Large-scale sharing of dialogue data is key to advancing the science of teaching and learning, yet rigorous de-identification remains a major barrier. In mathematics tutoring transcripts, numeric expressions frequently resemble structured identifiers (e.g., dates or IDs), leading generic Personally Identifiable Information (PII) detection systems to over-redact core instructional content and reduce data utility. This work asks how to detect PII while preserving educational utility, focusing on this "numeric ambiguity" problem. We introduce MathEd-PII, the first benchmark dataset for PII detection in math tutoring dialogues, built with human-in-the-loop LLM annotation. Using density-based segmentation, we show that false PII redactions cluster in math-dense regions, confirming numeric ambiguity as a key failure mode. We then compare four detection strategies: a Presidio baseline and three LLM-based approaches with basic, math-aware, and segment-aware prompting. Domain-aware prompting, including both math-aware (F1: 0.802) and segment-aware versions (F1: 0.821), substantially outperforms the baseline (F1: 0.379) while reducing numeric false positives, demonstrating that de-identification must incorporate domain context to preserve analytic utility. This work provides a new benchmark and evidence that utility-preserving de-identification for tutoring data requires domain-aware modeling.
Figures & tables
Redacted Message
Inferred Original Message
9351 / 7 = 1335 <US_DRIVER_LICENSE>
9351 / 7 = 1335.8571
go from radians to degrees it would <COURSE_NUMBER>/pi
go from radians to degrees it would 180/pi
so it would be 1.15x=<PHONE_NUMBER>
so it would be 1.15x= 368000
Table 1: Incorrect PII Redactions in the Source Corpus and Inferred Original Text
Figure 1: The Three-Step Human-In-The-Loop MathEd-PII Benchmark Dataset Preparation Workflow.
Unsuccessful Detection
Successful Detection
hey olivia
hey Olivia
Hi Alex
Hi Alex,
I am Lam
i am Lam
Table 2: Simulated Examples of PERSON that Presidio Failed to Detect and Similar Cases that Presidio Successfully Detected
Category
Source Corpus
MathEd-PII
Transcripts
1,000
1,000
Messages
115,620
115,620
PII Labels (Total)
5,263
1,995
PERSON
1,915
1,424
URL
245
187
LOCATION
595
121
Table 3: PII Statistics Comparison between Source Corpus and MathEd-PII (ordered by the most common PII to the least in MathEd-PII)
Figure 2: Distribution of Original PII Redactions from the Data Provider’s In-House System (Presidio and Customized Rules) across Different PII Types and Math and Non-Math Segments in terms of true PII and false positives (“Not PII”). Types are ordered by the frequency of “Not PII” in Math Segments. The first seven types are presented.
Table 5: PII Detection False Positives and Precision by Category (ordered by Precision from the highest to the lowest from Gemini 3 Pro with Segment Prompting)
Model
Prompt
NON-MATH Segments
MATH Segments
Prec
Rec
F1
Prec
Rec
F1
Presidio LG
-
0.346
0.756
0.475
0.142
0.720
0.237
Gemini 3 Pro
Basic
0.913
0.819
0.864
0.800
0.591
0.680
Gemini 3 Pro
Segment
0.909
0.815
0.860
0.819
0.618
0.705
Table 6: PII Detection Performance by Segment Type (NON-MATH vs. MATH)
Jun 29, 2026·Roland Roller, Vera Czehmann, Derya Erman +13PII Detection
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin, Germany. · Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany. · Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany. +4