Record Linkage: Similarity Measures and Algorithms

Nick Koudas (University of Toronto) Sunita Sarawagi (IIT Bombay) Divesh Srivastava (AT&T Labs-Research)

Presenters

U. Toronto

IIT Bombay

AT&T Research

9/23/06

Outline
Part I: Motivation, similarity measures (90 min)

Data quality, applications Linkage methodology, core measures Learning core measures Linkage based measures

Part II: Efficient algorithms for approximate join (60 min) Part III: Clustering/partitioning algorithms (30 min)

9/23/06

Data Quality: Status

Pervasive problem in large databases

Inconsistency with reality: 2% of records obsolete in customer files in 1 month (deaths, name changes, etc) [DWI02] Pricing anomalies : UA tickets selling for $5, 1GB of memory selling for $19.99 at amazon.com

Massive financial impact

$611B/year loss in US due to poor customer data [DWI02] $2.5B/year loss due to incorrect prices in retail DBs [E00]

Commercial tools: specialized, rule-based, programmatic

9/23/06 4

How are Such Problems Created?

Human factors

Incorrect data entry Ambiguity during data transformations

Application factors

Erroneous applications populating databases Faulty database design (constraints not enforced)

Obsolence

Real-world is dynamic
5

9/23/06

Application: Merging Lists

Application: merge address lists

(customer lists, company lists) to avoid redundancy

Current status: standardize,

different values treated as distinct for analysis Lot of heterogeneity Need approximate joins
Relevant technologies

9/23/06

Approximate joins Clustering/partitioning

6

Application: Merging Lists

180 park Ave. Florham Park NJ 180 Park. Av Florham Park

180 Park Avenue Florham Park

180 park Av. NY

Park Av. 180 Florham Park 180 Park Avenue. NY NY

Park Avenue, NY No. 180 180 Park NY NY

9/23/06 7

Application: Homeland Security

Application: correlate airline

passenger data with homeland security data for no-fly lists

Current status: match on

name, deny boarding Use more match attributes Obtain more information
Relevant technologies

Schema mappings Approximate joins

8

9/23/06

Record Linkage: Tip of the Iceberg

An approximate join of R1

and R2 is A subset of the cartesian product of R1 and R2 Matching specified attributes of R1 and R2 Labeled with a similarity score > t > 0

Record Linkage Missing values Time series anomalies Integrity violations

Clustering/partitioning of R:

operates on the approximate join of R with itself.

9/23/06

The Fellegi-Sunter Model [FS69]

Formalized the approach of Newcombe et al. [NKAJ59] Given two sets of records (relations) A and B perform an

approximate join A x B = {(a,b) | a A, b B} = M U M = {(a,b) | a=b, a A, b B} ; matched U = {(a,b) | a <> b, a A, b B}; unmatched (a,b) = (i(a,b)) i=1..K comparison vector Contains comparison features e.g., same last names, same SSN, etc. : range of (a,b) the comparison space.

9/23/06

10

The Fellegi-Sunter Model

Seeking to characterize (a,b) as

A1 : match ; A2 : uncertain ; A3 : non-match Function (linkage rule) from to {A1 A2 A3} Distribution D over A x B m () = P((a,b) | (a,b) M} u () = P((a,b) | (a,b) U}

9/23/06

11

Fellegi-Sunter Result
Sort vectors by m ()/u () non increasing order; choose n < n n N = = ! " i =1 i =n'

u (" )

m(# )

Linkage rule with respect to minimizing P(A2), with P(A1|U) = and P(A3|M) = is 1,.,n,n+1,.,n-1,n,.,N

A1 A2 A3 Intuition Swap i-th vector declared as A1 with j-th vector in A2 If u(i) = u(j) then m(j) < m(I) After the swap, P(A2) is increased

9/23/06

12

Fellegi-Sunter Issues:
Tuning:

Estimates for m (), u () ? Training data: active learning for M, U labels Semi or un-supervised clustering: identify M U clusters Setting , ? Defining the comparison space ? Distance metrics between records/fields Efficiency/Scalability Is there a way to avoid quadratic behavior (computing all |A|x|B| pairs)?

9/23/06

13

Outline
Part I: Motivation, similarity measures (90 min)

Data quality, applications Linkage methodology, core measures Learning core measures Linkage based measures

Part II: Efficient algorithms for approximate join (60 min) Part III: Clustering/partitioning algorithms (30 min)

9/23/06

14

Classification of the measures

Edit Based Fellegi-Sunter Token based

Soundex, Levenshtein/edit distance Jaro/Jaro-Winkler

Tf-idf-Cosine similarity Jaccard Coefficient Probabilistic models

FMS Hybrids
9/23/06 15

Attribute Standardization
Several attribute fields in relations have loose or anticipated structure:

Addresses, names Bibliographic entries (mainly for web data) Preprocessing to standardize such fields Enforce common abbreviations, titles Extract structure from addresses Part of ETL tools, commonly using field segmentation and dictionaries Recently machine learning approaches HMM encode universe of states [CCZ02]

9/23/06

16

Field Similarity
Application notion of field

Relational attribute, set of attributes, entire tuples. Basic problem: given two field values quantify their similarity (wlog) in [0..1]. If numeric fields, use numeric methods. Problem challenging for strings.

9/23/06

17

Soundex Encoding
A phonetic algorithm that indexes names by their sounds when

pronounced in english. Consists of the first letter of the name followed by three numbers. Numbers encode similar sounding consonants. Remove all W, H B, F, P, V encoded as 1, C,G,J,K,Q,S,X,Z as 2 D,T as 3, L as 4, M,N as 5, R as 6, Remove vowels Concatenate first letter of string with first 3 numerals Ex: great and grate become 6EA3 and 6A3E and then G63 More recent, metaphone, double metaphone etc.

9/23/06

18

Edit Distance [G98]

Character Operations: I (insert), D (delete), R (Replace). Unit costs. Given two strings, s,t, edit(s,t):

Minimum cost sequence of operations to transform s to t. Example: edit(Error,Eror) = 1, edit(great,grate) = 2 Folklore dynamic programming algorithm to compute edit(); Computation and decision problem: quadratic (on string length) in the worst case.

9/23/06

19

Edit Distance
Several variants (weighted, block etc) -- problem can become NP-

complete easily. Operation costs can be learned from the source (more later) String alignment = sequence of edit operations emitted by a memory-less process [RY97]. Observations May be costly operation for large strings Suitable for common typing mistakes Comprehensive vs Comprenhensive Problematic for specific domains AT&T Corporation vs AT&T Corp IBM Corporation vs AT&T Corporation

9/23/06

20

Edit Distance with affine gaps

Differences between duplicates often due to abbreviations or

whole word insertions. John Smith vs John Edward Smith vs John E. Smith IBM Corp. vs IBM Corporation Allow sequences of mis-matched characters (gaps) in the alignment of two strings. Penalty: using the affine cost model Cost(g) = s+e l s: cost of opening a gap e: cost of extending the gap l: length of a gap Commonly e lower than s Similar dynamic programming algorithm
9/23/06

21

Jaro Rule [J89]

Given strings s = a1,,ak and t = b1,,bL ai in s is common to a

character in t if there is a bj in t such that ai = bj i-H j i+H where H = min(|s|,|t|)/2 Let s = a1,,ak and t = b1,,bL characters in s (t) common with t (s) A transposition for s,t is a position i such that ai <> bi. Let Ts,t be half the number of transpositions in s and t.

