Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Magneto: Combining Small and Large Language Models for Schema Matching

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Schema matching can be made both accurate and cheap by splitting the work between a small retriever and a large reranker.

desk verdict Solid systems paper; the unvalidated LLM score comparability undermines Recall@GT but not the main MRR story. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08194 v2 pith:JPTZ7S7Q submitted 2024-12-11 cs.DB cs.LG

Yurong Liu , Eduardo Pena , Aecio Santos , Eden Wu , Juliana Freire This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.LG
keywords schemamatchinglanguagemodelsretrievalandrerankingself-supervisedfine-tuningLLM-generatedtrainingdatabiomedicalintegrationcolumnserializationbenchmark
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 tries to establish that schema matching—finding which columns in different tables refer to the same real-world concept—can be made both accurate and cheap by splitting it into two stages: a fast small-language-model retriever that proposes candidate matches, and a large-language-model reranker that scores only those candidates. It argues this beats both SLM-only approaches, which need expensive labeled training data, and LLM-only approaches, which are slow and constrained by context windows. It also claims that LLMs can generate the training data needed to fine-tune the small model, removing the need for human-curated labels. If correct, schema matching systems could handle large, heterogeneous real-world schemas, such as biomedical data, at a fraction of the LLM cost.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-phase pipeline: a candidate retriever that embeds serialized columns with a small language model and ranks by cosine similarity, and a reranker that re-scores the top-k candidates. Three named pieces carry the load: priority sampling, which selects column values by frequency weighted by a random hash to anchor shared values across columns; column serialization strategies (default, verbose, and repeat) that convert a column into a token sequence with its name, type, and sampled values; and the LLM reranker prompt that demands a numeric score for each candidate, making scores directly comparable. Fine-tuning uses triplet loss with online triplet mining on LLM-generated synthetic columns.

What would settle it

Run the LLM reranker repeatedly on the same candidate pairs with the same one-shot prompt but different random orderings or slightly reworded instructions, and check whether the 0–1 scores are stable and whether the reranked list beats the SLM's original list; if scores flip the order of correct and incorrect matches, or if the merge of scores across pairs is inconsistent, the reranking stage cannot be trusted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Magneto's central claim is that the retrieval–reranking division of labor lets a system get LLM-level accuracy at SLM-level cost: the small model narrows the candidate set and the LLM only judges those few, so context windows stay small and API calls stay few. The paper further claims that syntactically diverse training data generated by an LLM—alternative column names, synonyms, and variants of values—can fine-tune the small retriever without any human-labeled matches, and that a scoring prompt asking the LLM for 0.00–1.00 similarity scores, rather than a ranked list, makes results comparable across column pairs. On a new human-curated biomedical benchmark built with domain experts, the GDC benchmark, Magneto variants outperformed traditional matchers and supervised language-model baselines, and the framework also matched or beat baselines on the Valentine benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline depends on the SLM retriever placing the correct match somewhere in the candidate list, and on the LLM reranker's 0–1 similarity scores being accurate and comparable across different column pairs; if either fails, reranking cannot help or can hurt.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can match large schemas (hundreds of columns) with runtimes of minutes rather than hours, because LLM calls are limited to top-k candidates.
  • Fine-tuning an SLM no longer requires human-curated training data; an LLM can synthesize enough syntactic variation to train a domain-specific retriever.
  • Systems can trade accuracy against cost by tuning k, the number of candidates sent to the reranker.
  • The GDC benchmark provides a realistic, not-yet-saturated testbed; existing methods performed below 0.45 MRR, leaving room for progress.
  • The two-phase design works with different SLMs and LLMs, so components can be swapped as models improve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same retrieval–reranking split could apply to other data integration tasks, such as column type annotation or table union search, wherever a cheap embedder proposes and an LLM disambiguates.
  • Because the reranker sees the top-k candidates together, its scores are relative to that candidate set; the paper's one-shot calibration assumes scores are absolute, and a testable extension is to prompt for pairwise comparisons instead and see if ranking stability improves.
  • The GDC benchmark's small size (10 table pairs) means reported gains on it may be sensitive to particular columns; extending to more biomedical studies would test generality.
  • The authors themselves note that reranking quality is prompt-dependent, so measuring score variance across prompt paraphrases is a concrete next step.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Magneto, a two-phase schema matching framework in which a small language model (SLM) retrieves candidate column matches and a large language model (LLM) reranks those candidates. The authors propose an LLM-powered method for generating synthetic training data to fine-tune the SLM with triplet loss and online triplet mining, several column serialization and value sampling strategies, and a prompting scheme that asks the LLM to assign 0.00-1.00 similarity scores. They also present a new biomedical benchmark, GDC, built with domain experts from real cancer genomics data, and evaluate Magneto on GDC and on the Valentine benchmark against traditional, SLM-based, and LLM-based baselines. The central claim is that this retrieval-then-reranking structure reduces LLM cost and runtime while maintaining or improving matching accuracy.

