Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning for entity resolution

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning a Sentence-BERT model with triplet loss on the target entity records produces embeddings that, when fed to a simple logistic-regression classifier, lift entity-matching F1 by 3–19% over the same classifier on un-fine-tuned…

desk verdict Triplet-loss fine-tuning of SBERT for entity resolution is a plausible but incremental pipeline; the reported gains rest on an ambiguous train/test split and unmatched baselines, so the paper needs major revision rather than acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10629 v1 pith:5SIRHCO5 submitted 2024-11-15 cs.CL cs.AI

Xiaowei Xu , Bi T. Foua , Xingqiao Wang , Vivek Gunasekaran , John R. Talburt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords entityresolutionrepresentationlearningtripletlosscontrastiveSentence-BERTmatchingTF-IDFlargelanguagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes TriBERTa, a two-step pipeline that first fine-tunes a Sentence-BERT model on the target dataset using triplet loss and then feeds the resulting per-record embeddings to a logistic-regression classifier for entity matching. The central claim is that this contrastive fine-tuning yields representations that outperform both the original, un-fine-tuned Sentence-BERT embeddings and TF-IDF features, by 3–19% in F1 depending on dataset and baseline, with an average gain of 5% over un-fine-tuned SBERT and more than 16% over TF-IDF. The authors also report that TriBERTa's F1 scores stay within a narrower band across dirty and structured datasets than dedicated cross-encoder matchers such as KAER, which the paper reads as a robustness advantage. Because the method produces a vector for every record, the same representations could be reused outside pairwise matching, for blocking and clustering, although the paper only evaluates matching.

What carries the argument

The central object is the triplet loss and the contrastive fine-tuning procedure built on the bi-encoder Sentence-BERT architecture. For each anchor record, a positive record with the same entity id and a negative record with a different id are sampled, and the loss $\max(\|f(A)-f(P)\|^2 - \|f(A)-f(N)\|^2 + \alpha, 0)$ is minimized, where $f$ is the pooled sentence embedding. This mechanism is what pulls duplicate records closer and pushes distinct records apart in the embedding space; the resulting 768-dimensional vectors are then used by a logistic-regression classifier for pairwise matching.

What would settle it

Re-run TriBERTa with a strict protocol: split each dataset into train/validation/test first, then generate triplets only from the training records, fine-tune, and evaluate on the held-out test set. If the F1 advantage over un-fine-tuned SBERT + LR drops below the reported 5% average or disappears, the fine-tuning procedure is not the source of the claimed gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that applying triplet contrastive learning to a pre-trained sentence model on the target entity dataset reshapes the embedding space so that a simple linear classifier can separate matches from non-matches more accurately than the same classifier on generic SBERT embeddings or TF-IDF vectors. TriBERTa uses the triplet loss $L(A,P,N) = \max(\|f(A)-f(P)\|^2 - \|f(A)-f(N)\|^2 + \alpha, 0)$ to pull records referring to the same entity together and push records of different entities apart. After fine-tuning the all-distilRoBERTa-v1 model with mean pooling, the embeddings feed a logistic regression that classifies record pairs. On the GeCo, Cora, and Restaurant datasets, the paper reports F1 gains of 3–19% over baselines, and on the GoogleScholar, iTunes-Amazon, and ACM datasets it reports an average F1 of 80.42% with a narrower performance range than the KAER cross-encoder baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that the train/validation/test split happens before the anchor-positive-negative triplets are built, so no test record is used to fine-tune the embedding model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If TriBERTa's claims hold, task-specific triplet fine-tuning of a sentence embedding model is a simple, effective upgrade for entity matching, even when the downstream classifier is a basic logistic regression.
  • The per-record embeddings produced by TriBERTa can be reused for blocking and clustering, so a single representation layer could serve all three stages of entity resolution rather than requiring a dedicated model for matching.
  • The relatively stable F1 across dirty and structured datasets, compared with a cross-encoder like KAER, suggests that contrastively trained embeddings generalize more predictably to unseen record variations.
  • On datasets with few duplicates, the triplet transformation shrinks the available training data and can cause overfitting; the paper reports a near 5% drop on the small restaurant dataset, so the method's benefit may be limited when duplicates are scarce.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A straightforward test of the method's practical value would extend TriBERTa to blocking and clustering on the same datasets; the paper motivates this extension but does not measure it, so an end-to-end evaluation of the full ER pipeline remains an open question.
  • The paper's comparison against KAER uses only four datasets, so the robustness claim is provisional; testing on a broader suite of standard entity-matching benchmarks would clarify where the narrow F1 range holds.
  • If the dataset is split into train/validation/test after the anchor-positive-negative triplets are generated from the full dataset, test entities could leak into fine-tuning. A strict split-before-triplet protocol would settle whether the reported 5% and 16% gains survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TriBERTa, an entity resolution method that fine-tunes a Sentence-BERT model (all-distilRoBERTa-v1) with a triplet loss on entity records, then uses the resulting embeddings as input to a logistic regression classifier for pairwise matching. The authors evaluate on three datasets (GeCo, Cora, Restaurant) against non-fine-tuned SBERT and TF-IDF, and on three additional datasets (GoogleScholar, iTunes-Amazon, ACM) against the cross-encoder baselines Ditto and KAER. They report F1 improvements of 3-19% over the representation baselines and claim greater robustness than the cross-encoder models.