9/23/06

22

Jaro Rule
Jaro(s,t) = Example:

1 | s'| | t'| | s'| "Ts' , t ' ( + + ) 3 | s| | t| | s'|

Martha vs Marhta H = 3, s = Martha, t = Marhta, Ts,t = 1 Jaro(Martha,Marhta) = 0.9722 Jonathan vs Janathon H = 4, s = jnathn, t = jnathn, Ts,t = 0 Jaro(Jonathan,Janathon) = 0.5

9/23/06

23

Jaro-Winkler Rule [W99]

Uses the length P of the longest common prefix of s and t; P =

max(P,4) Jaro-Winkler(s,t) =
Example:

P' Jaro(s,t) + (1" Jaro(s,t)) 10

JW(Martha,Marhta) = 0.9833 JW(Jonathan,Janathon) = 0.7

Observations:

Both intended for small length strings (first,last names)

9/23/06

24

Term (token) based

Varying semantics of term

Words in a field AT&T Corporation -> AT&T , Corporation Q-grams (sequence of q-characters in a field) {AT&,T&T,&T , T C, Co,orp,rpo,por,ora,rat,ati,tio,ion} 3-grams Assess similarity by manipulating sets of terms.

9/23/06

25

Overlap metrics
Given two sets of terms S, T

Jaccard coef.: Jaccard(S,T) = |ST|/|ST| Variants If scores (weights) available for each term (element in the set) compute Jaccard() only for terms with weight above a specific threshold. What constitutes a good choice of a term score?

9/23/06

26

TF/IDF [S83]
Term frequency (tf) inverse document frequency (idf). Widely used in traditional IR approaches. The tf/idf value of a term in a document:

log (tf+1) * log idf where tf : # of times term appears in a document d idf : number of documents / number of documents containing term Intuitively: rare terms are more important

9/23/06

27

TF/IDF
Varying semantics of term

Words in a field AT&T Corporation -> AT&T , Corporation Qgrams (sequence of q-characters in a field) {AT&,T&T,&T , T C, Co,orp,rpo,por,ora,rat,ati,tio,ion} 3-grams For each term in a field compute its corresponding tfidf score using the field as a document and the set of field values as the document collection.

9/23/06

28

Probabilistic analog (from FS model)

Ps(j) : probability for j in set S j : event that values of corresponding fields are j in a random

draw from sets A and B m (j) = P(j|M) = PAB(j) u (j) = P(j|U) = PA(j)PB(j)

Assume PA(j) = PB(j) = PAB(j)

Provide more weight to agreement on rare terms and less weight to common terms IDF measure related to Fellegi-Sunter probabilistic notion: Log(m(str)/u(str)) = log(PAB(str)/PA (str)PB (str)) = log(1/PA(str)) = IDF(str)

9/23/06

29

Cosine similarity
Each field value transformed via tfidf weighting to a (sparse) vector of

high dimensionality d. Let a,b two field values and Sa, Sb the set of terms for each. For w in Sa (Sb), denote W(w,Sa) (W(w,Sb)) its tfidf score. For two such values: Cosine(a,b) = $W (z,Sa)W (z,Sb)
z"Sa#Sb

9/23/06

30

Cosine similarity
Suitable to assess closeness of

AT&T Corporation, AT&T Corp or AT&T Inc Low weights for Corporation,Corp,Inc Higher weight for AT&T Overall Cosine(AT&T Corp,AT&T Inc) should be high Via q-grams may capture small typing mistakes Jaccard vs Jacard -> {Jac,acc,cca,car,ard} vs {Jac,aca,car,ard} Common terms Jac, car, ard would be enough to result in high value of Cosine(Jaccard,Jacard).

9/23/06

31

Hybrids [CRF03]
Let S = {a1,,aK}, T = {b1,bL} sets of terms: Sim(S,T) =

1 K max Lj=1sim' (ai, bj) ! K i =1

Sim() some other similarity function C(t,S,T) = {wS s.t v T, sim(w,v) > t} D(w,T) = maxvTsim(w,v), w C(t,S,T)

sTFIDF =

w"C ( t , S ,T )

!W (w, S ) *W (w,T ) * D(w,T )

9/23/06

32

Other choices for term score?

Several schemes proposed in IR

Okapi weighting Model within document term frequencies as a mixture of two poisson distributions: one for relevant and one for irrelevant documents Language models Given Q=t1,...tn estimate p(Q|Md) MLE estimate for term t : p(t|Md) = tf(t,d)/dld dld:total number of tokens in d Estimate pavg(t) Weight it by a risk factor (modeled by a geometric distribution) HMM
33

9/23/06

Fuzzy Match Similarity [CGGM03]

Sets of terms S, T Main idea: cost of transforming S to T, tc(S,T). Transformation operations like edit distance.

Replacement cost: edit(s,t)*W(s,S) Insertion cost: cins W(s,S) (cins between 0,1) Deletion cost: W(s,S) Computed by DP like edit() Generalized for multiple sets of terms

9/23/06

34

Fuzzy Match Similarity

Example

Beoing Corporation,Boeing Company S = {Beoing,Corporation}, T = {Boeing,Company} tc(S,T) = 0.97 (unit weights for terms) sum of
edit(Beoing,Boeing) = 2/6 (normalized) edit(Corporation,Company) = 7/11

9/23/06

35

Fuzzy Match Similarity

W(S) = sum of W(s,S) for all s S fms = 1-min((tc(S,T)/W(S),1) Approximating fms:

For s S let QG(s) set of qgrams of s d= (1-1/q) 1 2 W ( s, S ) * max t"T ( simmh (QG ( s ), QG (t )) + d ) fmsapx = W ( S ) q s"S For suitable , and size of min hash signature apx(S,T)) fms(S,T) E(fms apx(S,T) (1-)fms(S,T)) P(fms

9/23/06

36

Multi-attribute similarity measures

Weighted sum of per attribute similarity Application of voting theory Rules (more of this later)

9/23/06

37

Voting theory application [GKMS04]

Relations R with n attributes. In principle can apply a different similarity function for each pair

of attributes into consideration. N orders of the relation tuples, ranked by a similarity score to a query.