Significance. If the results hold, Magneto is a practical and timely contribution to schema matching: it reduces the number of LLM calls by moving most candidate generation to an SLM, and it introduces a difficult real-world benchmark that distinguishes methods on datasets where existing benchmarks are saturated. The paper is strong on execution: it provides an artifact URL, compares against multiple baselines including authors' implementations of ISResMat and Unicorn, honestly discloses Unicorn's training on Valentine data, and reports ablations over serialization, sampling, data generation, and model choice. However, the Recall@GT-based accuracy claims rest on an unvalidated assumption that LLM similarity scores are comparable across different prompts and source columns, and the default hyperparameters appear to be selected on the evaluation benchmarks themselves. These issues are fixable with additional experiments, but they currently undermine the strength of the headline accuracy comparisons.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Definition 2.3, Figure 11] The Recall@GT metric merges all candidate scores into one global ranking, so the LLM reranker's 0.00-1.00 scores must be comparable across source columns, prompt instances, and candidate orderings. The paper asserts in Section 4 that the one-shot example 'establishes a uniform scoring standard,' but no experiment measures score calibration, variance across repeated prompts, sensitivity to the choice of the one-shot example, or sensitivity to candidate ordering. The one-shot example itself shows matching columns with identical value sets (EmpID/WorkerID both [100,101,102]), which may bias the model toward value overlap and is especially concerning for the GDC benchmark, where Table 1 shows correct matches with syntactically different values. The normalization rule for unassessed candidates at the end of Section 4 (maximum score aligned with the lowest reranker score) is a per-column rescaling and further compromises cross-column comparability. Because Recall@GT is load-bearing for central claims, including the 26.7% improvement from 0.375 to 0.475 in Figure 11 and the Recall@GT columns in Tables 5-6, these claims are not supported unless score comparability is demonstrated. Section 8 concedes that 'reranking quality can vary due to prompt dependence,' but this is never tested. Please add experiments on score stability and calibration, and either justify the global merging or report Recall@GT with an explicitly justified per-column normalization.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 6.4] The default hyperparameters appear to be selected using the evaluation benchmarks themselves, which risks optimistic bias in the reported numbers. Section 3.1 states that the value sample size was fixed to 10 'after experimenting with varying column value sample sizes (from 10 to 30),' and Section 6.4 states that k=20 was chosen because it 'balances good MRR, Recall@GT, and runtime across GDC and other datasets.' If these choices were made after inspecting the final test-set results, the reported accuracies are not honest estimates of performance on unseen data. Please clarify whether a held-out validation split was used for hyperparameter selection, or provide a sensitivity analysis that clearly separates tuning from evaluation.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 6.2] The fine-tuning procedure generates synthetic training columns from the target table columns, and in the GDC benchmark all ten source-target pairs share the same 736-column target schema. At test time, the fine-tuned retriever is therefore matching source columns to columns that were used, in augmented form, as training anchors. This transductive use of target data may be legitimate in practice because the target schema is known at matching time, but it should be explicitly disclosed and its effect isolated; otherwise the comparison with zero-shot baselines and with methods that do not use target-column data is not fully fair. Please report an ablation that fine-tunes on a held-out target schema or on target columns not used in evaluation, and discuss how much of the GDC gain depends on this transductive setup.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1] In the list of Magneto variations, 'Magneto-ft-llm (fine-tuned SLM, LLM retriever)' should read 'LLM reranker,' since the LLM is used for reranking rather than retrieval.
  2. [Table 6] The entry for MPNet (Sverbose) with ft-gpt4o-mini reports Recall@GT as 0.830±0.766; the error bar is implausibly large relative to the other rows and may be a typo.
  3. [Section 5 and Table 3] The text says source tables have 93-225 rows, while Table 3 lists GDC rows as 93-4.5k; clarify that the 4.5k figure refers to the target table.
  4. [Section 3.1] The priority sampling formula R_i = freq(v_i)/h(v_i) should specify that h is drawn from (0,1] to avoid a division-by-zero edge case.
  5. [Section 6.3] The runtime plot in Figure 8 should state whether the plotted values are means or medians over the 10 repetitions and should include variance or error bars.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Magneto is an empirical system evaluated against external and expert-curated benchmarks; cited prior work is component reuse, not load-bearing.