Significance. If the empirical claims are valid, the method could provide reusable embeddings for multiple entity resolution tasks (matching, blocking, clustering) with a relatively simple fine-tuning procedure. The paper gives a clear description of the triplet construction and uses publicly available datasets. However, the evaluation as presented has several load-bearing flaws: the order of triplet generation versus data splitting is ambiguous, the base model is selected using a sample of an evaluation dataset, the comparison against Ditto and KAER is not a matched-protocol evaluation, and the reported results are partly unverifiable due to garbled appendix tables. The novelty is also limited because supervised contrastive learning has already been applied to product matching and entity resolution (e.g., references [2] and [3] in the paper). These issues substantially weaken the contribution as it stands.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1.1 and Section 4.3] The manuscript never states whether the record-level train/test/validation split occurs before triplet construction. Section 3.1.1 says that 'for each instance in the dataset', an anchor, positive, and negative are randomly selected, with no mention of a split, while Section 4.3 says each dataset is split into training, testing, and validation and that training and validation data are used to fine-tune the SBERT model. If triplets are generated from the full dataset before splitting, test records appear in the fine-tuning triplets, which would inflate the reported 3-19% F1 gains over non-fine-tuned RoBERTa and TF-IDF as estimates of generalization. The paper must explicitly state that the split precedes triplet generation and that no test record contributes to any triplet used for fine-tuning, or release code/data to verify this protocol. Table 2 reports only training and validation triplet counts, which is consistent with split-first but is not conclusive.
  2. [Section 3.1.2] The base model is selected by fine-tuning 14 language models on a 100-record sample of the restaurant dataset, and the restaurant dataset is later used as one of the three main evaluation datasets. This constitutes a form of test-set contamination in model selection: the choice of all-distilRoBERTa-v1 is informed by a sample of an evaluation dataset, so the subsequent comparison against non-fine-tuned RoBERTa on the restaurant dataset is biased. Model selection should be performed on a separate held-out dataset or only on the training splits of the evaluation datasets.
  3. [Section 4.4.2 and Table 3] The robustness comparison against Ditto and KAER is not a matched-protocol evaluation. The footnote to Table 3 states 'Table data from [20]', but reference [20] is the FaceNet paper, and it is not the source of the Ditto or KAER F1 scores. The authors do not specify where the Ditto and KAER numbers come from, whether the same train/test splits were used, or whether the same evaluation pipeline (blocking, classification threshold, etc.) was applied. Without a matched evaluation, the claim that TriBERTa is more robust than these baselines is unsupported. The authors must either cite the exact sources for each baseline number and justify protocol alignment, or re-run the baselines under identical conditions.
  4. [Section 6.2 (Appendix)] The appendix tables reporting classification results are garbled and not interpretable. For example, the GeCo TriBERTa train row reads '98.59 8.59 8.49 8.5', which is likely an OCR corruption of a legitimate F1 value (e.g., 98.5). Similar artifacts appear throughout the appendix. Because the main text reports only relative margins (3-19%, 5%, 16%) without exact test-set F1 values, the actual numerical results cannot be verified from the manuscript. The authors must provide clean, legible result tables and, ideally, multiple runs or error bars to support the claimed margins.
  5. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'For Step 2, the classification task, we used the training and test data to classify pairs of data' is ambiguous and could be read as training the logistic regression classifier on both training and test data, which would be another leakage path. The authors should clarify that the classifier is trained only on the training split and evaluated on the test split, and that test data are never used during model fitting or embedding fine-tuning.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] The citation 'Yonglong et al.' is informal; please use the full author list or the reference number consistently.
  2. [Section 3.2] The lemma '∀ A2 D9 P, N2 D' is not a meaningful formal statement and should be removed or rewritten as a clear sentence.
  3. [Section 1] The claim of being 'pioneered' overstates novelty given the existing supervised contrastive learning approaches for entity matching cited in the paper itself, such as references [2] and [3].
  4. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract ('matchin g'), and OCR artifacts appear in several other places (e.g., 't h es a m er e a l - w o r l de n t i t y'); the manuscript needs a careful proofreading pass.
  5. [Table 3] The column headers list 'iTunes-Amazon' under both dirty and structured data; please label the two versions (e.g., 'dirty iTunes-Amazon' and 'structured iTunes-Amazon') to avoid confusion.
  6. [Introduction] Reference [24] is the authors' own conference paper; the text should state explicitly what the current chapter adds beyond [24], since several paragraphs are near-identical in structure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular steps: TriBERTa's gains are empirical held-out test results, not definitions or fitted predictions.

