specific privacy goals
• Preview and run on court decision documents
• Triage flagged records with needs_human_review

Tip: First time running notebooks? Start with setup instructions.

⚙️ Setup¶

• Install the notebook extra, then provide credentials for the configured external LLM providers.
• create_anonymizer() starts pinned GLiNER2 locally and selects CUDA, MPS, or CPU automatically.
• The default external LLM models currently use OpenRouter; its terms and privacy practices apply.

Data boundary: GLiNER2 detection runs locally in this notebook environment. LLM-assisted validation, augmentation, replacement, rewriting, repair, and evaluation use configured external hosts and may send them original or tagged input text. Do not treat this configuration as an all-local privacy boundary.

• configure_logging(LoggingConfig.default()) keeps logs at INFO. Switch to LoggingConfig.debug() when troubleshooting.

In [1]:

import getpass
import os
import subprocess
import sys

package_spec = os.getenv("ANONYMIZER_NOTEBOOK_PACKAGE", "nemo-anonymizer[notebooks]")
subprocess.check_call([sys.executable, "-m", "pip", "install", "--quiet", package_spec])

import getpass import os import subprocess import sys package_spec = os.getenv("ANONYMIZER_NOTEBOOK_PACKAGE", "nemo-anonymizer[notebooks]") subprocess.check_call([sys.executable, "-m", "pip", "install", "--quiet", package_spec])

Out[1]:

0

In [2]:

from anonymizer.notebooks import required_api_key_environment_variables

for variable in required_api_key_environment_variables():
    key = getpass.getpass(f"Enter {variable}: ").strip()
    if not key:
        raise RuntimeError(f"{variable} is required by the configured external model providers.")
    os.environ[variable] = key

from anonymizer.notebooks import required_api_key_environment_variables for variable in required_api_key_environment_variables(): key = getpass.getpass(f"Enter {variable}: ").strip() if not key: raise RuntimeError(f"{variable} is required by the configured external model providers.") os.environ[variable] = key

In [3]:

from anonymizer import (
    AnonymizerConfig,
    AnonymizerInput,
    Detect,
    LoggingConfig,
    PrivacyGoal,
    Rewrite,
    configure_logging,
)
from anonymizer.notebooks import create_anonymizer, stop_local_runtime

configure_logging(LoggingConfig.default())

from anonymizer import ( AnonymizerConfig, AnonymizerInput, Detect, LoggingConfig, PrivacyGoal, Rewrite, configure_logging, ) from anonymizer.notebooks import create_anonymizer, stop_local_runtime configure_logging(LoggingConfig.default())

In [4]:

anonymizer = create_anonymizer()

anonymizer = create_anonymizer()

[01:04:34] [INFO] 🔧 Anonymizer initialized with 5 model configs

[01:04:34] [INFO]   |-- 🔎 detector:  local-gliner2-pii

[01:04:34] [INFO]   |-- ✅ validator: gpt-oss-120b

[01:04:34] [INFO]   |-- 🧩 augmenter: gpt-oss-120b

GLiNER2 ready: model=fastino/gliner2-privacy-filter-PII-multi revision=59894c087cb2923b01f337d4ee72f6ff84d5bdd6 device=mps endpoint=http://127.0.0.1:57432/v1

📦 Input data¶

• TAB (Text Anonymization Benchmark) legal documents -- court decisions containing names, dates, case numbers, and other legal identifiers.
• LEGAL_ENTITY_LABELS defines the domain-specific entity types to detect. This replaces the default label set with one tailored to legal text.

In [5]:

LEGAL_ENTITY_LABELS = [
    "first_name",
    "last_name",
    "court_name",
    "organization_name",
    "company_name",
    "prison_detention_facility",
    "street_address",
    "city",
    "state",
    "country",
    "date",
    "date_time",
    "time",
    "date_of_birth",
    "age",
    "email",
    "phone_number",
    "ssn",
    "unique_id",
    "legal_role",
    "case_number",
    "application_number",
    "monetary_amount",
    "sentence_duration",
    "nationality",
]

input_data = AnonymizerInput(
    source="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NVIDIA-NeMo/Anonymizer/refs/heads/main/docs/data/TAB_legal_sample25.csv",
    text_column="text",
    data_summary="Legal court decisions containing personal identifiers, case numbers, and institutional references",
)