full rationale

Magneto makes no first-principles derivation claim whose output is equivalent to its input by construction. The two-phase retrieval/reranking design is a system architecture, not a mathematical result derived from a fitted parameter. The LLM-generated training data is produced from target-column names and values without using ground-truth match labels, so the fine-tuned SLM is not fitted to the evaluation target. Model selection uses MRR and Recall@GT computed on synthetic data, but this is an internal validation heuristic, not the evidence for the paper's accuracy claims; final accuracy is measured against external Valentine datasets and the expert-curated GDC benchmark. The authors cite their own prior work for priority sampling [17] and for column-type-annotation inspiration [34], and they release the GDC benchmark under their own authorship [68], but none of these citations carries the load of the central claim: the sampling subroutine is ablated in Table 4, and even if it were replaced, the framework would still operate. The paper's Section 8 explicitly acknowledges that reranking quality can vary with prompt dependence and that retrieval errors cannot be recovered by reranking; these are honest empirical limitations, not circular steps. The concern that LLM 0--1 scores may not be comparable across prompts is a validity threat to Recall@GT, but it is an assumption about an external model's behavior, not a reduction of the paper's method to its own inputs. Therefore no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new mathematical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are domain-level: that frequent values are representative, that LLM-generated synthetic columns transfer to real data, and that LLM scores are calibrated across queries. The listed free parameters are hyperparameters chosen by hand or by evaluation-driven selection.

free parameters (5)
  • triplet margin m = 0.5
    Margin in Batch Hard triplet loss (Section 6.1), set by hand.
  • value sample size = 10
    Number of column values serialized into the SLM input; fixed after experiments over 10-30 showed marginal differences (Section 3.1).
  • reranker candidate count k = 20
    Number of SLM candidates sent to the LLM reranker; chosen to balance MRR, Recall@GT, and runtime (Section 6.4).
  • Srepeat repetition count = 5
    Times the column name is repeated in Srepeat serialization (Section 3.1); chosen by hand.
  • fine-tuning epochs = 30 (GDC), 10 (Valentine)
    Epoch count for SLM fine-tuning, set differently per dataset (Section 6.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Frequent values are statistically more representative of a column's domain.
    Used in Priority Sampling to weight values by frequency (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Priority sampling increases the chance of selecting shared values across columns, which act as anchors for similarity.
    Motivates the adapted sampling method in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated synthetic columns are semantically equivalent but syntactically different from anchors, providing valid positive pairs for contrastive learning.
    The entire fine-tuning pipeline in Section 3.2 relies on this premise.
  • domain assumption A single one-shot example calibrates the LLM's 0-1 similarity scores consistently across all queries and pairs.
    The reranker prompt (Figure 5, Section 4) uses one example; comparability of scores is required for Recall@GT.
  • standard math The assignment algorithm of Crouse [16] computes an optimal bipartite matching in polynomial time.
    Used by Magneto-bp in Section 2.2; standard result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magneto: Combining Small and Large Language Models for Schema Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPTZ7S7Q

@misc{pith2026241208194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magneto: Combining Small and Large Language Models for Schema Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPTZ7S7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08194}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in language models opened new opportunities to address complex schema matching tasks. Schema matching approaches have been proposed that demonstrate the usefulness of language models, but they have also uncovered important limitations: Small language models (SLMs) require training data (which can be both expensive and challenging to obtain), and large language models (LLMs) often incur high computational costs and must deal with constraints imposed by context windows. We present Magneto, a cost-effective and accurate solution for schema matching that combines the advantages of SLMs and LLMs to address their limitations. By structuring the schema matching pipeline in two phases, retrieval and reranking, Magneto can use computationally efficient SLM-based strategies to derive candidate matches which can then be reranked by LLMs, thus making it possible to reduce runtime without compromising matching accuracy. We propose a self-supervised approach to fine-tune SLMs which uses LLMs to generate syntactically diverse training data, and prompting strategies that are effective for reranking. We also introduce a new benchmark, developed in collaboration with domain experts, which includes real biomedical datasets and presents new challenges to schema matching methods. Through a detailed experimental evaluation, using both our new and existing benchmarks, we show that Magneto is scalable and attains high accuracy for datasets from different domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08194 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trade-off between runtime and accuracy (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magneto takes source and target tables and identifies matches in two phases: an SLM retrieves and ranks candi￾dates, then an LLM assesses and reranks them. This enables efficient matching and cross-domain generalization, with customizable strategies based on method combinations. encompassing characteristics not present in existing benchmarks and introducing new challenges for SM methods (Section 5). • We perform an … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LLM-Powered Fine-tuning Pipeline In addition to column name and values, we incorporate data types into the column representation. For column type inference, we classify columns into basic types: numerical, categorical, date, or binary. We classify columns with a high proportion of unique values (e.g., over 90% distinct values) as “key” columns, as they often represent unique identifiers. When column value is unavail… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training Data Generation Prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schema Matching Prompt. Scoring-Oriented Prompt Design. The Scoring-Oriented Instruc￾tion aligns the model with schema matching by sending one source column and the top 𝑘 target candidates from the SLM to the LLM. Prior works [50, 65] use table-wise prompts that rank c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magneto attains higher accuracy on the challenging GDC benchmark than traditional, model-based, and super￾vised approaches to SM. MPNet as our underlying small language model. It is pre-trained on masked and permuted language tasks, enabling precise con￾textual underst…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Runtime analysis (log-scale y-axis). Magneto scales well with large datasets: Magneto-zs-bp is often much faster than baselines, while Magneto-zs-llm maintains consistent runtimes, finishing large tasks within minutes. ISResMat and Unicorn fail to complete GDC after 10…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy on Valentine datasets. Magneto variants attain high accuracy (even without fine-tuning) compared to traditional, model-based, and supervised approaches. Performance on Valentine. The accuracy results for the Valentine benchmark are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation of column serialization strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ablation of candidate counts (𝑘 = 3 to 20) sent to GPT-4o-mini in Magneto-zs-llm. We also compare base￾lines that use Magneto-zs-bp (BP) for reranking, and use only an LLM – and LLaMA3.3-70B (Llama) and GPT-4o-mini (All Schema). Runtime shown on a logarithmic scale. I…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablation of rerankers. Absolute accuracy improve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AgentMap: Joint Equivalence and Subsumption Discovery for Ontology Matching

