Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Beyond Traditional Algorithms: Leveraging LLMs for Accurate Cross-Border Entity Identification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that large language models accessed through commercial chat interfaces—Microsoft Copilot and Alibaba's Qwen2.5—identify foreign companies more accurately than traditional string-distance algorithms and open-source…

desk verdict The central claim is contradicted by the paper's own table and test-set oversampling invalidates the metrics; this should be desk rejected. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11086 v1 pith:WNYTLEM2 submitted 2025-07-15 cs.CL

Andres Azqueta-Gavaldón , Joaquin Ramos Cosgrove This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords largelanguagemodelsentitymatchingcross-borderidentificationzero-shotclassificationstringsimilarityfinancialregulationPortuguesecompanynamesfalsepositiverate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper addresses a specific regulatory problem: when a Spanish credit institution reports a foreign company, a human analyst must decide whether the declared company name matches the official registered name. The authors try to show that large language models accessed through commercial chat interfaces—Microsoft Copilot, Alibaba's Qwen 2.5, and Mistral—do this better than traditional string-distance algorithms (Levenshtein, cosine, Jaccard) and open-source Hugging Face models (BERT, BART, DeBERTa). On a hand-built dataset of 65 Portuguese company cases, they report that interface-based LLMs reach accuracies above 93% and F1 scores above 96%, with Qwen2.5 the best at 95.24% accuracy and 97.44% F1. If correct, a regulator could automate the first pass of cross-border entity identification with a simple prompt, routing only doubtful cases to human review. The claim rests on a very small dataset and on a test-set construction step that duplicates minority-class instances, so the headline numbers depend on whether that duplication distorts the metrics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is zero-shot classification with a large language model: each pair of entity names (declared name versus official scraped name) is turned into a prompt, and the model outputs a label such as Equal/Different or Accepted/Rejected/Doubtful. For the open-source Hugging Face models, the paper fine-tunes on a JSON file of 433 fictitious examples, and it builds ground truth by web-scraping official Portuguese register names. The evaluation protocol is the other key piece: three method families—distance metrics, Hugging Face LLMs, and interface LLMs—are run on the same 65-case validation set with the same labels, producing the accuracy/F1/FPR table that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Take the 65 validation cases from Table A.1, run the same prompts on Qwen2.5, Copilot, and Mistral without duplicating any minority-class cases, and recompute accuracy, F1, and false-positive rate; if the interface models no longer exceed 93% accuracy or their false-positive rates rise, the central claim fails. As a simpler check, recompute the published metrics from the model outputs using the original class distribution to see whether deBERTa-v3-base's 50% ROC AUC is an artifact of duplicated test labels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that interface-based LLMs, used in a zero-shot classification setup where the model labels a pair of names as Equal or Different, are the most accurate family for cross-border entity identification. The best result is Alibaba/Qwen2.5 with 95.24% accuracy, 96.61% precision, 98.28% recall, 97.44% F1, 79.14% ROC AUC, and a 40% false-positive rate. Microsoft/Copilot achieves 93.65% accuracy with perfect recall and an 80% false-positive rate, and Mistral scores 92.06% accuracy. These numbers beat cosine similarity, the best traditional method (93.65% accuracy, 20% false-positive rate), and deBERTa-v3-base, the best Hugging Face model (92.06% accuracy, 95.87% F1, but 100% false-positive rate and 50% ROC AUC). The authors attribute the advantage to the LLMs' ability to handle abbreviations, special characters, outdated names, and legal-form changes that string distances miss.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy, F1, and false-positive numbers are only as good as the test-set construction: duplicating minority-class instances in both train and test changes the class distribution and can inflate metrics, and the paper gives no evidence that this duplication was harmless.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interface-model results hold, a financial regulator could pre-screen foreign-entity filings with a chatbot prompt, automatically accepting clear matches and sending only doubtful cases to human review.
  • The paper's workflow—retrieve data, scrape official registers, classify with an LLM, human-check doubtful cases—is portable to other countries beyond Portugal, with the caveat that each country's register and legal forms must be scraped and labelled.
  • Even the best model reports a 40% false-positive rate, so the authors' stated zero-tolerance standard for accepting incorrect entities is not yet met; the practical use is human-in-the-loop, not full automation.
  • The deBERTa-v3-base result (perfect recall but 50% ROC AUC and 100% FPR) shows that accuracy and F1 alone can hide a model that is effectively guessing on the negative class, so regulators should track false-positive rate and ROC AUC.
  • The results suggest that traditional distance metrics remain competitive on raw accuracy—cosine matches the best interface LLM at 93.65%—so the case for switching to chat interfaces rests on handling contextual variations, not on overall accuracy alone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive robustness check would rerun the reported metrics on the original 65 cases without minority-class duplication; the paper's Section 3.3.6 states that the minority class was duplicated in test, so this check follows directly from the paper's own method.
  • A reader comparing the abstract with the results table would find that the 'lower false positives' claim is not what the table shows: cosine similarity reports a 20% false-positive rate while every interface model reports 40–80%.
  • A natural next experiment is to run the same prompts on the public entity-matching benchmarks cited in the paper (the datasets used by Ditto and COMEM) to test whether the interface-model advantage generalizes beyond 65 Portuguese cases.
  • An operational implication the authors do not spell out is a 'human-in-the-loop LLM desk' for the regulator: a fixed prompt template, a registry scraper, and a human review queue for doubtful labels, piloted on real daily filing lists and compared with current manual decisions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares traditional string-distance methods (Levenshtein, cosine, Jaccard), Hugging Face–based LLMs, and interface-based LLMs (Copilot, Qwen2.5, Mistral) for cross-border entity identification, using a proprietary dataset of 65 Portuguese company cases with manual ground-truth labels. The authors report that interface-based LLMs achieve accuracies above 93%, F1 scores exceeding 96%, and 'lower false positives (40–80%)' compared with traditional methods (20–40% FPR), and claim that these models are superior for this task. The evaluation rests on a single table (Table 5) with aggregate accuracy, precision, recall, F1, ROC AUC, and FPR.