LEGAL_ENTITY_LABELS = [ "first_name", "last_name", "court_name", "organization_name", "company_name", "prison_detention_facility", "street_address", "city", "state", "country", "date", "date_time", "time", "date_of_birth", "age", "email", "phone_number", "ssn", "unique_id", "legal_role", "case_number", "application_number", "monetary_amount", "sentence_duration", "nationality", ] input_data = AnonymizerInput( source="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NVIDIA-NeMo/Anonymizer/refs/heads/main/docs/data/TAB_legal_sample25.csv", text_column="text", data_summary="Legal court decisions containing personal identifiers, case numbers, and institutional references", )

🎛️ Configure¶

• Detect(entity_labels=...) overrides the default entity set with legal-specific labels. The explicit list is a strict allowlist for both detection and LLM augmentation: labels not included here are filtered out, so include every entity type you need.
• PrivacyGoal tells the rewriter what to protect (identifiers, case numbers, institutional references) and what to preserve (legal reasoning, statutory references, ruling structure).

In [6]:

config = AnonymizerConfig(
    detect=Detect(
        entity_labels=LEGAL_ENTITY_LABELS,
    ),
    rewrite=Rewrite(
        privacy_goal=PrivacyGoal(
            protect="All personal identifiers, case numbers, court names, and institutional references that could identify parties",
            preserve="Legal reasoning, procedural facts, statutory references, and the structure of the ruling",
        ),
        risk_tolerance="minimal",
        max_repair_iterations=3,
    ),
)

config = AnonymizerConfig( detect=Detect( entity_labels=LEGAL_ENTITY_LABELS, ), rewrite=Rewrite( privacy_goal=PrivacyGoal( protect="All personal identifiers, case numbers, court names, and institutional references that could identify parties", preserve="Legal reasoning, procedural facts, statutory references, and the structure of the ruling", ), risk_tolerance="minimal", max_repair_iterations=3, ), )

👁️ Preview¶

• Preview on a few records to check that legal entities are detected and the rewrite preserves the ruling's structure.

In [7]:

preview = anonymizer.preview(
    config=config,
    data=input_data,
    num_records=3,
)

preview.display_record(0)

preview = anonymizer.preview( config=config, data=input_data, num_records=3, ) preview.display_record(0)

[01:04:34] [INFO] 👀 Preview mode: 📂 Loaded 3 records from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NVIDIA-NeMo/Anonymizer/refs/heads/main/docs/data/TAB_legal_sample25.csv (column: 'text')

[01:04:34] [INFO] 🔍 Running entity detection on 3 records

[01:04:34] [INFO] detection labels in scope: ['age', 'application_number', 'case_number', 'city', 'company_name', 'country', 'court_name', 'date', 'date_of_birth', 'date_time', 'email', 'first_name', 'last_name', 'legal_role', 'monetary_amount', 'nationality', 'organization_name', 'phone_number', 'prison_detention_facility', 'sentence_duration', 'ssn', 'state', 'street_address', 'time', 'unique_id']

[01:07:37] [INFO]   |-- 📋 Detection complete — 202 entities found across 3 records (0 failed) [182.6s]

[01:07:37] [INFO]   |-- labels: legal_role=58, date=49, court_name=31, organization_name=24, last_name=8, application_number=5, country=5, first_name=5, city=5, date_of_birth=4, nationality=3, sentence_duration=2, monetary_amount=2, case_number=1

[01:07:37] [INFO] ✏️ Running rewrite pipeline

[01:21:56] [INFO] Evaluate-repair loop iteration 0: 2/3 rows need repair

[01:22:52] [INFO] Evaluate-repair loop: all rows pass at iteration 1

[01:22:52] [INFO]   |-- 📋 Rewrite complete (0 failed) [915.0s]

[01:22:52] [INFO] 🎉 Pipeline complete — 3 records processed, 0 total failures

Anonymizer Rewrite Preview (record 0)