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hybrid Ontology Matching jointly finds equivalence or the finest subsumer per source concept; AgentMap’s staged multi-agent search beats single-shot LLM and classic OM baselines on four extended biomedical/food benchmarks.

  2. FlowETL: An Autonomous Example-Driven Pipeline for Data Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    FlowETL uses LLMs and a small target dataset to automatically infer and apply data-cleaning transformations, reporting high data-quality scores across 14 datasets.

  3. QUEST: Query Optimization in Unstructured Document Analysis

    cs.DB 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    QUEST reduces LLM extraction cost in unstructured document analytics by retrieving only relevant segments via a two-level index and by generating per-document filter and join execution plans during query execution.

  4. A Survey of LLM $\times$ DATA

    cs.DB 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A comprehensive survey of the bidirectional links between LLMs and data management, organized as DATA4LLM and LLM4DATA with a new 'IaaS' data-quality framework.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ayman Alserafi, Alberto Abelló, Oscar Romero, and Toon Calders. 2020. Keeping the Data Lake in Form: Proximity Mining for Pre-Filtering Schema Matching. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 38, 3 (2020), 1–30. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3388870

    work page doi:10.1145/3388870 2020

  2. [2]

    ARPA-H. 2024. Biomedical Data Fabric (BDF) Toolbox. https://arpa-h.gov/ research-and-funding/programs/arpa-h-bdf-toolbox. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  3. [3]

    David Aumueller, Hong-Hai Do, Sabine Massmann, and Erhard Rahm. 2005. Schema and ontology matching with COMA++. In In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) . 906–908

    2005

  4. [4]

    Hamed Babaei Giglou, Jennifer D’Souza, Felix Engel, and Sören Auer. 2025. LLMs4OM: Matching Ontologies with Large Language Models. In The Semantic Web: ESWC 2024 Satellite Events , Albert Meroño Peñuela, Oscar Corcho, Paul Groth, Elena Simperl, Valentina Tamma, Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese, Maria Poveda-Villalón, Marta Sabou, Valentina Presutti, Irene Celino...

    2025

  5. [5]

    Gilbert Badaro, Mohammed Saeed, and Paolo Papotti. 2023. Transformers for Tabular Data Representation: A Survey of Models and Applications.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 11 (2023), 227–249. https://doi. org/10.1162/tacl_a_00544

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00544 2023

  6. [6]

    Domenico Beneventano, Sonia Bergamaschi, Serena Sorrentino, Maurizio Vincini, and Fabio Benedetti. 2015. Semantic annotation of the CEREALAB database by the AGROVOC linked dataset. Ecological Informatics 26 (2015), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.07.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.07.002 2015

  7. [7]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  8. [8]

    Cafarella, Alon Halevy, and Nodira Khoussainova

    Michael J. Cafarella, Alon Halevy, and Nodira Khoussainova. 2009. Data integra- tion for the relational web. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 2, 1 (2009), 1090–1101

    2009

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Liwei Cao, Chen Huang, Daniel Cui Zhou, Yingwei Hu, T Mamie Lih, Sara R Savage, Karsten Krug, David J Clark, Michael Schnaubelt, Lijun Chen, et al. 2021. Proteogenomic characterization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cell 184, 19 (2021), 5031–5052