full rationale

TriBERTa's pipeline is a standard supervised fine-tuning evaluation. Section 3.1.1 generates triplets from labeled records; Section 4.3 splits each dataset into training/testing/validation and states that validation and training are used for Step-1 fine-tuning while training and test are used for Step-2 classification. Table 2 reports triplet counts per split, which is consistent with split-before-triplet construction, so the reported F1 gains are held-out test results rather than constructions. The cosine-similarity results in Section 4.4.1 are internal fit diagnostics on training/validation, not the paper's main 'prediction.' The 3-19% outperformance claims are empirical comparisons against non-fine-tuned SBERT and TF-IDF on the same test splits and do not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a definition. The model-selection step in Section 3.1.2 (choosing all-distill RoBERTa-v1 on a 100-record restaurant sample) is a possible selection leak but does not make the later comparison equivalent to its input by construction. The only self-citation [24] notes the chapter extends a prior CSCI paper and carries no evidential weight. The split-ordering ambiguity (Sections 3.1.1 vs 4.3) and the odd 'Table data from [20]' footnote on Table 3 are reproducibility and sourcing concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. It relies on standard triplet loss, a chosen base model, and several unstated assumptions about data splitting and baseline comparability.

free parameters (3)
  • Triplet loss margin alpha = not reported
    Defined in the loss formula in Section 2.3 but its value is never stated, yet it directly shapes the learned embeddings.
  • Base model choice = all-distilRoBERTa-v1
    Selected in Section 3.1.2 by cosine accuracy on a 100-record sample of the restaurant dataset, one of the evaluation datasets.
  • Cosine similarity threshold = 0.5
    Used in Section 4.4.1 to compute embedding accuracy; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Random uniform sampling of positives and negatives provides sufficient contrastive signal for the triplet loss.
    Section 3.1.1 states every positive and negative has equal probability of selection; no hard-negative mining or filtering is described.
  • domain assumption The train/validation/test split is performed in a way that prevents test records from appearing in fine-tuning triplets.
    Section 4.3 describes splitting after Section 3.1.1 builds triplets from the full dataset; the paper does not state that splitting precedes triplet generation.
  • domain assumption Ditto and KAER F1 scores from other publications are directly comparable to TriBERTa results on the same dataset names.
    Table 3 compares F1 scores without controlling for train/test splits, preprocessing, or experimental protocol.
  • domain assumption Logistic regression on fixed embeddings is a sufficient classifier to demonstrate representation quality for entity matching.
    Section 3.2 uses logistic regression as the evaluation head; the paper claims the embeddings generalize beyond this classifier.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning for entity resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SIRHCO5