Original

PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 74463/01| application_number) against the Republic of Turkey| country lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention| organization_name for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention| organization_name”) by a Turkish| nationality national, Ms Feriştah| first_name Bahçeyaka| last_name, on 8 June 2001| date_of_birth. The applicant| legal_role was represented by Mr E. Kuloğlu| last_name, a lawyer| legal_role practising in Aydın| city. The Turkish Government| organization_name (“the Government| organization_name”) did not designate an Agent| legal_role for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. On 14 June 2005| date the Court decided to communicate the application. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention| organization_name, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time. The applicant| legal_role and the Government| organization_name each filed observations on the admissibility and the merits. THE FACTS The applicant| legal_role was born in 1958| date_of_birth and lives in Wesel| city, Germany| country. On 12 February 1980| date the applicant| legal_role and her husband established a joint bank account with a German bank| organization_name. On an unspecified date, the applicant| legal_role’s husband withdrew all of the money from their joint account without the applicant| legal_role’s consent and placed it into another account in a Turkish bank| organization_name. On 23 October 1992| date the applicant| legal_role filed an action with the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance| court_name to recover half the money that her husband had withdrawn from their joint bank account. On 14 September 1999| date the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance| court_name dismissed the applicant| legal_role’s case on the ground that she had failed to substantiate her claims. The court reasoned that the applicant| legal_role had not furnished any bank document, such as receipts indicating withdrawal of money, capable of supporting her allegations. It also noted that the documents kept by the bank had been destroyed at the end of six years’ retention period| sentence_duration and that therefore there was no document available on which to conclude that the applicant| legal_role was right in her assertions. On 27 December 1999| date the applicant| legal_role appealed. On 5 April 2000| date the Court of Cassation| court_name dismissed the applicant| legal_role’s request for appeal. It opined that the applicant| legal_role had failed to prove that her husband had withdrawn all the money from their joint bank account and placed it into another bank account. On 16 November 2000| date the Court of Cassation| court_name dismissed the applicant| legal_role’s request for rectification. On 15 December 2000| date the Court of Cassation| court_name’s decision was served on the applicant| legal_role.

Rewritten

PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 83927/02) against the respondent State lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the treaty for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the treaty”) by a national on 8 June 2001. The applicant was represented by a lawyer practising locally. The opposing party did not designate a representative for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. On 14 June 2005 the Court decided to communicate the application. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the treaty, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time. Both parties filed observations on the admissibility and the merits. THE FACTS The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Wesel, Germany. On 12 February 1980 the applicant and her spouse established a joint bank account with a German bank. On an unspecified date, the spouse withdrew all of the money from their joint account without the applicant’s consent and placed it into another account in a different bank. On 23 October 1992 the applicant filed an action with a civil court of first instance to recover half the money that her spouse had withdrawn from their joint bank account. On 14 September 1999 the civil court of first instance dismissed the applicant’s case on the ground that she had failed to substantiate her claims. The court reasoned that the applicant had not furnished any bank document, such as receipts indicating withdrawal of money, capable of supporting her allegations. It also noted that the documents kept by the bank had been destroyed after the statutory retention period, and therefore no document was available on which to conclude that the applicant was right in her assertions. On 27 December 1999 the applicant appealed. On 5 April 2000 the supreme appellate body dismissed the applicant’s request for appeal. It opined that the applicant had failed to prove that her spouse had withdrawn all the money from their joint bank account and placed it into another bank account. On 16 November 2000 the supreme appellate body dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification. On 15 December 2000 the supreme appellate body’s decision was served on the applicant.

