Probing the Robustness of Pre-trained Language Models for Entity Matching
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paradigm of fine-tuning Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) has been successful in Entity Matching (EM). Despite their remarkable performance, PLMs exhibit tendency to learn spurious correlations from training data. In this work, we aim at investigating whether PLM-based entity matching models can be trusted in real-world applications where data distribution is different from that of training. To this end, we design an evaluation benchmark to assess the robustness of EM models to facilitate their deployment in the real-world settings. Our assessments reveal that data imbalance in the training data is a key problem for robustness. We also find that data augmentation alone is not sufficient to make a model robust. As a remedy, we prescribe simple modifications that can improve the robustness of PLM-based EM models. Our experiments show that while yielding superior results for in-domain generalization, our proposed model significantly improves the model robustness, compared to state-of-the-art EM models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it