9/23/06

38

Voting Theory
Tuple id T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 custname John smith Josh Smith Nicolas Smith Joseph Smith Jack Smith address 800 Mountain Av springfield 100 Mount Av Springfield 800 spring Av Union 555 Mt. Road Springfield 100 Springhill lake Park 5.1,5.1 location 5,5 8,8 11,11 9,9 6,6

Query: John smith custname T1 T2 T5 T4 T3

9/23/06

100 Mount Rd. Springfield address T2 T1 T4 T3 T5 (0.95) (0.8) (0.75) (0.3) (0.1)

location T1 T5 T2 T4 T3 (0.95) (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (0.3)

39

(1.0) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.4)

Voting theory application

Merge rankings to obtain a consensus Foot-rule distance

Let S,T orderings of the same domain D S(i) (T(i)) the order position of the i-th element of D in S (T) F(S,T) = | S(i) " T(i) |

i#D

Generalized to distance between S and T1,..Tn n F(S,T1,..Tn) = " F(S,Tj)

!
!
9/23/06

j=1

40

Historical timeline

Jaccard coefficient

KL Divergence Soundex encoding

Levenshtein/edit distance Fellegi Sunter

Tf/Idf Cosine similarity Jaro Winkler

FMS

1901

1918

1951 1965 1969

1983/9

1999

2003

9/23/06

41

Outline
Part I: Motivation, similarity measures (90 min)

Data quality, applications Linkage methodology, core measures Learning core measures Linkage based measures

Part II: Efficient algorithms for approximate join (60 min) Part III: Clustering algorithms (30 min)

9/23/06

42

Learning similarity functions

Per attribute

Term based (vector space) Edit based Learning constants in character-level distance measures like levenshtein distances Useful for short strings with systematic errors (e.g., OCRs) or domain specific error (e.g.,st., street) Multi-attribute records Useful when relative importance of match along different attributes highly domain dependent Example: comparison shopping website Match on title more indicative in books than on electronics Difference in price less indicative in books than electronics

9/23/06

43

Learning Distance Metrics [ST03]

Learning a distance metric from relative comparisons:

A is closer to B than A is to C, etc

d(A,W) (x-y) =

(x " y) AWA (x " y)

A can be a real matrix: corresponds to a linear transform of the input W a diagonal matrix with non-negative entries (guarantees d is a distance metric) Learn entries of W such that to minimize training error Zero training error: (i,j,k) Training set: d(A,W)(xi,xk)-d(A,W)(xi,xk) > 0 Select A,W such that d remains as close to an un-weighted euclidean metric as possible.

9/23/06

44

Learnable Vector Space Similarity

Generic vector space similarity via tfidf

Tokens 11th and square in a list of addresses might have same IDF values Addresses on same street more relevant than addresses on a square.. Can we make the distinction? d i i Vectors x,y, Sim(x,y) = i=1 Training data: S = {(x,y): x similar y}, D = {(x,y) x different y}

"

xy || x |||| y ||

9/23/06

45

Learnable Vector Space Similarity

7 walmer road toronto ontario on x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 x1y1 x2y2 x3y3 x4y4 x5y5 x6y6 f(p(x,y)) S D

P(x,y) 7 walmer road toronto ontario 7 walmer road toronto on

f(p(x,y) - fmin sim(x,y) = fmax - fmin

46

9/23/06

Learning edit distance parameters

Free to set relative weights of operations May learn weights from input [RY97] using an EM approach.

Input: similar pairs Parameters: probability of edit operations E: highest probability edit sequence M: re-estimate probabilities using expectations of the E step Pros: FSM representation (generative model) Cons: fails to incorporate negative examples [BM03] extend to learn weights of edit operations with affine gaps [MBP05] use CRF approach (incorporates positive and negative input)

9/23/06

47

Learning edit parameters using CRFs

Sequence of edit operations

Standard character-level: Insert, Delete, Substitute Costs depends on type: alphabet, number, punctuation Word-level: Insert, Delete, Match, Abbreviation Varying costs: stop words (Eg: The), lexicons (Eg: Corporation, Road) Given: examples of duplicate and non-duplicate strings Learner: Conditional Random Field Allows for flexible overlapping feature sets Ends with a dot and appears in a dictionary Discriminative training ~ higher accuracy than earlier generative models

9/23/06

48

CRFs for learning parameters

Match states 1
W-M-lexicon

-1.0
W-drop

-1

-0.5

W-insert

-0.2
C-D-punct

-0.3
W-D-stop W-Abbr

Initial

4 Non-match states -0.1

W-M-lexicon

1.0
W-drop

0.5

W-insert

0.2
C-D-punct

0.3
W-D-stop W-Abbr

-1 Proc. of SIGMOD Proc Sp. Int. Gr Management of Data State and transition parameters for match and non-match states Multiple paths through states summed over for each pair EM-like algorithm for training.
9/23/06 49

Results
Earlier generative approach (BM03) Word-level only, no order Initialized with manual weights

Citations

(McCallum, Bellare, Pereira EMNLP 2005)

Edit-distance is better than word-level measures CRFs trained with both duplicates and non-duplicates better

than generative approaches using only duplicates Learning domain-specific edit distances could lead to higher accuracy than manually tuned weights
9/23/06 50

Learning similarity functions

Per attribute

Term based (vector space) Edit based Learning constants in character-level distance measures like levenshtein distances Useful for short strings with systematic errors (e.g., OCRs) or domain specific error (e.g.,st., street) Multi-attribute records Useful when relative importance of match along different attributes highly domain dependent Example: comparison shopping website Match on title more indicative in books than on electronics Difference in price less indicative in books than electronics

9/23/06

51

Multi Attribute Similarity

f1 f2 fn
Record 1 D Record 2 Record 1 N Record 3 1.0 0.4 0.2 1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0
Non Duplicate

Similarity All-Ngrams*0.4 + AuthorTitleNgram*0.2 functions YearDifference > 1 0.3YearDifference + 1.0*AuthorEditDist All-Ngrams > 0 + 0.2*PageMatch 3 0.48 Non-Duplicate
AuthorTitleNgrams 0.4 Duplicate

Learners: Classifier TitleIsNull < 1 Support Vector Duplicat Machines (SVM) PageMatch 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 1 Record 4 D e Logistic regression, Record 5 AuthorEditDist 0.8 Duplicate Linear regression, Mapped examples Unlabeled list Duplicate Non-Duplicate 0.0 Perceptron 0.1 0.3 0
Record Record Record Record Record Record 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 1 1

9/23/06

52

Learning approach
Learners used: SVMs: high accuracy with limited data, Decision trees:interpretable, efficient to apply Perceptrons: efficient incremental training (Bilenko et al 2005, Comparison shopping) Results: Learnt combination methods better than both

Averaging of attribute-level similarities String based methods like edit distance (Bilenko et al 2003)

Downside Creating meaningful training data a huge effort

9/23/06 53

Training data for learning approach

Heavy manual search in preparing training data Hard to spot challenging/covering duplicates in large lists Even harder to find close non-duplicates that will capture the nuances Need to seek out rare forms of errors in data A solution from machine learningActive learning Given

Lots of unlabeled data pairs of records Limited labeled data

Find examples most informative for classification

9/23/06

Highest uncertainty of classification from current data

54

The active learning approach

Similarity functions f1 f2 fn Committee 1.0 0.4 0.2 1 of classifiers 0.0 0.1 0.3 0

Record 1 D Record 2 Record 3 N Record 4

0.7 0.1 0.6 1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0

Unlabeled list
Record Record Record Record Record Record 6 7 8 9 10 11

9/23/06

0.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6

0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.1

0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Active Learner

0.7 0.1 0.6 ? 0.3 0.4 0.4 ?