Significance. If the reported results were valid, the paper would offer a useful empirical comparison of LLM interfaces versus classical entity-matching algorithms for a real-world financial-regulation task, with practical implications for reducing manual review. The study covers a realistic use case, includes multiple model families, and explicitly focuses on the FPR, which is appropriate for the domain. However, the evaluation methodology has a load-bearing flaw (test-set oversampling), and the central claim about lower false positives is internally contradicted by the paper's own results table. The data and code are not released, so the findings cannot be independently checked. As it stands, the evidence does not support the paper's main conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.6 and Table 5] Section 3.3.6 states: 'If needed, we duplicate the instances of the minority class, not only in train but also in test.' Duplicating test instances modifies the test-set class distribution and violates the i.i.d. evaluation assumption. Identical copies receive identical predictions, so errors are weighted multiple times, and recall/F1 can be artificially inflated by the model's tendency to reproduce training-set labels. Because every method in Table 5 is evaluated on this same augmented set, all reported accuracies, F1 scores, and FPRs are suspect. The authors need to evaluate on the original untouched test set, or use proper resampling (e.g., repeated stratified cross-validation without test-set duplication), and report confidence intervals or error bars.
  2. [Abstract and §5, Table 5] The abstract's claim that interface-based LLMs achieve 'lower false positives (40–80%)' is contradicted by Table 5. The reported FPRs for interface LLMs are 40% (Qwen2.5), 80% (Mistral), and 80% (Copilot), whereas the traditional methods' FPRs are 20% (Cosine), 40% (Levenshtein), and 80% (Jaccard). Thus the interface-based LLMs do not have lower FPRs; they are equal to or higher than the best traditional methods. This internal inconsistency directly undermines the central claim of the paper and the stated rationale for preferring LLMs ('zero tolerance' for false positives).
  3. [§3.3.1 and §5] The distance methods (Levenshtein, cosine, Jaccard) are evaluated without reporting the similarity thresholds used to convert scores into Accept/Reject decisions. Accuracy, F1, and FPR are threshold-dependent, so the reported values are not reproducible without specifying these thresholds. The paper should provide the exact thresholds, or the threshold selection procedure (e.g., optimal cutoff on a validation set), and assess sensitivity to threshold choice. Without this, the comparison between distance methods and LLMs is not well defined.
  4. [§5 and dataset size] The evaluation uses only 65 cases, and the reported metrics are point estimates with no variance quantification. With such a small sample, a one-instance difference can shift accuracy by over 1.5 percentage points. The absence of confidence intervals, bootstrapped errors, or statistical tests means the claim that interface LLMs 'outperform' traditional methods (or even that one LLM outperforms another) is not supported by the data. The authors should provide interval estimates and, ideally, a paired significance test across the same test cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies, e.g., 'W orkflow' in the section heading, 'V arious' in Section 3.3.1, 'Table 3.2' used instead of 'Table 1' or a proper reference, and inconsistent use of 'Aceptado' vs 'Accepted' for ground-truth labels.
  2. [§5] The text says deBERTa-v3-base has 'a high F1 Score of 95.87%' and 'an FPR of 100%'. While technically possible, this combination indicates that the model labels all instances as positive, so 'perfect recall' is trivial; the paper should explicitly interpret this as a degenerate case rather than a strength.
  3. [§3.3.3] The descriptions of Copilot, Qwen, and Mistral are largely generic product descriptions from vendor sources and are not tied to the actual experimental setup (e.g., model versions, API parameters, prompt formats). The paper should provide the exact prompts and model versions used, and state whether responses were deterministic or sampled.
  4. [§4.1] The 'Result' column is described as ground truth, but the paper does not report how the manual labels were produced, whether there was a second annotator, or any measure of inter-annotator agreement. A brief validation of the labeling protocol would strengthen the credibility of the 'well-defined ground truth' claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Test-set oversampling in §3.3.6 makes the reported performance metrics an artifact of the authors' constructed evaluation set, so the central 'LLMs outperform' claim is partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3.6 (Model Fine-Tuning); results presented in Section 5, Table 5]
    "If needed, we duplicate the instances of the minority class, not only in train but also in test."