    2021

  2. [10]

    Riccardo Cappuzzo, Paolo Papotti, and Saravanan Thirumuruganathan. 2020. Creating embeddings of heterogeneous relational datasets for data integration tasks. In In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD). 1335–1349

    2020

  3. [11]

    Qahtan, Ahmed El- magarmid, Ihab Ilyas, Samuel Madden, Mourad Ouzzani, Michael Stonebraker, and Nan Tang

    Raul Castro Fernandez, Essam Mansour, Abdulhakim A. Qahtan, Ahmed El- magarmid, Ihab Ilyas, Samuel Madden, Mourad Ouzzani, Michael Stonebraker, and Nan Tang. 2018. Seeping Semantics: Linking Datasets Using Word Embed- dings for Data Discovery. In 2018 IEEE 34th International C...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Cindy Cheng, Luca Messerschmidt, Isaac Bravo, Marco Waldbauer, Rohan Bhavikatti, Caress Schenk, Vanja Grujic, Tim Model, Robert Kubinec, and Joan Barceló. 2024. A general primer for data harmonization. Scientific data 11, 1 (2024), 152

    2024

  5. [13]

    David J Clark, Saravana M Dhanasekaran, Francesca Petralia, Jianbo Pan, Xiaoyu Song, Yingwei Hu, Felipe da Veiga Leprevost, Boris Reva, Tung-Shing M Lih, Hui-Yin Chang, et al. 2019. Integrated proteogenomic characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cell 179, 4 (2019...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Tianji Cong, Fatemeh Nargesian, and HV Jagadish. 2023. Pylon: Semantic Table Union Search in Data Lakes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04901

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC)

    cptac 2024. Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC). https: //proteomics.cancer.gov/programs/cptac. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  8. [16]

    David F. Crouse. 2016. On implementing 2D rectangular assignment algorithms. IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems 52, 4 (2016), 1679–1696. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TAES.2016.140952

    2016

  9. [17]

    Majid Daliri, Juliana Freire, Christopher Musco, Aécio Santos, and Haoxiang Zhang. 2024. Sampling Methods for Inner Product Sketching. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 17, 9 (2024), 2185–2197

    2024

  10. [18]

    C., Chaitanya Gokhale, Pradap Konda, Yash Govind, and Derek Paulsen

    Sanjib Das, AnHai Doan, Paul Suganthan G. C., Chaitanya Gokhale, Pradap Konda, Yash Govind, and Derek Paulsen. [n.d.]. The Magellan Data Repository. https://sites.google.com/site/anhaidgroup/projects/data

  11. [19]

    datagov 2024. U.S. Government’s Open Data. https://data.gov. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  12. [20]

    Jacob Devlin. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hong-Hai Do and Erhard Rahm. 2002. COMA: a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB) . 610–621

    2002

  14. [22]

    AnHai Doan, Alon Halevy, and Zachary Ives. 2012. Principles of Data Integration (1st ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA

    2012

  15. [23]

    Haoyu Dong and Zhiruo Wang. 2024. Large Language Models for Tabular Data: Progresses and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the International ACM Con- ference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) . 2997–3000. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626772.3661384

    2024

  16. [24]

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, et al. 2022. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Yuyang Dong, Chuan Xiao, Takuma Nozawa, Masafumi Enomoto, and Masafumi Oyamada. 2023. DeepJoin: Joinable Table Discovery with Pre-Trained Language Models. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 16, 10 (2023), 2458–2470

    2023

  18. [26]

    Yongchao Dou, Emily A Kawaler, Daniel Cui Zhou, Marina A Gritsenko, Chen Huang, Lili Blumenberg, Alla Karpova, Vladislav A Petyuk, Sara R Savage, Shankha Satpathy, et al. 2020. Proteogenomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Cell 180, 4 (2020), 729–748

    2020

  19. [27]

    Xingyu Du, Gongsheng Yuan, Sai Wu, Gang Chen, and Peng Lu. 2024. In Situ Neural Relational Schema Matcher. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 138–150

    2024

  20. [28]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    European Organization For Nuclear Research and OpenAIRE. [n.d.]. Zenodo. https://www.zenodo.org. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  22. [30]

    Jrme Euzenat and Pavel Shvaiko. 2013. Ontology Matching (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated

    2013

  23. [31]

    Grace Fan, Jin Wang, Yuliang Li, Dan Zhang, and Renée J. Miller. 2023. Semantics- Aware Dataset Discovery from Data Lakes with Contextualized Column-Based Representation Learning. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 16, 7 (2023), 1726–1739

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sengamedu, and Christos Faloutsos