Scores

Utility: 1.00Leakage: 0.00Weighted Leakage Rate: 0.00Rewrite Needs Review: No

Entity Disposition

Entity	Label	Sensitivity	Protection
Feriştah	first_name	high	replace
Bahçeyaka	last_name	high	replace
Kuloğlu	last_name	high	replace
74463/01	application_number	high	replace
Aydın Civil Court of first-instance	court_name	high	generalize
Court of Cassation	court_name	high	generalize
Government	organization_name	high	generalize
Turkish Government	organization_name	high	generalize
Convention	organization_name	high	generalize
12 February 1980	date	low	leave_as_is
14 June 2005	date	low	leave_as_is
14 September 1999	date	low	leave_as_is
15 December 2000	date	low	leave_as_is
16 November 2000	date	low	leave_as_is
1958	date_of_birth	low	leave_as_is
23 October 1992	date	low	leave_as_is
27 December 1999	date	low	leave_as_is
5 April 2000	date	low	leave_as_is
8 June 2001	date_of_birth	low	leave_as_is
Agent	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
Aydın	city	low	leave_as_is
German bank	organization_name	low	leave_as_is
Germany	country	low	leave_as_is
Wesel	city	low	leave_as_is
Republic of Turkey	country	low	leave_as_is
Turkish	nationality	low	leave_as_is
Turkish bank	organization_name	low	leave_as_is
applicant	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
lawyer	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
six years’ retention period	sentence_duration	low	leave_as_is
female	gender	low	leave_as_is
married	marital_status	low	leave_as_is
Wesel, Germany	home_location	low	leave_as_is
47	age	low	leave_as_is

In [8]:

preview.display_record(1)

preview.display_record(1)

Anonymizer Rewrite Preview (record 1)

Original

PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 29360/06| application_number) against the Republic of Poland| country lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national| nationality, Ms Teresa| first_name Jerzak| last_name (“the applicant| legal_role”), on 3 July 2006| date. The Polish Government| organization_name (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent| legal_role, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz| last_name of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs| organization_name. On 25 September 2007| date the President of the Fourth Section| legal_role decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE The applicant| legal_role was born in 1940| date_of_birth and lives in Sulejówek| city. A. Civil proceedings for division of inheritance On 8 March 1994| date the applicant| legal_role lodged an application for division of an inheritance with the Warsaw District Court| court_name (Sąd Rejonowy| court_name). On 7 November 1997| date the Warsaw District Court| court_name stayed the proceedings. It referred to the fact that related criminal proceedings concerning fraudulent acquisition of land, which could affect the outcome of the case, had first to be terminated. On 9 February 1998| date the applicant| legal_role asked for the proceedings to be resumed. On 3 July 1998| date the court refused that request. On 3 July 1998| date the applicant| legal_role complained to the Warsaw District Court ab| court_nameout the delays in the proceedings. On 14 July 1998| date the court informed her that the proceedings would be resumed after the criminal proceedings had been terminated. On 3 August 2000| date the court refused to resume the proceedings. The applicant| legal_role lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. The applicant| legal_role referred to the fact that the prosecution| legal_role had discontinued the investigation. On 15 January 2001| date the applicant| legal_role asked once more for the proceedings to be resumed, to no avail. The proceedings were resumed on 14 February 2002| date. On 30 June 2004| date the Warsaw District Court| court_name ruled that some of the issues raised in the application, concerning the acquisition of property, should be examined in separate proceedings. Consequently, part of the claim, concerning the expropriation of property, was referred to the Warsaw District Court| court_name as a separate case. The applicant| legal_role appealed. On 26 July 2004| date the Warsaw Regional Court| court_name (Sąd Okręgowy| court_name) dismissed the appeal. On 25 October 2004| date the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property. The applicant| legal_role appealed. On 24 October 2006| date the Regional Court quashed that decision and resumed the examination of the case. It referred to the fact that the District Court had erroneously referred part of the claim to other proceedings. It relied on the need to examine both cases simultaneously within the scope of the same proceedings. On 9 May 2007| date the court stayed the proceedings because the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property were pending before the appellate court. The case is still pending before the District Court. B. Proceedings under the 2004| date Act On 2 January 2006| date the applicant| legal_role lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court| court_name, alleging a breach of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. She relied on section 2 of the Act of 17 June 2004| date on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004| date Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004| date. On 9 May 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court| court_name acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court| court_name. It awarded the applicant| legal_role 200 Polish zlotys| monetary_amount (PLN – approximately 50 euros| monetary_amount (EUR)) by way of just satisfaction. The court referred to the resolution of the Supreme Court| court_name (Sąd Najwyższy| court_name) of 18 January 2005| date (no. III SPP 113/04| case_number) in which it ruled that while the 2004| date Act produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force, its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. The Regional Court held that the overall length of the proceedings before the District Court had been excessive, there had been long periods of inactivity and the hearings had not been held on a regular basis. These delays had taken place before the date of entry into force the 2004| date Act and had not been remedied afterwards. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court held that having analysed all the circumstances of the case it found this amount to be sufficient for the applicant| legal_role.