    The paper's central performance claims (accuracies above 93%, F1 scores exceeding 96%, FPRs 40–80%) are computed on a test set whose class distribution has been altered by duplicating minority-class instances. Identical duplicated test instances receive identical model predictions, so every accuracy, recall, F1, and FPR value is weighted by the authors' duplication choices rather than by the original 65-case distribution. Because the same oversampling is applied to the training data, the evaluation cannot separate genuine generalization from memorization of repeated examples. The reported 'predictions' thus reduce, in part, to the authors' construction of the test set rather than to an independent measurement of model performance.

full rationale

The paper has no formal derivation chain; its central claim is an empirical comparison of traditional string-distance methods, Hugging Face LLMs, and interface-based LLMs. The only load-bearing step that is circular in the sense of reducing to the authors' own construction is the test-set oversampling in §3.3.6. The authors explicitly state that they duplicate minority-class instances 'not only in train but also in test,' which means the metrics in Table 5 are computed over an artificial, author-chosen class distribution and repeated identical cases. This undermines the independence of the reported accuracy, F1, and FPR values and makes the headline 'interface-based LLMs outperform' partially an artifact of the evaluation design. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling is present. Separately, the abstract's 'lower false positives (40–80%)' is internally contradicted by Table 5, where the interface-LLM FPRs (40%, 80%, 80%) are higher than the traditional methods' FPRs (20–40%); that is a consistency error, not a circularity, but it compounds the reliability problem. Because the central empirical claim rests on a constructed evaluation set rather than an external benchmark, a partial-circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on an unverified ground truth, an unreleased dataset, and an evaluation procedure that includes test-set oversampling. No thresholds or prompt details are given, so the reported numbers are not auditable.

free parameters (2)
  • Similarity thresholds for distance methods = not reported
    Distance-based classifiers require similarity cutoffs; the thresholds determine accuracy and FPR, and the paper does not report how they were chosen or whether they were tuned on the test set.
  • Test-set oversampling multiplier = not reported
    Section 3.3.6 states minority-class instances were duplicated in the test set; the multiplier changes the class distribution and the reported metrics.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The manually labeled 'Result' column is error-free ground truth.
    The entire evaluation compares model outputs to these labels; the authors themselves describe the manual comparison process as 'time-consuming and prone to human errors' (Appendix A.2).
  • domain assumption The official names scraped from Portuguese registries are complete and correct.
    Web-scraped official names are used both to construct the dataset and as ground truth; no validation of the scraping step is reported.
  • domain assumption The 65-case single-day sample is representative of the entity-matching population.
    No power analysis or sampling description is given; the test set also contains duplicated instances, so representativeness is doubtful.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Traditional Algorithms: Leveraging LLMs for Accurate Cross-Border Entity Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNYTLEM2

@misc{pith2026250711086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Traditional Algorithms: Leveraging LLMs for Accurate Cross-Border Entity Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNYTLEM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11086}
}
read the original abstract