    Xi Fang, Weijie Xu, Fiona Anting Tan, Ziqing Hu, Jiani Zhang, Yanjun Qi, Srinivasan H. Sengamedu, and Christos Faloutsos. 2024. Large Language Models (LLMs) on Tabular Data: Prediction, Generation, and Understanding - A Survey. Transactions on Machine Learning Research 2024 (2...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Longyu Feng, Huahang Li, and Chen Jason Zhang. 2024. Cost-Aware Uncertainty Reduction in Schema Matching with GPT-4: The Prompt-Matcher Framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14507 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Benjamin Feuer, Yurong Liu, Chinmay Hegde, and Juliana Freire. 2024. ArcheType: A Novel Framework for Open-Source Column Type Annotation Using Large Language Models. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 17, 9 (2024), 2279–2292

    2024

  27. [35]

    Avigdor Gal. 2006. Managing uncertainty in schema matching with top-k schema mappings. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 90–114

    2006

  28. [36]

    Michael A Gillette, Shankha Satpathy, Song Cao, Saravana M Dhanasekaran, Suhas V Vasaikar, Karsten Krug, Francesca Petralia, Yize Li, Wen-Wei Liang, Boris Reva, et al . 2020. Proteogenomic characterization reveals therapeutic vulnerabilities in lung adenocarcinoma. Cell 182, 1...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Ian Harrow, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Andrea Splendiani, Martin Romacker, Peter Woollard, Scott Markel, Yasmin Alam-Faruque, Martin Koch, James Malone, and Arild Waaler. 2017. Matching disease and phenotype ontologies in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative. J. Biomed. Sem...

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Allison P Heath, Vincent Ferretti, Stuti Agrawal, Maksim An, James C Angelakos, Renuka Arya, Rosita Bajari, Bilal Baqar, Justin HB Barnowski, Jeffrey Burt, et al

  31. [39]

    Stefan Hegselmann, Alejandro Buendia, Hunter Lang, Monica Agrawal, Xiaoyi Jiang, and David Sontag. 2023. Tabllm: Few-shot classification of tabular data with large language models. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 5549–5581

    2023

  32. [40]

    Alexander Hermans, Lucas Beyer, and Bastian Leibe. 2017. In defense of the triplet loss for person re-identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07737

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sven Hertling and Heiko Paulheim. 2023. OLaLa: Ontology Matching with Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Capture Conference (K-CAP) (Pensacola, FL, USA). 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587259.3627571

    2023

  34. [42]

    Sven Hertling, Jan Portisch, and Heiko Paulheim. 2019. MELT - Matching EvaLuation Toolkit. In Semantic Systems. The Power of AI and Knowledge Graphs - International Conference (SEMANTiCS) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , Vol. 11702. Springer, 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Chen Huang, Lijun Chen, Sara R Savage, Rodrigo Vargas Eguez, Yongchao Dou, Yize Li, Felipe da Veiga Leprevost, Eric J Jaehnig, Jonathan T Lei, Bo Wen, et al

  36. [44]

    Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Yujiao Zhou, and Ian Horrocks

  37. [45]

    Cancer cell 39, 3 (2021), 361–379

    Proteogenomic insights into the biology and treatment of HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer cell 39, 3 (2021), 361–379

    2021

  38. [46]

    Miller, and Mirek Riedewald

    Aamod Khatiwada, Grace Fan, Roee Shraga, Zixuan Chen, Wolfgang Gatter- bauer, Renée J. Miller, and Mirek Riedewald. 2023. SANTOS: Relationship-based Semantic Table Union Search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 1, 1, Article 9 (2023), 25 pages

    2023

  39. [47]

    Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, Matei Zaharia, and Christopher Potts

    Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav San- thanam, Sri Vardhamanan, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T. Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, Matei Zaharia, and Christopher Potts. 2024. DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Se...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Moe Kayali, Anton Lykov, Ilias Fountalis, Nikolaos Vasiloglou, Dan Olteanu, and Dan Suciu. 2024. Chorus: Foundation Models for Unified Data Discovery and Exploration. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 17, 8 (2024), 2104–2114

    2024

  41. [49]

    Karsten Krug, Eric J Jaehnig, Shankha Satpathy, Lili Blumenberg, Alla Karpova, Meenakshi Anurag, George Miles, Philipp Mertins, Yifat Geffen, Lauren C Tang, et al. 2020. Proteogenomic landscape of breast cancer tumorigenesis and targeted therapy. Cell 183, 5 (2020), 1436–1456

    2020

  42. [50]

