Threshold-Independent Fair Matching through Score Calibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entity Matching (EM) is a critical task in numerous fields, such as healthcare, finance, and public administration, as it identifies records that refer to the same entity within or across different databases. EM faces considerable challenges, particularly with false positives and negatives. These are typically addressed by generating matching scores and apply thresholds to balance false positives and negatives in various contexts.However, adjusting these thresholds can affect the fairness of the outcomes, a critical factor that remains largely overlooked in current fair EM research. The existing body of research on fair EM tends to concentrate on static thresholds, neglecting their critical impact on fairness. To address this, we introduce a new approach in EM using recent metrics for evaluating biases in score-based binary classification, particularly through the lens of distributional parity. This approach enables the application of various bias metrics—like equalized odds, equal opportunity, and demographic parity—without depending on threshold settings. Our experiments with leading matching methods reveal potential biases, and by applying a calibration technique for EM scores using Wasserstein barycenters, we not only mitigate these biases but also preserve accuracy across real-world datasets. This paper contributes to the field of fairness in data cleaning, especially within EM, which is a central task in data cleaning, by promoting a method for generating matching scores that reduce biases across different thresholds.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".