Rewritten

PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 41728/09) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Ms Mária Novák (“the applicant”), in July 2006. The government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Kováč of a foreign affairs ministry. In September 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Sulejówek. A. Civil proceedings for division of inheritance In March 1994 the applicant lodged an application for division of an inheritance with a district court (Sąd Rejonowy). In November 1997 the district court stayed the proceedings. It referred to the fact that related criminal proceedings concerning fraudulent acquisition of land, which could affect the outcome of the case, had first to be terminated. In February 1998 the applicant asked for the proceedings to be resumed. In July 1998 the court refused that request. In July 1998 the applicant complained to a district court about the delays in the proceedings. In July 1998 the court informed her that the proceedings would be resumed after the criminal proceedings had been terminated. In August 2000 the court refused to resume the proceedings. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. The applicant referred to the fact that the prosecution had discontinued the investigation. In January 2001 the applicant asked once more for the proceedings to be resumed, to no avail. The proceedings were resumed in February 2002. In June 2004 the district court ruled that some of the issues raised in the application, concerning the acquisition of property, should be examined in separate proceedings. Consequently, part of the claim, concerning the expropriation of property, was referred to a district court as a separate case. The applicant appealed. In July 2004 the regional court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. In October 2004 the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property. The applicant appealed. In October 2006 the regional court quashed that decision and resumed the examination of the case. It referred to the fact that the district court had erroneously referred part of the claim to other proceedings. It relied on the need to examine both cases simultaneously within the scope of the same proceedings. In May 2007 the court stayed the proceedings because the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property were pending before the appellate court. The case is still pending before the district court. B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act In January 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with a regional court, alleging a breach of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. She relied on section 2 of the Act of June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force in September 2004. On 9 May 2006 the regional court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the district court. It awarded the applicant 200 Polish zlotys (approximately 50 euros) by way of just satisfaction. The court referred to the resolution of the supreme court (Sąd Najwyższy) of January 2005 (no. IV SPP 127/05) in which it ruled that while the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of its entry into force, its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. The regional court held that the overall length of the proceedings before the district court had been excessive, there had been long periods of inactivity and the hearings had not been held on a regular basis. These delays had taken place before the entry into force of the 2004 Act and had not been remedied afterwards. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court held that having analysed all the circumstances of the case it found this amount to be sufficient for the applicant.

Scores

Utility: 0.97Leakage: 0.54Weighted Leakage Rate: 0.03Rewrite Needs Review: No

Entity Disposition

Entity	Label	Sensitivity	Protection
29360/06	application_number	high	replace
Republic of Poland	country	low	leave_as_is
Polish national	nationality	low	leave_as_is
Teresa	first_name	high	replace
Jerzak	last_name	high	replace
applicant	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
3 July 2006	date	medium	generalize
Polish Government	organization_name	medium	generalize
Agent	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
Wołąsiewicz	last_name	high	replace
Ministry of Foreign Affairs	organization_name	medium	generalize
25 September 2007	date	medium	generalize
President of the Fourth Section	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
1940	date_of_birth	low	leave_as_is
Sulejówek	city	low	leave_as_is
8 March 1994	date	medium	generalize
Warsaw District Court	court_name	medium	generalize
Sąd Rejonowy	court_name	medium	generalize
7 November 1997	date	medium	generalize
9 February 1998	date	medium	generalize
3 July 1998	date	medium	generalize
Warsaw District Court ab	court_name	medium	generalize
14 July 1998	date	medium	generalize
3 August 2000	date	medium	generalize
prosecution	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
15 January 2001	date	medium	generalize
14 February 2002	date	medium	generalize
30 June 2004	date	medium	generalize
Warsaw Regional Court	court_name	medium	generalize
26 July 2004	date	medium	generalize
25 October 2004	date	medium	generalize
24 October 2006	date	medium	generalize
9 May 2007	date	medium	generalize
2 January 2006	date	medium	generalize
17 June 2004	date	medium	generalize
2004	date	low	leave_as_is
17 September 2004	date	medium	generalize
200 Polish zlotys	monetary_amount	low	leave_as_is
50 euros	monetary_amount	low	leave_as_is
Supreme Court	court_name	medium	generalize
Sąd Najwyższy	court_name	medium	generalize
no. III SPP 113/04	case_number	high	replace
18 January 2005	date	medium	generalize
female	gender	low	leave_as_is
senior	age_group	low	leave_as_is

How to interpret leakage: Leakage is measured against the sensitivity disposition. Details marked leave_as_is may remain without increasing leakage_mass. If an output retains something you expected the privacy goal to protect, inspect the Entity Disposition table.

