The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reasoning about record matching rules
Open accessAbstract
To accurately match records it is often necessary to utilize the semantics of the data. Functional dependencies (FDs) have proven useful in identifying tuples in a clean relation, based on the semantics of the data. For all the reasons that FDs and their inference are needed, it is also important to develop dependencies and their reasoning techniques for matching tuples from unreliable data sources. This paper investigates dependencies and their reasoning for record matching. (a) We introduce a class of matching dependencies (MDs) for specifying the semantics of data in unreliable relations, defined in terms of similarity metrics and a dynamic semantics . (b) We identify a special case of MDs, referred to as relative candidate keys (RCKs), to determine what attributes to compare and how to compare them when matching records across possibly different relations. (c) We propose a mechanism for inferring MDs, a departure from traditional implication analysis, such that when we cannot match records by comparing attributes that contain errors, we may still find matches by using other, more reliable attributes. (d) We provide an O ( n 2 ) time algorithm for inferring MDs, and an effective algorithm for deducing a set of RCKs from MDs. (e) We experimentally verify that the algorithms help matching tools efficiently identify keys at compile time for matching, blocking or windowing, and that the techniques effectively improve both the quality and efficiency of various record matching methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
HoloClean: holistic data repairs with probabilistic inference
Rekatsinas, T., Chu, X., Ilyas, I. F., & Ré, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3137628.3137631 · Cited by 480
Big data challenge: a data management perspective
Chen, J., Chen, Y., Du, X., Li, C., Lu, J., Zhao, S., & Zhou, X. (2013) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-013-3903-7 · Cited by 339
Holistic data cleaning: Putting violations into context
Chu, X., Ilyas, I. F., & Papotti, P. (2013) · 2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde.2013.6544847 · Cited by 326
Big Data Systems: A Software Engineering Perspective
Davoudian, A., & Liu, M. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3408314 · Cited by 88
Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases
Jiang, Y., Lin, C., Meng, W., Yu, C., Cohen, A. M., & Smalheiser, N. R. (2014) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/bat086 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Fan, W., Jia, X., Li, J., & Ma, S.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 407-418
- ISSN
- 2150-8097 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964786778
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reasoning about record matching rules. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14778/1687627.1687674
- The paper
- Fan, W., Jia, X., Li, J., & Ma, S. (2009). Reasoning about record matching rules. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. https://doi.org/10.14778/1687627.1687674
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.