@misc{pith2026241110629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning for entity resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SIRHCO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10629}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, the authors propose TriBERTa, a supervised entity resolution system that utilizes a pre-trained large language model and a triplet loss function to learn representations for entity matching. The system consists of two steps: first, name entity records are fed into a Sentence Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (SBERT) model to generate vector representations, which are then fine-tuned using contrastive learning based on a triplet loss function. Fine-tuned representations are used as input for entity matching tasks, and the results show that the proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art representations, including SBERT without fine-tuning and conventional Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), by a margin of 3 - 19%. Additionally, the representations generated by TriBERTa demonstrated increased robustness, maintaining consistently higher performance across a range of datasets. The authors also discussed the importance of entity resolution in today's data-driven landscape and the challenges that arise when identifying and reconciling duplicate data across different sources. They also described the ER process, which involves several crucial steps, including blocking, entity matching, and clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our framework for entity resolution. Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning 377 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Triplet loss representation [19].  the model is first initialized with the pre-trained parameters; then all parameters are fine-tuned using labeled data from the downstream tasks. Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning 381 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bi-encoder and cross-encoder architecture [22].  Logistic Regression is a machine learning algorithm used in classification task to analyze the rela￾tionship between some dependent variable and a set of independent variables. 382 Xiaowei Xu et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TriBERTa framework. Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning 383 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Embedding framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data preparation for triplet loss function. 384 Xiaowei Xu et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pairwise classification framework. Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning 385 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Design of evaluation framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: GeCo classification model performance.  Table data from [20]. Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning 391 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cora classification model performance. 392 Xiaowei Xu et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Restaurant classification model performance. Leveraging large language models for efficient representation learning 393 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Supervised Contrastive Learning for Product Matching,

    R. Peeters, and C. Bizer, “Supervised Contrastive Learning for Product Matching, ” WWW 2022 – Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2022, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, Apr. 2022, pp. 248 –251. doi: 10.1145/3487553.3524254

    arXiv 2022

  2. [3]

    CorDEL: A Contrastive Deep Learning Approach for Entity Linkage

    Z. Wang, B. Sisman, H. Wei, X. L. Dong, and S. Ji, “CorDEL: A Contrastive Deep Learning Approach for Entity Linkage,” Sep. 2020, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07203

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [20]

    FaceNet: A Unified Embedding for Face Recognition and Clustering,

    F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “FaceNet: A Unified Embedding for Face Recognition and Clustering,” Mar., 2015, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298682

    arXiv 2015

  4. [1]

    An Overview of End-to- End Entity Resolution for Big Data,

    V. Christophides, V. Efthymiou, T. Palpanas, G. Papadakis, and K. Stefanidis, “An Overview of End-to- End Entity Resolution for Big Data,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 53, no. 6, Association for Computing Machinery, Feb. 01, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3418896

    doi:10.1145/3418896 2021

  5. [4]

    amazon-google dataset

    Paper With Code, “amazon-google dataset.” Accessed: Sep. 12, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/amazon-google

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Abt-Buy

    Papers With Code, “Abt-Buy.” Accessed: Sep. 12, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://paperswithcode. com/dataset/abt-buy

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    WDC LSPM Dataset

    Papers With Code, “WDC LSPM Dataset.” Accessed: Sep. 12, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/wdc-products

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    J. Wang, T. Kraska, M. J. Franklin, and J. Feng, Crowder: Crowdsourcing entity resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.1927. Restaurant Model Accuracy (%) Recall (%) Precision (%) F -score (%) Train TriBERTa     RoBERTa + LR .  . . . TF-IDF + LR .  . . . Test TriBERTa + LR .  .  . RoBERTa + LR .  . ....