The growing prevalence of cross-border financial activities in global markets has underscored the necessity of accurately identifying and classifying foreign entities. This practice is essential within the Spanish financial system for ensuring robust risk management, regulatory adherence, and the prevention of financial misconduct. This process involves a labor-intensive entity-matching task, where entities need to be validated against available reference sources. Challenges arise from linguistic variations, special characters, outdated names, and changes in legal forms, complicating traditional matching algorithms like Jaccard, cosine, and Levenshtein distances. These methods struggle with contextual nuances and semantic relationships, leading to mismatches. To address these limitations, we explore Large Language Models (LLMs) as a flexible alternative. LLMs leverage extensive training to interpret context, handle abbreviations, and adapt to legal transitions. We evaluate traditional methods, Hugging Face-based LLMs, and interface-based LLMs (e.g., Microsoft Copilot, Alibaba's Qwen 2.5) using a dataset of 65 Portuguese company cases. Results show traditional methods achieve accuracies over 92% but suffer high false positive rates (20-40%). Interface-based LLMs outperform, achieving accuracies above 93%, F1 scores exceeding 96%, and lower false positives (40-80%).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11086 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow To address the limitations of the manual comparison process (see Appendix A.2), an automated comparison process is proposed in this work. As can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This example shows how cosine similarity will compare the angle of lines between objects to determine how similar the items are. Note that most text embeddings will be at least a few hundred dimensions instead of just two. Source: Commons (2024) Its computational efficiency makes it ideal for large-scale applications like search engines and recommendation systems. In Python, cosine distance can be computed using lib… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of the JSON file format • We analyze the class distribution before splitting the dataset to see if we need to over-sample the minority class. In an oversampling method, new samples are added to the minority class in order to balance the data set. These methods can be categorized into random oversampling and synthetic oversampling. In random oversampling method, the goal is to balance a dataset by increasing … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sent...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Alokla, Anas, Walaa Gad, Waleed Nazih, Mustafa Aref and Abdel-badeeh Salem. (2022). Pseudocode generation from source code using the bart model . Mathematics, 10(21). ://doi.org/10.3390/math10213967

    work page doi:10.3390/math10213967 2022

  4. [4]

    Assiri, Adel, Abdu Gumaei, Faisal Mehmood, Touqeer Abbas and Sami Ullah. (2024). Deberta-gru: Sentiment analysis for large language model. Computers, Materials & Continua, 79(3)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Aydin, Omer, Enis Karaarslan, Fatih Safa Erenay and Nebojsa Bacanin. (2025). Generative ai in academic writing: A comparison of deepseek, qwen, chatgpt, gemini, llama, mistral, and gemma . arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04765

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Aziz, Abdul, Md Akram Hossain and Abu Nowshed Chy. (2022). Enhancing the deberta transformers model for classifying sentences from biomedical abstracts . In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Workshop of the Australasian Language Technology Association. pp. 156--160

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Brizan, David Guy, and Abdullah Uz Tansel. (2006). A. survey of entity resolution and record linkage methodologies . Communications of the IIMA, 6(3), p. 5

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Cheng, Tao, Xifeng Yan and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. (2007). Supporting entity search: a large-scale prototype search engine . In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. pp. 1144--1146

    work page 2007

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Christen, Peter, and Peter Christen. (2012). The data matching process. Springer

    2012

  2. [10]

    Commons, Wikimedia. (2024). File:CosineSimilarity.png --- Wikimedia Commons , the free media repository . [Online; accessed 25-March-2025]. ://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CosineSimilarity.png&oldid=868836689

    2024

  3. [11]

    Devlin, Jacob, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee and Kristina Toutanova. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. ://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D'Souza, Daniel. (2025). Mistral AI: What It Is, How It Works, and Use Cases of This Game-Changing AI Startup and API. Accedido: 2025-03-26. https://www.voiceflow.com/blog/mistral-ai#: :text=Mistral

    2025

  5. [13]

    Dutta, Ajay, M Syamala Devi and Manish Arora. (2017). Census web service architecture for e-governance applications . In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. pp. 1--4

    2017

  6. [14]

    Elmagarmid, Ahmed K, Panagiotis G Ipeirotis and Vassilios S Verykios. (2006). Duplicate record detection: A survey . IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 19(1), pp. 1--16

    2006

  7. [15]

    Getoor, Lise, and Ashwin Machanavajjhala. (2012). Entity resolution: theory, practice & open challenges . Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 5(12), pp. 2018--2019

    2012

  8. [16]

    He, Gaole, Junyi Li, Wayne Xin Zhao, Peiju Liu and Ji-Rong Wen. (2020). Mining implicit entity preference from user-item interaction data for knowledge graph completion via adversarial learning . In Proceedings of the web conference 2020. pp. 740--751