🚀 Full run¶

• result.dataframe has user-facing columns: rewritten text, scores, and the review flag.
• This notebook uses risk_tolerance="minimal", which applies stricter repair and review thresholds than notebook 04.

In [9]:

result = anonymizer.run(config=config, data=input_data)

result.dataframe.head()

result = anonymizer.run(config=config, data=input_data) result.dataframe.head()

[01:22:53] [INFO] 📂 Loaded 25 records from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NVIDIA-NeMo/Anonymizer/refs/heads/main/docs/data/TAB_legal_sample25.csv (column: 'text')

[01:22:53] [INFO] 🔍 Running entity detection on 25 records

[01:22:53] [INFO] detection labels in scope: ['age', 'application_number', 'case_number', 'city', 'company_name', 'country', 'court_name', 'date', 'date_of_birth', 'date_time', 'email', 'first_name', 'last_name', 'legal_role', 'monetary_amount', 'nationality', 'organization_name', 'phone_number', 'prison_detention_facility', 'sentence_duration', 'ssn', 'state', 'street_address', 'time', 'unique_id']

[01:31:46] [INFO]   |-- 📋 Detection complete — 1843 entities found across 25 records (0 failed) [532.2s]

[01:31:46] [INFO]   |-- labels: legal_role=550, date=399, organization_name=281, court_name=239, last_name=70, first_name=69, city=43, country=42, nationality=33, application_number=29, date_of_birth=27, sentence_duration=23, prison_detention_facility=16, monetary_amount=12, case_number=4, company_name=2, unique_id=1, age=1, time=1, state=1

[01:31:46] [INFO] ✏️ Running rewrite pipeline

[01:33:42] [WARNING] Replacement map repaired synthetic-original collision entries for record 46e1a5989f27571893c1167cf94e9bb1; repaired=1 (repaired_by_label={'legal_role': 1})

[01:36:17] [WARNING] Required rewrite replacement was unavailable; marking rewritten text unavailable.

[01:44:44] [WARNING] Evaluator returned malformed privacy answer set; missing=[36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46] duplicate=[] extra=[]. Applying conservative normalization.

[01:44:45] [INFO] Evaluate-repair loop iteration 0: 20/25 rows need repair

[01:51:42] [INFO] Evaluate-repair loop iteration 1: 11/25 rows need repair

[01:54:36] [INFO] Evaluate-repair loop iteration 2: 9/25 rows need repair

[01:58:23] [INFO]   |-- 📋 Rewrite complete (0 failed) [1597.2s]

[01:58:23] [INFO] 🎉 Pipeline complete — 25 records processed, 0 total failures

Out[9]:

	text	text_rewritten	utility_score	leakage_mass	weighted_leakage_rate	any_high_leaked	needs_human_review
0	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.988235	0.0	0.0	False	False
1	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	The case originated in an application (no. 415...	0.975	0.0	0.0	False	False
2	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.95	4.63	0.2315	True	True
3	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.935714	1.9	0.082609	True	True
4	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	1.0	2.0	0.166667	True	True

In [10]:

result.dataframe[["text_rewritten", "utility_score", "leakage_mass", "needs_human_review"]].head()

result.dataframe[["text_rewritten", "utility_score", "leakage_mass", "needs_human_review"]].head()

Out[10]:

	text_rewritten	utility_score	leakage_mass	needs_human_review
0	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.988235	0.0	False
1	The case originated in an application (no. 415...	0.975	0.0	False
2	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.95	4.63	True
3	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.935714	1.9	True
4	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	1.0	2.0	True

🚩 Filter by review flag¶

• Records where automated metrics exceed thresholds are flagged for manual review.
• The repair loop stops after max_repair_iterations; records that still need repair remain flagged for human review but are not pipeline failures.
• Use this to prioritize human attention on the records that need it most.
• See Working with flagged records for guidance on diagnosing and resolving flagged records.