Picks highest disagreement records 55

Active Learning [SB02]

Learn a similarity function (classifier) from labeled data Small set of labeled data (pos,neg) and unlabeled data Seek instances that when labeled will strengthen the

classification process Initial classifier sure about prediction on some unlabeled instances and unsure about others (confusion region) Seek predictors on uncertain instances
Uncertain region

9/23/06

56

Active Learning Approaches [TKM01]

A1(a1,...an) A2(a1,..,an) Compute similarity Fixed/multiple Scoring functions B1(b1,...bn) B2(b1,..,bn)

Object pairs, scores,weight (A1,B3, (s1,sn), W) (A4,B11,(s1,,sn),W)

Rule learn: Attribute 1 > s => mapped Attribute 4 < s4 & attribute > s3 mapped Attribute 2 < s2 => not mapped

Mappings: (A1,B2) mapped (A5,B1) not mapped

9/23/06

Committee of N classifiers
57

Active learning algorithm

Train k classifiers C1, C2,.. Ck on training data through

Data resampling, Classifier perturbation For each unlabeled instance x Find prediction y1,.., yk from the k classifiers Compute uncertainty U(x) as entropy of above y-s Pick instance with highest uncertainty

9/23/06

58

Benefits of active learning

Active learning much better than random With only 100 active instances

97% accuracy, Random only 30%

Committee-based selection close to optimal

9/23/06 59

Learning: beyond paired 0/1 classification

Exploiting monotonicity between attribute similarity and class

label to learn better A Hierarchical Graphical Model for Record Linkage (Ravikumar, Cohen, UAI 2004) Exploiting transitivity to learn on groups T. Finley and T. Joachims, Supervised Clustering with Support Vector Machines, Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2005.

9/23/06

60

Outline
Part I: Motivation, similarity measures (90 min)

Data quality, applications Linkage methodology, core measures Learning core measures Linkage based measures

Part II: Efficient algorithms for approximate join (60 min) Part III: Clustering algorithms (30 min)

9/23/06

61

Similarity based on linkage pattern

P1 D White, A Gupta P2 Liu, Jane & White, Don P3 Anup Gupta and Liu Jane P4 David White

Relate D White and Don White through the third paper

D White

P1 P2 P3 P4
9/23/06

Anup Gupta A Gupta White, Don Liu Jane Jane, Liu David White

Path in graph makes D White more similar to Don White than David White

Lots of work on node similarities in graph sim-rank, conductance models, etc RelDC (Kalashnikov et al 2006)

62

RelDC: Example with multiple entity types

Task: resolve author references in papers to author table

Path through coaffiliation

Path through coauthorship

9/23/06

(From: Kalashninov et al 2006)

63

Quantifying strength of connection

Given a graph G with edges denoting node similarity or some form of

relationship, find connection strength between any two nodes u, v Methods Simple methods: shortest path length or flow

Fails for high-degree nodes

Diffusion kernels Electric circuit conductance model (Faloutsos et. al. 2004) Walk-based model (WM) Probabilistic
Treat edge weights as probability of transitioning out of node Probability of reaching u from v via random walks

SimRank (Jeh&Widom 2002)

Expected distance to first meet of random walks from u and v
64

RelDC extends (WM) to work for graphs with mutually exclusive choice nodes

9/23/06

RelDC
Resolve whatever is possible via textual similarity alone Create relationship graph with unresolved references connected

via choice nodes to options

Weights of options related to similarity

Find connection strength between each unresolved reference to

options, resolve to strongest of these Results

Authors: Author names, affiliation (HP Search) Papers: Titles and Author names (Citeseer) 13% ambiguous references (cannot be resolved via text alone) 100% accuracy on 50 random tests

9/23/06

65

Outline
Part I: Motivation, similarity measures (90 min) Part II: Efficient algorithms for approximate join (60 min)

Use traditional join methods Extend traditional join methods Commercial systems

Part III: Clustering algorithms (30 min)

9/23/06

66

Approximate Joins: Baseline + Goal

An approximate join of R1(A1, , An) and R2(B1, , Bm) is

A subset of the cartesian product of R1 and R2 Matching specified attributes Ai1, ..., Aik with Bi1, , Bik Labeled with a similarity score > t > 0

Nave method: for each record pair, compute similarity score

I/O and CPU intensive, not scalable to millions of records

Goal: reduce O(n2) cost to O(n*w), where w << n

Reduce number of pairs on which similarity is computed Take advantage of efficient relational join methods

9/23/06

67

Historical Timelines
Index NL Join Merge/ Purge FastMap 1977 1991 1995 Probe count Approx. string edit distance Union/find for clustering Spatial join BigMatch Dimension hierarchies Multi-relational approx joins SSJoin Sort-Merge Join Band Join

StringMap 2002 2004 2006 Probe Fuzzy match cluster Cleaning in similarity SQL Server Q-gram SPIDER IDF join 2003

1997 1998 WHIRL

Q-gram set join

1991

1995

1998

2001

2003

2004

2005

2006

9/23/06

68

Sorted Neighborhood Method [HS95]

Goal: bring matching records close to each other in linear list Background: duplicate elimination [BD83], band join [DNS91] Methodology: domain-specific, arbitrary similarity

Compute discriminating key per record, sort records Slide fixed size window through sorted list, match in window Use OPS5 rules (equational theory) to determine match Multiple passes with small windows, based on distinct keys

Lesson: multiple cheap passes faster than an expensive one

9/23/06

69

Sorted Neighborhood Method [HS95]

Goal: bring matching records close to each other in linear list Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 Name Smith, John Smyth, Jon Smith, John Smith, J. Smith, J. SS 123-45 123-45 312-54 723-45 456-78 DOB 1960/08/24 1961/08/24 1995/07/25 1960/08/24 1975/12/11 ZIP 07932 07932 98301 98346 98346 r1 r2 r3

yes

ZIP.Name[1..3]

r4 r5

no

9/23/06

70

Sorted Neighborhood Method [HS95]

Goal: bring matching records close to each other in linear list Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 Name Smith, John Smyth, Jon Smith, John Smith, J. Smith, J. SS 123-45 123-45 312-54 723-45 456-78 DOB 1960/08/24 1961/08/24 1995/07/25 1960/08/24 1975/12/11 ZIP 07932 07932 98301 98346 98346 r1 r1 r2 r3

yes

ZIP.Name[1..3]

r4 r5

no

DOB.Name[1..3]

r4 r2 r5 r3

yes

Blocking is a special case

9/23/06

71

BigMatch [Y02]
Goal: block/index matching records, based on multiple keys Background: indexed nested loop join [BE77] Methodology: domain-specific, Jaro-Winkler similarity

Store smaller table (100M) in main memory (4GB) Create indexes for each set of grouping/blocking criteria Scan larger table (4B), repeatedly probe smaller table Avoids multiple matches of the same pair

Lesson: traditional join technique can speed up approximate join

9/23/06

72

BigMatch [Y02]
Goal: block/index matching records, based on multiple keys Example:
SS.Name[1..2] yes no
123-45 1960/08/24 98346

inner table
ID r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 Name Smith, John Smyth, Jon Smith, John Smith, J. Smith, J. SS 123-45 123-45 312-54 723-45 456-78 DOB 1960/08/24 1961/08/24 1995/07/25 1960/08/24 1975/12/11 ZIP 07932 07932 98301 98346 98346

record from outer table

Smith, John

9/23/06

73

BigMatch [Y02]
Goal: block/index matching records, based on multiple keys Example:
SS.Name[1..2] yes no
123-45 1960/08/24 98346

inner table
ID r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 Name Smith, John Smyth, Jon Smith, John Smith, J. Smith, J. SS 123-45 123-45 312-54 723-45 456-78 DOB 1960/08/24 1961/08/24 1995/07/25 1960/08/24 1975/12/11 ZIP 07932 07932 98301 98346 98346

record from outer table

Smith, John

ZIP.Name[1..3]

yes no

Avoids multiple matches of the same pair

9/23/06

74

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Background: clustering categorical data [GKR98] Methodology: domain-independent, structure+text similarity

