Entity Resolution in Practice: Lessons from a Self-Serve Pipeline

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26298v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:41:32 GMT
• Title: Entity Resolution in Practice: Lessons from a Self-Serve Pipeline
• Abstract summary: We built and evaluated a self-serve entity resolution (ER) system on six benchmarks spanning 864 to 5M records.<n>We recommend training several algorithm families per dataset and letting an automatic bake-off pick the winner.<n>One false-positive link can silently merge unrelated entities.
• Score: 0.39146761527401436
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We built and evaluated a self-serve entity resolution (ER) system on six benchmarks spanning 864 to 5M records, and three lessons emerged that are absent from existing ER literature. (1) No single matching algorithm wins everywhere - a self-serve pipeline cannot predict its next dataset, so we recommend training several algorithm families per dataset and letting an automatic bake-off pick the winner. (2) Precision and recall need separate fixes, not a shared threshold - precision needs hard rule-based vetoes, recall needs more diverse candidate retrieval. (3) One false-positive link can silently merge unrelated entities - assuming "A matches B" and "B matches C" implies "A matches C" lets a single bad link chain hundreds of records together, so every cross-group merge must be actively re-verified. We hope these lessons save practitioners the months of dead-end experiments that led us to them.

Related papers

• MemToC: Benchmarking Memory-Tool Conflict Resolution in Large Language Models [49.47300047353726]
  We introduce MemToC, a benchmark for post-tool-return arbitration with executable tools.<n>MemToC comprises 6,504 evaluation episodes constructed from 542 quality-controlled factual questions.<n>Across five open-weight 7-9B models, tool returns strongly dominate elicited closed-book answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T18:22:03Z)
• Right-Sizing LLM-Agent Decomposition in VAT Determination: A Pilot Controlled Sweep [0.3384279376065155]
  This pilot studies that choice on bounded cross-border VAT determination with reverse charge.<n>We hold the activity surface fixed (subtasks, tools, I/O schemas, validation checks, orchestrator, base model, and merge policy)<n>The program spans 4,400 runs: a 40-case, five-repeat main sweep, matched-token arms separating prompt-budget from agent-count effects, and three failure-injection arms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T15:40:15Z)
• SEER: A Self-Grounded Evidence Interface for Controlled Spatial Relation Classification [71.9783246097687]
  SEER hides candidate relations during pair localization, constructs a query-specific view with explicit subject/object roles, and retains the full image and sparse box geometry as complementary evidence.<n>For relation-choice protocols with exact inverse support, an optional refinement swaps the entity roles and changes the forward decision only when exactly one visual state obeys the corresponding inverse relation.<n>The unchanged protocol yields +4.35 to +11.79 on all 2,434 filtered EmbSpatial pair-relation questions across three models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T13:16:15Z)
• What Predicts Correctness in Text-to-SQL? A Selective-Prediction Study [0.0]
  We use AUROC to measure how well each ranks correct queries above incorrect ones.<n>On BIRD and Spider, black-box signals such as string, structural, and execution self-consistency, a schema-relevance score, and query executability all fall between about 0.61 and 0.68 AUROC.<n>We ask whether a verifier can be trained. Fine-tuned verifiers, both encoder and generative, reach about 0.77 to 0.79 AUROC in-distribution but fall to about 0.66 on unseen schemas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T20:52:58Z)
• Do LLM Attribution Metrics Transfer? Auditing Retrieval-Augmented Generation Evaluation Across Datasets and Constructs [11.997694190254974]
  Practice often treats automatic metrics for attribution as interchangeable.<n>We audit eight automatic scorers across three evaluation constructs.<n>A naive "best-on-average" rule for choosing an evaluator fails leave-one-dataset-out.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T20:25:36Z)
• Self-Verified Distillation: Your Language Model Is Secretly Its Own Synthetic Data Pipeline [56.53954182896384]
  We propose Self-Verified Distillation, a simple post-training refinement algorithm for large language models.<n>Self-Verified Distillation generates candidate solutions to unlabeled seed questions.<n>It filters them using prompt-based self-verification, and trains on the resulting self-curated dataset.<n>We find that sampling more candidate generations and using a larger verification budget during training data construction produces higher-quality self-curated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T17:26:10Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• Beyond Final Answers: CRYSTAL Benchmark for Transparent Multimodal Reasoning Evaluation [3.23600523782706]
  We introduce CRYSTAL (Clear Reasoning via Yielded Steps, Traceability, and Logic), a diagnostic benchmark with 6,372 instances that evaluates multimodal reasoning.<n>We propose two complementary metrics: Match F1, which scores step-level precision and recall via semantic similarity matching, and Ordered Match F1, which penalizes disordered reasoning chains.<n>CPR-Curriculum achieves a 32% improvement in Match F1 via GRPO where additive reward strategies fail, improving reasoning without manual step annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T15:48:15Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• Probably Approximately Precision and Recall Learning [60.00180898830079]
  A key challenge in machine learning is the prevalence of one-sided feedback.<n>We introduce a Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) framework in which hypotheses are set functions that map each input to a set of labels.<n>We develop new algorithms that learn from positive data alone, achieving optimal sample complexity in the realizable case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T04:21:07Z)
• Noisy Correspondence Learning with Self-Reinforcing Errors Mitigation [63.180725016463974]
  Cross-modal retrieval relies on well-matched large-scale datasets that are laborious in practice. We introduce a novel noisy correspondence learning framework, namely textbfSelf-textbfReinforcing textbfErrors textbfMitigation (SREM)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-27T09:03:43Z)
• Optimal Clustering with Bandit Feedback [57.672609011609886]
  This paper considers the problem of online clustering with bandit feedback. It includes a novel stopping rule for sequential testing that circumvents the need to solve any NP-hard weighted clustering problem as its subroutines. We show through extensive simulations on synthetic and real-world datasets that BOC's performance matches the lower boundally, and significantly outperforms a non-adaptive baseline algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-09T06:05:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.