In [11]:

df = result.dataframe
flagged = df[df["needs_human_review"] == True]  # noqa: E712
print(f"{len(flagged)} of {len(df)} records flagged for human review")
flagged.head()

df = result.dataframe flagged = df[df["needs_human_review"] == True] # noqa: E712 print(f"{len(flagged)} of {len(df)} records flagged for human review") flagged.head()

10 of 25 records flagged for human review

Out[11]:

	text	text_rewritten	utility_score	leakage_mass	weighted_leakage_rate	any_high_leaked	needs_human_review
2	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.95	4.63	0.2315	True	True
3	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.935714	1.9	0.082609	True	True
4	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	1.0	2.0	0.166667	True	True
6	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	<NA>	0.0	0.0	0.0	False	True
11	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	PROCEDURE The case originated in an applicati...	0.84	9.42	0.359542	True	True

🔬 Evaluate (optional)¶

Call evaluate() to run LLM-as-judge scoring on the rewrite result — detection validity and three quality rubrics (privacy, quality, style). Evaluation makes additional LLM calls per record. For larger datasets, evaluate a preview first; this tutorial evaluates all 25 rows to demonstrate the complete workflow. This holistic judge is independent of pipeline leakage scoring, so their assessments may differ. See Evaluation for details.

In [12]:

evaluated = anonymizer.evaluate(result)

evaluated = anonymizer.evaluate(result)

[01:58:23] [INFO] 🧪 Running rewrite evaluation on 25 records

[01:58:23] [INFO]   |-- ⚖️ Running rewrite judges

[02:00:25] [INFO]   |-- 📋 Rewrite judges complete [121.5s]

[02:00:25] [INFO]   |-- 🔎 Running entity coverage

[02:04:34] [INFO]   |-- 📋 Entity coverage complete [249.5s]

[02:04:34] [INFO] 🎉 Evaluation complete — 25 records processed [371.0s]

In [13]:

evaluated.display_record(0)

evaluated.display_record(0)

Anonymizer Rewrite Preview (record 0)

Original

PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 74463/01| application_number) against the Republic of Turkey| country lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention| organization_name for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention| organization_name”) by a Turkish| nationality national, Ms Feriştah| first_name Bahçeyaka| last_name, on 8 June 2001| date_of_birth. The applicant| legal_role was represented by Mr E. Kuloğlu| last_name, a lawyer| legal_role practising in Aydın| city. The Turkish Government| organization_name (“the Government| organization_name”) did not designate an Agent| legal_role for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. On 14 June 2005| date the Court decided to communicate the application. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention| organization_name, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time. The applicant| legal_role and the Government| organization_name each filed observations on the admissibility and the merits. THE FACTS The applicant| legal_role was born in 1958| date_of_birth and lives in Wesel| city, Germany| country. On 12 February 1980| date the applicant| legal_role and her husband established a joint bank account with a German bank| organization_name. On an unspecified date, the applicant| legal_role’s husband withdrew all of the money from their joint account without the applicant| legal_role’s consent and placed it into another account in a Turkish bank| organization_name. On 23 October 1992| date the applicant| legal_role filed an action with the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance| court_name to recover half the money that her husband had withdrawn from their joint bank account. On 14 September 1999| date the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance| court_name dismissed the applicant| legal_role’s case on the ground that she had failed to substantiate her claims. The court reasoned that the applicant| legal_role had not furnished any bank document, such as receipts indicating withdrawal of money, capable of supporting her allegations. It also noted that the documents kept by the bank had been destroyed at the end of six years’ retention period| sentence_duration and that therefore there was no document available on which to conclude that the applicant| legal_role was right in her assertions. On 27 December 1999| date the applicant| legal_role appealed. On 5 April 2000| date the Court of Cassation| court_name dismissed the applicant| legal_role’s request for appeal. It opined that the applicant| legal_role had failed to prove that her husband had withdrawn all the money from their joint bank account and placed it into another bank account. On 16 November 2000| date the Court of Cassation| court_name dismissed the applicant| legal_role’s request for rectification. On 15 December 2000| date the Court of Cassation| court_name’s decision was served on the applicant| legal_role.