Use hierarchical grouping, instead of sorting, to focus search Structural similarity based on overlap of children sets Textual similarity based on weighted token set containment Top-down processing of dimension hierarchy for efficiency

Lesson: useful to consider group structure in addition to content

9/23/06

75

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Example:
AI a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Address 10 Mountain Avenue 250 McCarter 250 McCarter Hwy 10 Mountain 10 Mountain Street CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 City Summit Newark Newark Summit Summitt SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 NJ New Jersey NJ New Jersey NJ State YI y1 y1 y2 y2 y3 YI y1 y2 y3 Country USA United States US

9/23/06

76

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Example:
AI a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Address 10 Mountain Avenue 250 McCarter 250 McCarter Hwy 10 Mountain 10 Mountain Street CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 City Summit Newark Newark Summit Summitt SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 NJ New Jersey NJ New Jersey NJ State YI y1 y1 y2 y2 y1 YI y1 y2 y3 Country USA United States US

Textual similarity

9/23/06

77

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Example:
AI a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Address 10 Mountain Avenue 250 McCarter 250 McCarter Hwy 10 Mountain 10 Mountain Street CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 City Summit Newark Newark Summit Summitt SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 NJ New Jersey NJ New Jersey NJ State YI y1 y1 y1 y1 y1 YI y1 y2 y3 Country USA United States US

Structural similarity

9/23/06

78

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Example:
AI a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Address 10 Mountain Avenue 250 McCarter 250 McCarter Hwy 10 Mountain 10 Mountain Street CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 City Summit Newark Newark Summit Summitt SI s1 s2 s1 s2 s1 SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 NJ New Jersey NJ New Jersey NJ State YI y1 y1 y1 y1 y1 YI y1 y2 y3 Country USA United States US

9/23/06

79

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Example:
AI a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Address 10 Mountain Avenue 250 McCarter 250 McCarter Hwy 10 Mountain 10 Mountain Street CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 City Summit Newark Newark Summit Summitt SI s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 NJ New Jersey NJ New Jersey NJ State YI y1 y1 y1 y1 y1 YI y1 y2 y3 Country USA United States US

9/23/06

80

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Example:
AI a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Address 10 Mountain Avenue 250 McCarter 250 McCarter Hwy 10 Mountain 10 Mountain Street CI c1 c2 c2 c1 c1 CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 City Summit Newark Newark Summit Summitt SI s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 NJ New Jersey NJ New Jersey NJ State YI y1 y1 y1 y1 y1 YI y1 y2 y3 Country USA United States US

9/23/06

81

Use Dimension Hierarchies [ACG02]

Goal: exploit dimension hierarchies for duplicate elimination Example:
AI a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Address 10 Mountain Avenue 250 McCarter 250 McCarter Hwy 10 Mountain 10 Mountain Street CI c1 c2 c2 c1 c1 CI c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 City Summit Newark Newark Summit Summitt SI s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 SI s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 NJ New Jersey NJ New Jersey NJ State YI y1 y1 y1 y1 y1 YI y1 y2 y3 Country USA United States US

9/23/06

82

Historical Timelines
Index NL Join Merge/ Purge FastMap 1977 1991 1995 Probe count Approx. string edit distance Union/find for clustering Spatial join BigMatch Dimension hierarchies Multi-relational approx joins SSJoin Sort-Merge Join Band Join

StringMap 2002 2004 2006 Probe Fuzzy match cluster Cleaning in similarity SQL Server Q-gram SPIDER IDF join 2003

1997 1998 WHIRL

Q-gram set join

1991

1995

1998

2001

2003

2004

2005

2006

9/23/06

83

Q-gram Set Join [GIJ+01]

Goal: compute thresholded edit distance join on string attributes Background: combinatorial pattern matching [JU91] Methodology: domain-independent, edit distance similarity

Extract set of all overlapping q-grams Q(s) from string s ED(s1,s2) d |Q(s1) Q(s2)| max(|s1|,|s2|) - (d-1)*q - 1 Cheap filters (length, count, position) to prune non-matches Pure SQL solution: cost-based join methods

Lesson: reduce approximate join to aggregated set intersection

9/23/06

84

Q-gram Set Join [GIJ+01]

Goal: compute thresholded edit distance join on string attributes Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 Name Srivastava Shrivastava Shrivastav

9/23/06

85

Q-gram Set Join [GIJ+01]

Goal: compute thresholded edit distance join on string attributes Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 Name Srivastava Shrivastava Shrivastav 3-grams ##s, #sr, sri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$ ##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$

ED(s1,s2) d |Q(s1) Q(s2)| max(|s1|,|s2|) - (d-1)*q - 1 ED(r1, r2) = 1, |Q(r1) Q(r2)| = 10

9/23/06

86

Q-gram Set Join [GIJ+01]

Goal: compute thresholded edit distance join on string attributes Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 Name Srivastava Shrivastava Shrivastav ##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, av$, v$$ 3-grams ##s, #sr, sri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$

ED(s1,s2) d |Q(s1) Q(s2)| max(|s1|,|s2|) - (d-1)*q - 1 ED(r1, r2) = 2, |Q(r1) Q(r2)| = 7

9/23/06

87

Q-gram Set Join [GIJ+01]

Goal: compute thresholded edit distance join on string attributes Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 Name Srivastava Shrivastava Shrivastav

ID r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1

Qg ##s #sr sri riv iva vas ast sta tav ava va$ a$$

ID r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3

Qg ##s #sh shr hri riv iva vas ast sta tav av$ v$$
88

9/23/06

Q-gram Set Join [GIJ+01]

Goal: compute thresholded edit distance join on string attributes Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 Name Srivastava Shrivastava Shrivastav

Q SELECT Q1.ID, Q2.ID FROM Q AS Q1, Q AS Q2 WHERE Q1.Qg = Q2.Qg GROUP BY Q1.ID, Q2.ID HAVING COUNT(*) > T

ID r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1

Qg ##s #sr sri riv iva vas ast sta tav ava va$ a$$

ID r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3 r3

Qg ##s #sh shr hri riv iva vas ast sta tav av$ v$$
89

9/23/06

Fuzzy Match Similarity [CGGM03]

Goal: identify K closest reference records in on-line setting Background: IDF weighted cosine similarity, WHIRL [C98] Methodology: domain-independent, IDF+ED similarity

Similarity metric based on IDF weighted token edit distance Approximate similarity metric using Jaccard on q-gram sets Small error tolerant index table, sharing of minhash q-grams Optimistic short circuiting exploits large token IDF weights

Lesson: IDF weighting useful to capture erroneous tokens

9/23/06

90

Fuzzy Match Similarity [CGGM03]

Goal: identify K closest reference records in on-line setting Example:
best ED match input record
Beoing Corporation Seattle WA 98004

reference table
ID r1 r2 r3 OrgName Boeing Company Bon Corporation Companions City Seattle Seattle Seattle State WA WA WA ZIP 98004 98014 98024

9/23/06

91

Fuzzy Match Similarity [CGGM03]