    2020

  9. [17]

    He, Pengcheng, Jianfeng Gao and Weizhu Chen. (2023). DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing. ://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09543

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Huang, Qianyu, and Tongfang Zhao. (2024). Leveraging Large Language Models for Entity Matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20624. ://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20624

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    IBM. (2024). What is Mistral AI? Accedido: 2025-03-26. ://www.ibm.com/think/topics/mistral-ai

    2024

  12. [20]

    Jain, Sumit, and Sanjay Tanwani. (2015). Enhancing relevancy of search engine using schema matching techniques . In 2015 4th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO)(Trends and Future Directions). IEEE, pp. 1--6

    2015

  13. [21]

    Karabiber, Fatih. (2015). Jaccard similarity . learndatasci. ://www.learndatasci.com/glossary/jaccard-similarity/

    2015

  14. [22]

    Kruse, Felix, Jan-Philipp Awick, Jorge Marx G \'o mez and Peter Loos. (2021). Developing a legal form classification and extraction approach for company entity matching: Benchmark of rule-based and machine learning approaches . In Business Information Systems. pp. 13--26

    2021

  15. [23]

    Kumar, Rohit, Digvijay S Lamba, Nikesh Garera, Mitul Tiwari, Xiaoyong Chai, Sanjib Das, Sri Subramaniam, Anand Rajaraman, Venky Harinarayan and AnHai Doan. (2013). Entity extraction, linking, classification, and tagging for social media: a wikipedia-based approach . Proceeding...

    2013

  16. [24]

    Kusa, Wojciech, \'O scar E Mendoza, Petr Knoth, Gabriella Pasi and Allan Hanbury. (2023). Effective matching of patients to clinical trials using entity extraction and neural re-ranking . Journal of biomedical informatics, 144, p. 104444

    2023

  17. [25]

    Lewis, Mike, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov and Luke Zettlemoyer. (2019). Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension . arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Li, Baoli, and Liping Han. (2013). Distance weighted cosine similarity measure for text classification . In Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning--IDEAL 2013: 14th International Conference, IDEAL 2013, Hefei, China, October 20-23, 2013. Proceedings 14. Springer, ...

    2013

  19. [27]

    Li, Yuliang, Jinfeng Li, Yoshihiko Suhara, AnHai Doan and Wang-Chiew Tan. (2020). Deep entity matching with pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00584. ://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00584

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Li, Yuliang, Jinfeng Li, Yoshihiko Suhara, Jin Wang, Wataru Hirota and Wang-Chiew Tan. (2021). Deep entity matching: Challenges and opportunities . Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ), 13(1), pp. 1--17

    2021

  21. [29]

    Liu, Yiheng, Hao He, Tianle Han, Xu Zhang, Mengyuan Liu, Jiaming Tian, Yutong Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Xiaohui Gao, Tianyang Zhong, Yi Pan, Shaochen Xu, Zihao Wu, Zhengliang Liu, Xin Zhang, Shu Zhang, Xintao Hu, Tuo Zhang, Ning Qiang, Tianming Liu and Bao Ge. (2025). Understanding l...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Martin, Daniel Jurafsky & James H. (2025). Vector semantics and embeddings . web.stanford.edu. ://web.stanford.edu/ jurafsky/slp3/6.pdf

    2025

  23. [31]

    McCoy, Allison B, Adam Wright, Michael G Kahn, Jason S Shapiro, Elmer Victor Bernstam and Dean F Sittig. (2013). Matching identifiers in electronic health records: implications for duplicate records and patient safety . BMJ quality & safety, 22(3), pp. 219--224

    2013

  24. [32]

    Nam, Ethan. (2019). Understanding the Levenshtein Distance Equation for Beginners. https://medium.com/@ethannam/understanding-the-levenshtein-distance-equatio n-for-beginners-c4285a5604f0

    2019

  25. [33]

    Nicoomanesh, Arash. (2024). Few-Shot and Zero-Shot Learning in LLMs: Unlocking Cross-Domain Generalization. https://medium.com/@anicomanesh/mastering-few-shot-and-zero-shot-learning-in-llms-a-deep-dive-into-cross-domain-generalization-b33f779f5259

    2024

  26. [34]

    of Prompt, God. (2025). Qwen AI: Everything You Need To Know! Accedido: 2025-03-26. ://www.godofprompt.ai/blog/what-is-qwen-ai?srsltid=AfmBOoqYbpvavkv0mf83YTgq2K4KyRKtwYsQwTGQfye-I5-IQlwYYSNc

