Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Entity Matching using Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.11244 v4 pith:TZAAYRG2 submitted 2023-10-17 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords matchingentitymodelsdatatrainingllmspromptlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Entity matching is the task of deciding whether two entity descriptions refer to the same real-world entity. Entity matching is a central step in most data integration pipelines. Many state-of-the-art entity matching methods rely on pre-trained language models (PLMs) such as BERT or RoBERTa. Two major drawbacks of these models for entity matching are that (i) the models require significant amounts of task-specific training data and (ii) the fine-tuned models are not robust concerning out-of-distribution entities. This paper investigates using generative large language models (LLMs) as a less task-specific training data-dependent and more robust alternative to PLM-based matchers. The study covers hosted and open-source LLMs which can be run locally. We evaluate these models in a zero-shot scenario and a scenario where task-specific training data is available. We compare different prompt designs and the prompt sensitivity of the models. We show that there is no single best prompt but that the prompt needs to be tuned for each model/dataset combination. We further investigate (i) the selection of in-context demonstrations, (ii) the generation of matching rules, as well as (iii) fine-tuning LLMs using the same pool of training data. Our experiments show that the best LLMs require no or only a few training examples to perform comparably to PLMs that were fine-tuned using thousands of examples. LLM-based matchers further exhibit higher robustness to unseen entities. We show that GPT4 can generate structured explanations for matching decisions and can automatically identify potential causes of matching errors by analyzing explanations of wrong decisions. We demonstrate that the model can generate meaningful textual descriptions of the identified error classes, which can help data engineers to improve entity matching pipelines.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. TransClean: Finding False Positives in Multi-Source Entity Matching under Real-World Conditions via Transitive Consistency

    cs.DB 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TransClean uses a model's predictions on transitive, implied record pairs to locate and remove false positive matches in multi-source entity resolution.

  2. Attribution Markets: A Fisher-Market Formulation for Fractional Credit Assignment Between Planned Tasks and Performed Actions

    cs.LG 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Treating planned tasks as budget-constrained buyers and logged actions as divisible goods yields a market-based attribution rule with provable conservation and credit caps, though it underperforms entropic optimal tra...

  3. Omni Geometry Representation Learning vs Large Language Models for Geospatial Entity Resolution

    cs.DB 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A geometry-aware neural encoder plus attribute-aware language modeling improves geospatial entity resolution by up to 12% F1 over point-only baselines, with large language models competitive.

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

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A 65-case comparison claims commercial chatbot LLMs are the most accurate for Portuguese entity matching, but the reported false-positive rates contradict the claim.

Pith tools