Leveraging Knowledge Graphs for Matching Heterogeneous Entities and Explanation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entity matching (EM), also known as record linkage, is crucial in data integration, cleaning, and knowledge base construction. Modern matching techniques leverage deep learning and pre-trained language models (PLMs) to effectively identify matching records, showcasing significant advancements over traditional methods. However, certain critical matching aspects have received limited attention in these techniques. They heavily rely on PLMs’ encodings and face challenges in integrating external sources of knowledge to enhance matching accuracy. Additionally, these techniques often lack transparency, impeding users’ understanding of the underlying rationale for matching decisions. Furthermore, they exhibit limitations and decreased performance in handling heterogeneous records from datasets with diverse schemas. This paper presents EXKG, a novel technique that addresses these challenges and effectively matches heterogeneous records with varying attributes. EXKG combines the power of knowledge graphs (KGs) and PLMs to perform record linkage while offering explanatory insights into the matching results. We demonstrate that EXKG achieves competitive performance through experimental studies compared to state-of-the-art matching techniques. As a by-product, our solution generates explanations that give end users a comprehensive understanding of the matching process. We evaluate the quality of these explanations by using a user study and show they empower end users to make informed decisions
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".