Goal: identify K closest reference records in on-line setting Example:
best FMS match reference table
ID r1 r2 OrgName Boeing Company Bon Corporation Companions City Seattle Seattle Seattle State WA WA WA ZIP 98004 98014 98024

input record
Beoing Corporation Seattle WA 98004

r3

9/23/06

92

Fuzzy Match Similarity [CGGM03]

Goal: identify K closest reference records in on-line setting Example:
reference table
ID r1 r2 OrgName Boeing Company Bon Corporation Companions City Seattle Seattle Seattle State WA WA WA ZIP 98004 98014 98024

input record
Beoing Corporation Seattle WA 98004

r3

ETI table
Qg ing orp sea MHC 2 1 1 2 Col 1 1 2 4 Freq 1 1 3 1 TIDList {r1} {r2} {r1, r2, r3} {r1}

[eoi, ing] [orp, ati] [sea, ttl] [wa] [980, 004]

all minhash q-grams

9/23/06

004

93

Fuzzy Match Similarity [CGGM03]

Goal: identify K closest reference records in on-line setting Example:
reference table
ID r1 r2 OrgName Boeing Company Bon Corporation Companions City Seattle Seattle Seattle State WA WA WA ZIP 98004 98014 98024

input record
Beoing Corporation Seattle WA 98004

r3

ETI table
Qg ing orp sea MHC 2 1 1 2 Col 1 1 2 4 Freq 1 1 3 1 TIDList {r1} {r2} {r1, r2, r3} {r1}

[eoi, ing] [orp, ati] [sea, ttl] [wa] [980, 004]

optimistic short circuiting

9/23/06

004

94

Historical Timelines
Index NL Join Merge/ Purge FastMap 1977 1991 1995 Probe count Approx. string edit distance Union/find for clustering Spatial join BigMatch Dimension hierarchies Multi-relational approx joins SSJoin Sort-Merge Join Band Join

StringMap 2002 2004 2006 Probe Fuzzy match cluster Cleaning in similarity SQL Server Q-gram SPIDER IDF join 2003

1997 1998 WHIRL

Q-gram set join

1991

1995

1998

2001

2003

2004

2005

2006

9/23/06

95

Probe-Cluster: Set Joins [SK04]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Background: IR and probe count using inverted index [TF95] Methodology: domain-independent, weighted set similarity

Map a string to a set of elements (words, q-grams, etc.) Build inverted lists on individual set elements Optimization: process skewed lists in increasing size order Optimization: sort lists in decreasing order of record sizes

Lesson: IR query optimizations useful for approximate joins

9/23/06

96

Probe-Cluster: Set Joins [SK04]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 SVA {##s, #sr, sri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, av$, v$$}

Inverted index

SE ##s #sr #sh sri shr hri riv tav ava v$$

IDs r1, r2, r3 r1 r2, r3 r1 r2, r3 r2, r3 r1, r2, r3 r1, r2, r3 r1, r2 r3
97

9/23/06

Probe-Cluster: Set Joins [SK04]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 SVA {##s, #sr, sri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, av$, v$$}

Inverted index

SE ##s #sr #sh sri shr hri riv

IDs r2, r1, r3 r1 r2, r3 r1 r2, r3 r2, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1 r3
98

Sort lists in decreasing order of record sizes

tav ava v$$

9/23/06

Probe-Cluster: Set Joins [SK04]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 SVA {##s, #sr, sri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, av$, v$$}

Inverted index

SE ##s #sr #sh sri shr hri riv

IDs r2, r1, r3 r1 r2, r3 r1 r2, r3 r2, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1 r3
99

Process skewed lists in increasing size order

tav ava v$$

9/23/06

Probe-Cluster: Set Joins [SK04]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 SVA {##s, #sr, sri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, av$, v$$}

Inverted index

SE ##s #sr #sh sri shr hri riv

IDs r2, r1, r3 r1 r2, r3 r1 r2, r3 r2, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1 r3
100

Process skewed lists in increasing size order

tav ava v$$

9/23/06

Probe-Cluster: Set Joins [SK04]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r2 r3 SVA {##s, #sr, sri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, ava, va$, a$$} {##s, #sh, shr, hri, riv, iva, vas, ast, sta, tav, av$, v$$}

Inverted index

SE ##s #sr #sh sri shr hri riv

IDs r2, r1, r3 r1 r2, r3 r1 r2, r3 r2, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1, r3 r2, r1 r3
101

Process skewed lists in increasing size order

tav ava v$$

9/23/06

SSJoin: Relational Operator [CGK06]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Background: Probe-Cluster, dimension hierarchies, q-gram join Methodology: domain-independent, weighted set similarity

Compare strings based on sets associated with each string Problem: Overlap(s1, s2) threshold Optimization: high set overlap overlap of ordered subsets SQL implementation using equijoins, cost-based plans

Lesson: Generic algorithms can be supported in DBMS

9/23/06

102

SSJoin: Relational Operator [CGK06]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r4 Name Srivastava Srivastav

Q SELECT Q1.ID, Q2.ID FROM Q AS Q1, Q AS Q2 WHERE Q1.Qg = Q2.Qg GROUP BY Q1.ID, Q2.ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 8

ID r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1

Qg ##s #sr sri riv iva vas ast sta tav ava va$ a$$

ID r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4

Qg ##s #sr sri riv iva vas ast sta tav av$ v$$

9/23/06

103

SSJoin: Relational Operator [CGK06]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r4 Name Srivastava Srivastav

Q SELECT Q1.ID, Q2.ID FROM Q AS Q1, Q AS Q2 WHERE Q1.Qg = Q2.Qg GROUP BY Q1.ID, Q2.ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 8

ID r1 r1 r1 r1

Qg tav ava va$ a$$

ID r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4

Qg ##s #sr sri riv iva vas ast sta tav av$ v$$

Optimization: use any 4 q-grams of r1 with all of r4

r4 r4 r4 r4

9/23/06

104

SSJoin: Relational Operator [CGK06]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r4 Name Srivastava Srivastav

Q SELECT Q1.ID, Q2.ID FROM Q AS Q1, Q AS Q2 WHERE Q1.Qg = Q2.Qg GROUP BY Q1.ID, Q2.ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 8

ID r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1

Qg ##s #sr sri riv iva vas ast sta tav ava va$ a$$

ID r4 r4 r4

Qg sri av$ v$$

Optimization: use any 3 q-grams of r4

r1 r1 r1 r1 r1

9/23/06

105

SSJoin: Relational Operator [CGK06]

Goal: generic algorithm for set join based on similarity predicate Example:
ID r1 r4 Name Srivastava Srivastav

Q SELECT Q1.ID, Q2.ID FROM Q AS Q1, Q AS Q2 WHERE Q1.Qg = Q2.Qg GROUP BY Q1.ID, Q2.ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 8

ID r1 r1 r1 r1

Qg iva ast ava a$$

ID r4 r4 r4

Qg iva ast av$

Optimization: use ordered 4 q-grams of r1 and 3 q-grams of r4 Suggested ordering: based on decreasing IDF weights

9/23/06

106

Historical Timelines
Index NL Join Merge/ Purge FastMap 1977 1991 1995 Probe count Approx. string edit distance Union/find for clustering Spatial join BigMatch Dimension hierarchies Multi-relational approx joins SSJoin Sort-Merge Join Band Join