    2025

  27. [35]

    Papadakis, George, Nishadi Kirielle, Peter Christen and Themis Palpanas. (2023). A critical re-evaluation of benchmark datasets for (deep) learning-based matching algorithms . arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01231

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Peeters, Ralph, Aaron Steiner and Christian Bizer. (2023). Entity matching using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11244. ://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11244

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Powers, John, and Andy Patrizio. (2024). Introducing Microsoft 365 Copilot – your copilot for work. Accedido: 2025-03-26. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/Microsoft-Copilot#: :text=Copilot

    2024

  30. [38]

    Pudasaini, Shushant. (2021). How does BERT work and what are the use cases of BERT ? ://medium.com/@shushanta574/bert-4810545a53b7

    2021

  31. [39]

    Chi, James Caverlee, Julian McAuley and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng

    Sachdeva, Noveen, Benjamin Coleman, Wang-Cheng Kang, Jianmo Ni, Lichan Hong, Ed H. Chi, James Caverlee, Julian McAuley and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng. (2024). How to Train Data-Efficient LLMs. ://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09668

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Shelke, Mayuri S, Prashant R Deshmukh and Vijaya K Shandilya. (2017). A review on imbalanced data handling using undersampling and oversampling technique . Int. J. Recent Trends Eng. Res, 3(4), pp. 444--449

    2017

  33. [41]

    Spataro, Jared. (2023). Introducing Microsoft 365 Copilot – your copilot for work. Accedido: 2025-03-26. ://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/03/16/introducing-microsoft- 365-copilot-your-copilot-for-work/

    2023

  34. [42]

    Steiner, Aaron, Ralph Peeters and Christian Bizer. (2024). Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Entity Matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08185. ://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08185

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Team, Qwen. (2024). Welcome to Qwen! Accedido: 2025-03-26. ://qwen.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    2024

  36. [44]

    Tejaswi, Yacham. (2024). The Levenshtein Distance Algorithm: A string metric for measuring the difference between two sequences. [Online; accessed 25-March-2025]. ://medium.com/@tejaswiyadav221/the-levenshtein-distance-algorithm-a-string-metric-for-measuring-the-difference-bet...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Tracz, Janusz, Piotr Iwo W \'o jcik, Kalina Jasinska-Kobus, Riccardo Belluzzo, Robert Mroczkowski and Ireneusz Gawlik. (2020). Bert-based similarity learning for product matching . In Proceedings of Workshop on Natural Language Processing in E-Commerce. pp. 66--75

    2020

  38. [46]

    Verma, Aayushi, Anu Taneja and Anuja Arora. (2017). Fraud detection and frequent pattern matching in insurance claims using data mining techniques . In 2017 tenth international conference on contemporary computing (IC3). IEEE, pp. 1--7

    2017

  39. [47]

    Wang, Tianshu, Xiaoyang Chen, Hongyu Lin, Xuanang Chen, Xianpei Han, Hao Wang, Zhenyu Zeng and Le Sun. (2024). Match, Compare, or Select? An Investigation of Large Language Models for Entity Matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16884. ://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16884

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Wong, Anderson, Mark Fox and Megan Katsumi. (2024). Semantically interoperable census data: unlocking the semantics of census data using ontologies and linked data . International Journal of Population Data Science, 9(1), p. 2378

    2024

  41. [49]

    Yin, Wenpeng, Jamaal Hay and Dan Roth. (2019). Benchmarking Zero-shot Text Classification: Datasets, Evaluation and Entailment Approach. ://arxiv.org/abs/1909.00161

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang, Zeyu, Paul Groth, Iacer Calixto and Sebastian Schelter. (2024). AnyMatch -- Efficient Zero-Shot Entity Matching with a Small Language Model. ://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04073

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zhou, Connie. (2023). Understanding Jaccard Similarity: A Powerful Tool for Data Analysis. Accedido: 2023-09-06. ://medium.com/@conniezhou678/understanding-jaccard-similarity-a-powerful-tool-for-data-analysis-42abaaafd782

    2023

  44. [52]

    Zuo, Zhen, Lixi Wang, Michinari Momma, Wenbo Wang, Yikai Ni, Jianfeng Lin and Yi Sun. (2020). A flexible large-scale similar product identification system in e-commerce . In KDD Workshop on Industrial Recommendation Systems

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.