ShinrAI Overview Live demo Benchmarks Platform Connector Partners Open beta
Evaluation reports

ShinrAI Benchmarks

Every number on this page comes from a published evaluation report with strict character-span matching — including the unflattering ones.

The benchmark that matters

Results on Real Medical Letters

The Golden ePA corpus: real German doctor letters — discharge summaries, findings, lab reports. Small by design, real by design, frozen so generations stay comparable.

Precision / recall / F1, strict span matching. The static rule engine is our own tuned regex + dictionary stack — the technology every classic PII tool is built on. 4 documents, 21 gold entities: a qualitative head-to-head on the hardest real corpus, not a statistical study. Larger human-annotated gold sets per language are in progress.

Interactive

Results by Version and Language

Pick a model generation and a language. Bars show span F1 on surface-disjoint evaluation suites — entities the model never saw in training.

Progress

Improvement per Model Generation

Frozen v1.1 scored on the v1.2 six-language suites, against v1.2 itself — identical data, identical scoring.

The previous generation lands between 33.6 and 49.3 macro F1 on the six-language suites; v1.2 lands between 89.2 and 94.4. Single hardest category jump across generations: Japanese STREET, F1 6.6 → 88.6 (v1.0 → v1.1).

Attributes

Attribute Accuracy: Origin, Gender, Name Part

Replacement quality depends on these attributes. Accuracy on the frozen v1-suite (v1.1) and the six v1.2 language suites:

97.7%
cultural-origin accuracy (frozen v1-suite) · 87.5–95.2% across v1.2 suites
98.8%
gender-expression accuracy (frozen v1-suite) · 84.6–91.4% across v1.2 suites
100%
name-part accuracy (frozen v1-suite) · 94.6–98.7% across v1.2 suites
100%
gender-match invariant in preserve mode — flips are forbidden by policy, not by luck
Quantization

Model Size vs. Accuracy

The compact builds are what most deployments run. Here is exactly what they cost in accuracy.

Evaluation suitefp32 · 1.23 GBINT8Δ INT8INT4

Macro F1 over the four entity heads. Worst INT8 cost anywhere: 0.33 points. ONNX export parity vs PyTorch: maximum logit delta 3.5 × 10⁻⁵ against a 10⁻³ gate.

Speed

Measured Latency

Measured sustained-load numbers on a laptop-class CPU (ONNX INT8, single engine instance) — not lab-best-case.

Payloadp50 single streamp95 single streamRequests/s (c=1)

Deterministic paths are faster still: static screening <1 ms per stage · dictionary lookups <0.1 ms · replacement draw ~0.4 ms · language detection <5 ms. GPU serving budget: ≤25 ms p95 per paragraph. Oversized texts degrade to the static path — never to an error.

Context

Comparison with Existing Tools

Third-party figures are vendor-reported or self-reported on their own corpora — solid tools, different tests, so read the numbers as orientation. The capability columns are the direct comparison: this is what the multi-dimensional approach adds.

ToolApproachReported recall*Rarity tiersCultural originGender-safe replacementLossless restore
ShinrAI (hybrid static + neural) Regex + gazetteers + purpose-trained encoder measured: F1 89.2–94.4 (v1.2 suites) ✓ 50 classes✓ invariant✓ client-held map
Open RoBERTa-class PII modelsRoBERTa/DeBERTa fine-tunes (public)~85–95% self-reported, own synthetic suites*
Microsoft PresidioRegex + ML hybrid~70–80% common entities*
AWS Comprehend PIIBERT-based~85% EN names/locations*
Google Cloud DLPRegex + dictionaries~60–75% names*

*Third-party estimates, different corpora — not directly comparable to our suite numbers. A public head-to-head on open NER benchmarks (MultiNERD, WikiANN, UNER, CoNLL-2003, AI4Privacy) is specified and will be published with the open-weight release.

Methodology

Methodology and Limitations