    Peng Li, Yeye He, Dror Yashar, Weiwei Cui, Song Ge, Haidong Zhang, Danielle Rifinski Fainman, Dongmei Zhang, and Surajit Chaudhuri. 2024. Table-GPT: Table Fine-tuned GPT for Diverse Table Tasks. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2, 3, Article 176 (May 2024), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Christos Koutras, George Siachamis, Andra Ionescu, Kyriakos Psarakis, Jerry Brons, Marios Fragkoulis, Christoph Lofi, Angela Bonifati, and Asterios Katsi- fodimos. 2021. Valentine: Evaluating matching techniques for dataset discovery. In IEEE International Conference on Data E...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Yize Li, Yongchao Dou, Felipe Da Veiga Leprevost, Yifat Geffen, Anna P Cali- nawan, François Aguet, Yo Akiyama, Shankara Anand, Chet Birger, Song Cao, et al. 2023. Proteogenomic data and resources for pan-cancer analysis. Cancer Cell 41, 8 (2023), 1397–1406

    2023

  45. [53]

    Yinhan Liu. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 364 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Tianle Li, Ge Zhang, Quy Duc Do, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. 2024. Long-context llms struggle with long in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02060 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Jason E McDermott, Osama A Arshad, Vladislav A Petyuk, Yi Fu, Marina A Gritsenko, Therese R Clauss, Ronald J Moore, Athena A Schepmoes, Rui Zhao, Matthew E Monroe, et al. 2020. Proteogenomic characterization of ovarian HGSC implicates mitotic kinases, replication stress in obs...

    2020

  48. [56]

    Sergey Melnik, Hector Garcia-Molina, and Erhard Rahm. 2002. Similarity flood- ing: A versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 117–128

    2002

  49. [57]

    Bernstein, and Erhard Rahm

    Jayant Madhavan, Philip A. Bernstein, and Erhard Rahm. 2001. Generic Schema Matching with Cupid. InProceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). 49–58

    2001

  50. [58]

    Renée J. Miller. 2018. Open data integration. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 11, 12 (2018), 2130–2139

    2018

  51. [59]

    Avanika Narayan, Ines Chami, Laurel Orr, and Christopher Ré. 2022. Can Foun- dation Models Wrangle Your Data? Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 16, 4 (2022), 738–746

    2022

  52. [60]

    Philipp Mertins, D. R. Mani, Kelly V. Ruggles, Michael A. Gillette, Karl R. Clauser, Pei Wang, Xianlong Wang, Jana W. Qiao, Song Cao, Francesca Petralia, Emily Kawaler, Filip Mundt, Karsten Krug, Zhidong Tu, Jonathan T. Lei, Michael L. Gatza, Matthew Wilkerson, Charles M. Pero...

    2016

  53. [61]

    National Cancer Institute. 2024. Search - GDC Docs. https://docs.gdc.cancer.gov/ Data_Dictionary/gdcmvs/. Accessed: 2024-12-01

    2024

  54. [62]

    National Institutes of Health. 2020. NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. Online. https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy Available at: https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy

    2020

  55. [63]

    National Cancer Institute. 2024. Genomics Data Commons (GDC). https://gdc. cancer.gov. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  56. [64]

    City of New York. 2024. NYC Open Data Portal. https://opendata.cityofnewyork. us

    2024

  57. [65]

    Marcel Parciak, Brecht Vandevoort, Frank Neven, Liesbet M Peeters, and Stijn Vansummeren. 2024. Schema Matching with Large Language Models: an Experi- mental Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11852 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Nature. 2024. Reporting standards and availability of data, materials, code and protocols. https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ reporting-standards. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  59. [67]

    Stanoi, and Akmal Younis

    Ahmed Radwan, Lucian Popa, Ioana R. Stanoi, and Akmal Younis. 2009. Top-k generation of integrated schemas based on directed and weighted correspon- dences. In In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD). 641–654

    2009

  60. [68]

    Aécio Santos, Eden Wu, Roque Lopez, Sarah Keegan, Eduardo Pena, Wenke Liu, Yurong Liu, David Fenyo, and Juliana Freire. 2025. GDC-SM: The GDC Schema Matching Benchmark. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14963588

    2025 doi

  61. [69]

    Proteomic Data Commons

    pdc 2023. Proteomic Data Commons. https://proteomic.datacommons.cancer. gov/pdc

    2023

  62. [70]

    Florian Schroff, Dmitry Kalenichenko, and James Philbin. 2015. Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) . 815–823

    2015

  63. [71]

    Hinrich Schütze, Christopher D Manning, and Prabhakar Raghavan. 2008. Intro- duction to information retrieval. Vol. 39. Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    2008

  64. [72]

    Shankha Satpathy, Karsten Krug, Pierre M Jean Beltran, Sara R Savage, Francesca Petralia, Chandan Kumar-Sinha, Yongchao Dou, Boris Reva, M Harry Kane, Shayan C Avanessian, et al. 2021. A proteogenomic portrait of lung squamous cell carcinoma. Cell 184, 16 (2021), 4348–4371