StringMap 2002 2004 2006 Probe Fuzzy match cluster Cleaning in similarity SQL Server Q-gram SPIDER IDF join 2003

1997 1998 WHIRL

Q-gram set join

1991

1995

1998

2001

2003

2004

2005

2006

9/23/06

107

Commercial Systems: Comparisons

Commercial System SQL Server Integration Services 2005 OracleBI Warehouse Builder 10gR2 Paris IBMs Entity Analytic Solutions, QualityStage

Record Linkage Methodology Fuzzy Lookup; Fuzzy Grouping; uses Error Tolerant Index match-merge rules; deterministic and probabilistic matching probabilistic matching (information content); multi-pass blocking; rules-based merging

Distance Metrics Supported customized, domainindependent: edit distance; number, order, freq. of tokens Jaro-Winkler; double metaphone

Domain-Specific Matching unknown

Additional Data Quality Support unknown

name & address parse; match; standardize: 3rd party vendors name recognition; identity resolution; relationship resolution: EAS

data profiling; data rules; data auditors data profiling; standardization; trends and anomalies;

wide variety of fuzzy matching functions

9/23/06

108

Outline
Part I: Motivation, similarity measures (90 min) Part II: Efficient algorithms for approximate join (60 min) Part III: Clustering/partitioning algorithms (30 min)

9/23/06

109

Partitioning/collective deduplication
Single-entity types

A is same as B if both are same as C. Multiple linked entity types If paper A is same as paper B then venue of A is the same as venue of B.

9/23/06

110

Example labeled pairs

Partitioning data records

Similarity functions

f1 f2 fn
1.0 0.4 0.2 1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0 0.3 0.4 0.4 1

Record 1 G1 Record 2 Record 4 Record 3 G2 Record 5

Classifier

Unlabeled list
Record Record Record Record Record Record 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mapped examples
6,7 0.0 7,8 1.0 6,8 0.6 6,9 0.7 7,9 0.3 8,9 0.0 6,10 0.3 7,10 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

9/23/06

Record 6 G1 6,7 0.0 0.3 Record 8 7,8 1.0 0.2 6,8 0.6 0.5 Record 0.6 6,9 0.7 9 G2 7,9 0.3 0.4 Record 7 G3 8,9 0.0 0.1 Record 10 6,10 0.3 0.1 Record 11 7,10 0.7 0.5

0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

111

Creating partitions
Transitive closure

7 2 1 10 3 4 6

Dangers: unrelated records collapsed into a single cluster

9 5

Correlation clustering (Bansal et al 2002) 7 8 Partition to minimize total disagreements 2 9 3 Edges across partitions 1 Missing edges within partition 4 5 More appealing than clustering: 10 6 No magic constants: number of clusters, similarity thresholds, diameter, etc 3 disagreements Extends to real-valued scores NP Hard: many approximate algorithms
9/23/06 112

Algorithms for correlation clustering

Integer programming formulation (Charikar 03) Xij = 1 if i and j in same partition, 0 otherwise

Impractical: O(n3) constraints

Practical substitutes (Heuristics, no guarantees) Agglomerative clustering: repeatedly merge closest clusters

Efficient implementation possible via heaps (BG 2005) Definition of closeness subject to tuning Greatest reduction in error Average/Max/Min similarity

9/23/06

113

Empirical results on data partitioning

Digital cameras

Camcoder

Luggage
(From: Bilenko et al,

Setup: Online comparison shopping, 2005) Fields: name, model, description, price Learner: Online perceptron learner Complete-link clustering >> single-link clustering(transitive closure) An issue: when to stop merging clusters

9/23/06

114

Other methods of partitioning

[Chaudhuri et al ICDE 2005]

Partitions are compact and relatively far from other points A Partition has to satisfy a number of criteria Points within partition closer than any points outside #points within p-neighborhood of each partition < c Either number of points in partition < K, or diameter <

9/23/06

115

Algorithm
Consider case where partitions required to be of size < K if partition Pj of size m in output then

m-nearest neighbors of all r in Pi is Pi Neighborhood of each point is sparse

For each record, do efficient index probes to get Get K nearest neighbors Count of number of points in p-neighborhood for each m nearest neighbors Form pairs and perform grouping based on above

insight to find groups

9/23/06 116

Summary: partitioning

Transitive closure is a bad idea No verdict yet on best alternative Difficult to design an objective and algorithms Correlation clustering

Reasonable objective with a skewed scoring function Poor algorithms

Greedy agglomerative clustering algorithms ok Greatest minimum similarity (complete-link), benefit Reasonable performance with heap-based implementation Dense/Sparse partitioning Positives: Declarative objective, efficient algorithm Parameter retuning across domains Need comparison between complete-link, Dense/Sparse, and

Correlation clustering.

9/23/06

117

Collective de-duplication: multiattribute

Collectively de-duplicate entities and its many attributes
a1 a2 a3

Associate variables for predictions for each attribute k each record pair (i,j) Akij for each record pair Rij
from Parag & Domingos 2005
9/23/06 118

Dependency graph

Scoring functions
Independent scores

A112 R12 A212

A134 R34

A234 A312 = A334

sk(Ak,ai,aj) Attribute-level Any classifier on various text similarities of attribute pairs s(R,bi,bj) Record-level Any classifier on various similarities of all k attribute pairs Dependency scores dk(Ak, R): record pair, attribute pair

9/23/06

0 1 0 4 2 1 1 119 7

Joint de-duplication steps

Jointly pick 0/1 labels for all record pairs Rij and all K attribute

pairs Akij to maximize

[s(Rij )+ " sk (Aijk )+ dk (Rij , Aijk )] "

When dependency scores associative
ij k

dk(1,1) + dk(0,0) >= dk(1,0)+dk(0,1) Can find optimal scores through graph MINCUT Assigning scores ! Manually as in Levy et. al Example-based training as in Domingos et al

Creates a weighted feature-based log-linear model

s(Rij) = w1*sim(a1i,a1j) + .+wk*sim(aki, ajk)

9/23/06

Very flexible and powerful.

120

Other issues and approaches

Partitioning

Transitive-closure as a post processing Results:

Citation Author P T P T Independent 87 85 79 89 Collective 86 89 89 89

Venue P T 49 59 86 82

Collective deduplication

Transitive closure can cause drop in accuracy

Combined partitioning and linked dedup

does not help whole citations, helps attributes

Dong, HaLevy, Madhavan (SIGMOD 2005) Bhattacharya and Getoor (2005)

121

9/23/06

Collective linkage: set-oriented data

(Bhattacharya and Getoor, 2005)

P1 P2 P3 P4

D White, J Liu, A Gupta Liu, Jane & J Gupta & White, Don Anup Gupta David White

A Gupta J Gupta

J Liu Liu Jane D White White, Don A Gupta Anup Gupta

David White D White

Scoring functions Algorithm S(Aij) Attribute-level Greedy agglomerative clustering Text similarity Merge author clusters with highest score S(Aij, Nij) Dependency with labels of co-author set Redefine similarity between clusters of authors instead of single authors Fraction of co-author set assigned label 1. Max of author-level similarity Final score: a s(Aij) + (1-a) s(A ij, Nij) 122 9/23/06 a is the only parameter

Open Problem: Inside or Outside?