    arXiv 1927

Show all 24 references
  1. [8]

    Relation-aware Entity Matching Using Sentence-BERT,

    H. Zhou, W. Huang, M. Li, and Y. Lai, “Relation-aware Entity Matching Using Sentence-BERT,” Computers, Materials and Continua, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 1581–1595, 2022, doi: 10.32604/ m.2022.020695

    2022

  2. [9]

    Deep Learning for Entity Matching: A Design Space Exploration,

    S. Mudgal et al., “Deep Learning for Entity Matching: A Design Space Exploration,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Association for Computing Machinery, May 2018, pp. 19–34. doi: 10.1145/3183713.3196926

    2018

  3. [10]

    Dual-Objective Fine-tuning of BERT for Entity Matching,

    R. Peeters, and C. Bizer, “Dual-Objective Fine-tuning of BERT for Entity Matching,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, VLDB Endowment, 2021, pp. 1913–1921. doi: 10.14778/3467861.3467878

    2021

  4. [11]

    KAER: A Knowledge Augmented Pre-trained Language Model for Entity Resolution,

    L. Fang, L. Li, Y. Liu, V. I. Torvik, and B. Ludäscher, “KAER: A Knowledge Augmented Pre-trained Language Model for Entity Resolution,” Jan. 2023, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301. 04770

    2023

  5. [12]

    Intermediate Training of B ERT f or P roduct M atching,

    R. P eeters, C . B izer, a nd G. Glavaš, “Intermediate Training of B ERT f or P roduct M atching,” [Online]. A vailable: https://github.com/Weyoun2211/productbert-intermediate

  6. [13]

    Deep Entity Matching with Pre-trained Language Models,

    Y. Li, J. Li, Y. Suhara, A. Doan, and W. C. Tan, “Deep Entity Matching with Pre-trained Language Models,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 50–60, Sep 2020, doi: 10.14778/ 3421424.3421431

    2020

  7. [14]

    A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations,” Feb. 2020, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05709

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embedding,

    T. Gao, X. Yao, and D. Chen, “SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embedding,” Apr. 2021, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08821

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Unsupervised Feature Learning via Non-Parametric Instance-level Discrimination,

    Z. Wu, Y. Xiong, S. Yu, and D. Lin, “Unsupervised Feature Learning via Non-Parametric Instance-level Discrimination,” May 2018, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.01978

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Data-Efficient Image Recognition with Contrastive Predictive Coding,

    O. J. Hénaff et al., “Data-Efficient Image Recognition with Contrastive Predictive Coding,” May 2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09272

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Contrastive Multiview Coding,

    Y. Tian, D. Krishnan, and P. Isola, “Contrastive Multiview Coding,” Jun. 2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05849

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Understanding Ranking Loss, Contrastive Loss, Margin Loss, Triplet Loss, Hinge Loss and all those Confusing Names,

    R. Gómez, “Understanding Ranking Loss, Contrastive Loss, Margin Loss, Triplet Loss, Hinge Loss and all those Confusing Names,” Raúl Gómez Blog. Accessed: Sep. 12, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://gombru.github.io/2019/04/03/ranking_loss/

    2023

  13. [21]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks,

    N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks,” Aug. 2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cross-Encoders – Sentence-Transformers documentation,

    N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Cross-Encoders – Sentence-Transformers documentation,” Accessed: Sep. 12, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://www.sbert.net/examples/applications/cross-encoder/RE ADME.html

    2023

  15. [23]

    Duplicate Detection, Record Linkage, and Identity Uncertainty: Datasets,

    M. Hernández, W. Cohen, and S. Tejada, “Duplicate Detection, Record Linkage, and Identity Uncertainty: Datasets,” Accessed: Sep. 12, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/ users/ml/riddle/data.html

    2023

  16. [24]

    Large Language Model-Based Representation Learning for Entity Resolution Using Contrastive Learning

    B.T. Foua, X. Xu and J. Talburt, (2023). "Large Language Model-Based Representation Learning for Entity Resolution Using Contrastive Learning." In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, NV, US...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.