    2021

  65. [73]

    Eitam Sheetrit, Menachem Brief, Moshik Mishaeli, and Oren Elisha. 2024. Re- Match: Retrieval Enhanced Schema Matching with LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01567 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Roee Shraga, Avigdor Gal, and Haggai Roitman. 2020. ADnEV: cross-domain schema matching using deep similarity matrix adjustment and evaluation. Pro- ceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 13, 9 (2020), 1401–1415

    2020

  67. [75]

    Science Journals: Editorial Policies

    Science 2024. Science Journals: Editorial Policies. https://www.science.org/ content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  68. [76]

    Serena Sorrentino, Sonia Bergamaschi, and Maciej Gawinecki. 2011. NORMS: An automatic tool to perform schema label normalization. In 2002 IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . 1344–1347

    2011

  69. [77]

    Yoshihiko Suhara, Jinfeng Li, Yuliang Li, Dan Zhang, Çağatay Demiralp, Chen Chen, and Wang-Chiew Tan. 2022. Annotating columns with pre-trained lan- guage models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD). 1493–1503

    2022

  70. [78]

    Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020. Mpnet: Masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS) 33 (2020), 16857–16867

    2020

  71. [79]

    Jianhong Tu, Ju Fan, Nan Tang, Peng Wang, Guoliang Li, Xiaoyong Du, Xiaofeng Jia, and Song Gao. 2023. Unicorn: A unified multi-tasking model for supporting matching tasks in data integration. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 1, 1 (2023), 1–26

    2023

  72. [80]

    UK Biobank

    ukbio 2024. UK Biobank. https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  73. [81]

    The bdi-kit contributors. 2024. bdi-kit - A Python toolkit for data harmonization. https://bdi-kit.readthedocs.io/. Accessed: 2024-12-01

    2024

  74. [82]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Ellen M Voorhees et al. 1999. The trec-8 question answering track report.. In Trec, Vol. 99. 77–82

    1999

  76. [84]

    Suhas Vasaikar, Chen Huang, Xiaojing Wang, Vladislav A Petyuk, Sara R Sav- age, Bo Wen, Yongchao Dou, Yun Zhang, Zhiao Shi, Osama A Arshad, et al

  77. [85]

    Liang-Bo Wang, Alla Karpova, Marina A Gritsenko, Jennifer E Kyle, Song Cao, Yize Li, Dmitry Rykunov, Antonio Colaprico, Joseph H Rothstein, Runyu Hong, et al. 2021. Proteogenomic and metabolomic characterization of human glioblas- toma. Cancer cell 39, 4 (2021), 509–528

    2021

  78. [86]

    White, Q

    J. White, Q. Fu, S. Hays, M. Sandborn, C. Olea, H. Gilbert, A. Elnashar, J. Spencer- Smith, and D. C. Schmidt. 2023. A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT. (2023). arXiv:arXiv:2302.11382 [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Yongqin Xu, Huan Li, Ke Chen, and Lidan Shou. 2024. KcMF: A Knowledge- compliant Framework for Schema and Entity Matching with Fine-tuning-free LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12480 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2022. Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Procopiuc, and Divesh Srivastava

    Meihui Zhang, Marios Hadjieleftheriou, Beng Chin Ooi, Cecilia M. Procopiuc, and Divesh Srivastava. 2011. Automatic discovery of attributes in relational databases. In In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD). 109–120

    2011

  82. [90]

    Yu Zhang, Mei Di, Haozheng Luo, Chenwei Xu, and Richard Tzong-Han Tsai

  83. [91]

    Yunjia Zhang, Avrilia Floratou, Joyce Cahoon, Subru Krishnan, Andreas C Müller, Dalitso Banda, Fotis Psallidas, and Jignesh M Patel. 2023. Schema matching using pre-trained language models. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1558–1571

    2023

  84. [92]

    Pengcheng Yin, Graham Neubig, Wen-tau Yih, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. TaBERT: Pretraining for joint understanding of textual and tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08314 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  85. [2012]

    In European Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Large-scale Interactive Ontology Matching: Algorithms and Implementa- tion. In European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:1618779

  86. [2019]

    Cell 177, 4 (2019), 1035–1049

    Proteogenomic analysis of human colon cancer reveals new therapeutic opportunities. Cell 177, 4 (2019), 1035–1049

    2019

  87. [2021]

    Nature genetics 53, 3 (2021), 257–262

    The NCI genomic data commons. Nature genetics 53, 3 (2021), 257–262

    2021

  88. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01685 (2024)

    SMUTF: Schema Matching Using Generative Tags and Hybrid Features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01685 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.