Rewritten

PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 86214/02) against the respondent State lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a national of that State, Ms Giulia Rossi, on 12 March 1948. The applicant was represented by Mr E. Bianchi, a lawyer practising in a city of the respondent State. The respondent did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. On 14 June 2005 the Court decided to communicate the application. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time. The applicant and the respondent each filed observations on the admissibility and the merits. THE FACTS The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Wesel, Germany. On 12 February 1980 the applicant and her husband established a joint bank account with a German bank. On an unspecified date, the applicant’s husband withdrew all of the money from their joint account without the applicant’s consent and placed it into another account in a foreign bank. On 23 October 1992 the applicant filed an action with a civil court of first instance to recover half the money that her husband had withdrawn from their joint bank account. On 14 September 1999 the civil court of first instance dismissed the applicant’s case on the ground that she had failed to substantiate her claims. The court reasoned that the applicant had not furnished any bank document, such as receipts indicating withdrawal of money, capable of supporting her allegations. It also noted that the documents kept by the bank had been destroyed after the statutory retention period and that therefore there was no document available on which to conclude that the applicant was right in her assertions. On 27 December 1999 the applicant appealed. On 5 April 2000 the highest appellate court dismissed the applicant’s request for appeal. It opined that the applicant had failed to prove that her husband had withdrawn all the money from their joint bank account and placed it into another bank account. On 16 November 2000 the highest appellate court dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification. On 15 December 2000 the highest appellate court’s decision was served on the applicant.

Scores

Utility: 0.99Leakage: 0.00Weighted Leakage Rate: 0.00Rewrite Needs Review: No

Judge

privacy: highquality: highstyle: high

Entity Coverage

Entity Coverage: 0.90 — 18/20 (90%)

Show 2 missed entity(ies)

Value	Label	Reason
Ms Feriştah Bahçeyaka	first_name	This is the first name of the applicant as stated in the text.
Mr E. Kuloğlu	first_name	This is the first name of the lawyer representing the applicant.

Entity Disposition

Entity	Label	Sensitivity	Protection
74463/01	application_number	high	replace
Feriştah	first_name	high	replace
Bahçeyaka	last_name	high	replace
8 June 2001	date_of_birth	high	replace
Kuloğlu	last_name	high	replace
Aydın Civil Court of first-instance	court_name	high	generalize
Court of Cassation	court_name	high	generalize
Turkish Government	organization_name	high	generalize
Government	organization_name	high	generalize
Aydın	city	low	leave_as_is
Wesel	city	low	leave_as_is
Republic of Turkey	country	low	leave_as_is
Germany	country	low	leave_as_is
Turkey	country	low	leave_as_is
Turkish	nationality	low	leave_as_is
Convention	organization_name	low	leave_as_is
German bank	organization_name	low	leave_as_is
Turkish bank	organization_name	low	leave_as_is
12 February 1980	date	low	leave_as_is
14 June 2005	date	low	leave_as_is
14 September 1999	date	low	leave_as_is
15 December 2000	date	low	leave_as_is
16 November 2000	date	low	leave_as_is
23 October 1992	date	low	leave_as_is
27 December 1999	date	low	leave_as_is
5 April 2000	date	low	leave_as_is
1958	date_of_birth	low	leave_as_is
six years’ retention period	sentence_duration	low	leave_as_is
applicant	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
lawyer	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
Agent	legal_role	low	leave_as_is
female	gender	low	leave_as_is
married	marital_status	low	leave_as_is
late_40s	age_group	low	leave_as_is

⏭️ Next steps¶

• 📊 Evaluation -- learn about the detection validity and rewrite quality judges in detail.
• 🔍 Inspecting Detected Entities -- debug what the detection pipeline found before rewriting.
• Try it on your own data! Swap in your CSV, define entity labels for your domain, and set a PrivacyGoal that fits -- you've got all the building blocks.

In [14]:

stop_local_runtime()

stop_local_runtime()