Issue: optimizable processing in a relational database Background

Declarative data cleaning in AJAX [GFS+01] Q-gram based metrics, SPIDER [GIJ+01,GIKS03,KMS04] SSJoin [CGK06] Compact sets, sparse neighborhood [CGM05]

Goal: express arbitrary record linkage in SQL

9/23/06

123

Open Problem: Multi-Table Joins

Issue: information in auxiliary tables can aid matching Background

Hierarchical models [ACG02] Iterative matching [BG04] Graphical models [KMC05]

Goal: efficient multi-table approximate joins

9/23/06

124

Open Problem: Benchmarking

Issue: many algorithms and similarity measures, no benchmarks Background

Comparing quality of different similarity measures [CRF03]

Goal: develop standard benchmarks (queries, data generation)

9/23/06

125

Conclusions
Record linkage is critical when data quality is poor

Similarity metrics Efficient sub-quadratic approximate join algorithms Efficient clustering algorithms

Wealth of challenging technical problems

Sophisticated similarity metrics, massive data sets Important to work with real datasets

9/23/06

126

References

[ACG02] Rohit Ananthakrishna, Surajit Chaudhuri, Venkatesh Ganti: Eliminating Fuzzy Duplicates in Data Warehouses. VLDB 2002: 586-597 [BD83] Dina Bitton, David J. DeWitt: Duplicate Record Elimination in Large Data Files. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 8(2): 255-265 (1983) [BE77] Mike W. Blasgen, Kapali P. Eswaran: Storage and Access in Relational Data Bases. IBM Systems Journal 16(4): 362-377 (1977) [BG04] Indrajit Bhattacharya, Lise Getoor: Iterative record linkage for cleaning and integration. DMKD 2004: 11-18 [C98] William W. Cohen: Integration of Heterogeneous Databases Without Common Domains Using Queries Based on Textual Similarity. SIGMOD Conference 1998: 201-212 [C00] William W. Cohen: Data integration using similarity joins and a word-based information representation language. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 18(3): 288-321 (2000) [CCZ02] Peter Christen, Tim Churches, Xi Zhu: Probabilistic name and address cleaning and standardization. Australasian Data Mining Workshop 2002. [CGGM04] Surajit Chaudhuri, Kris Ganjam, Venkatesh Ganti, Rajeev Motwani: Robust and Efficient Fuzzy Match for Online Data Cleaning. SIGMOD Conference 2003: 313-324 [CGG+05] Surajit Chaudhuri, Kris Ganjam, Venkatesh Ganti, Rahul Kapoor, Vivek R. Narasayya, Theo Vassilakis: Data cleaning in microsoft SQL server 2005. SIGMOD Conference 2005: 918-920 [CGK06] Surajit Chaudhuri, Venkatesh Ganti, Raghav Kaushik: A primitive operator for similarity joins in data cleaning. ICDE 2006. [CGM05] Surajit Chaudhuri, Venkatesh Ganti, Rajeev Motwani: Robust Identification of Fuzzy Duplicates. ICDE 2005: 865-876 [CRF03] William W. Cohen, Pradeep Ravikumar, Stephen E. Fienberg: A Comparison of String Distance Metrics for Name-Matching Tasks. IIWeb 2003: 73-78

9/23/06

127

References

[DJ03] Tamraparni Dasu, Theodore Johnson: Exploratory Data Mining and Data Cleaning John Wiley 2003 [DNS91] David J. DeWitt, Jeffrey F. Naughton, Donovan A. Schneider: An Evaluation of Non-Equijoin Algorithms. VLDB 1991: 443-452 [DWI02] Data Warehousing Institute report 2002 [E00] Larry English: Plain English on Data Quality: Information Quality Management: The Next Frontier. DM Review Magazine: April 2000. http://www.dmreview.com/article_sub.cfm?articleId=2073 [FL95] Christos Faloutsos, King-Ip Lin: FastMap: A Fast Algorithm for Indexing, Data-Mining and Visualization of Traditional and Multimedia Datasets. SIGMOD Conference 1995: 163-174 [FS69] I. Fellegi, A. Sunter: A theory of record linkage. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol 64. No 328, 1969 [G98] D. Gusfield: Algorithms on strings, trees and sequences. Cambridge university press 1998 [GFS+01] Helena Galhardas, Daniela Florescu, Dennis Shasha, Eric Simon, Cristian-Augustin Saita: Declarative Data Cleaning: Language, Model, and Algorithms. VLDB 2001: 371-380 [GIJ+01] Luis Gravano, Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, H. V. Jagadish, Nick Koudas, S. Muthukrishnan, Divesh Srivastava: Approximate String Joins in a Database (Almost) for Free. VLDB 2001: 491-500 [GIKS03] Luis Gravano, Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, Nick Koudas, Divesh Srivastava: Text joins in an RDBMS for web data integration. WWW 2003: 90-101 [GKMS04] S. Guha, N. Koudas, A. Marathe, D. Srivastava : Merging the results of approximate match operations. VLDB 2004. [GKR98] David Gibson, Jon M. Kleinberg, Prabhakar Raghavan: Clustering Categorical Data: An Approach Based on Dynamical Systems. VLDB 1998: 311-322

9/23/06

128

References

[HS95] Mauricio A. Hernndez, Salvatore J. Stolfo: The Merge/Purge Problem for Large Databases. SIGMOD Conference 1995: 127-138 [HS98] Gsli R. Hjaltason, Hanan Samet: Incremental Distance Join Algorithms for Spatial Databases. SIGMOD Conference 1998: 237-248 [J89] M. A. Jaro: Advances in record linkage methodology as applied to matching the 1985 census of Tampa, Florida. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84: 414-420. [JLM03] Liang Jin, Chen Li, Sharad Mehrotra: Efficient Record Linkage in Large Data Sets. DASFAA 2003 [JU91] Petteri Jokinen, Esko Ukkonen: Two Algorithms for Approximate String Matching in Static Texts. MFCS 1991: 240-248 [KL51] S. Kullback, R. Liebler : On information and sufficiency. The annals of mathematical statistics 22(1): 79-86. 1959. [KMC05] Dmitri V. Kalashnikov, Sharad Mehrotra, Zhaoqi Chen: Exploiting Relationships for DomainIndependent Data Cleaning. SDM 2005 [KMS04] Nick Koudas, Amit Marathe, Divesh Srivastava: Flexible String Matching Against Large Databases in Practice. VLDB 2004: 1078-1086 [KMS05] Nick Koudas, Amit Marathe, Divesh Srivastava: SPIDER: flexible matching in databases. SIGMOD Conference 2005: 876-878 [LLL00] Mong-Li Lee, Tok Wang Ling, Wai Lup Low: IntelliClean: a knowledge-based intelligent data cleaner. KDD 2000: 290-294 [ME96] Alvaro E. Monge, Charles Elkan: The Field Matching Problem: Algorithms and Applications. KDD 1996: 267-270

9/23/06

129

References

[ME97] Alvaro E. Monge, Charles Elkan: An Efficient Domain-Independent Algorithm for Detecting Approximately Duplicate Database Records. DMKD 1997 [RY97] E. Ristad, P. Yianilos : Learning string edit distance. IEEE Pattern analysis and machine intelligence 1998. [S83] Gerry Salton : Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw Hill 1987. [SK04] Sunita Sarawagi, Alok Kirpal: Efficient set joins on similarity predicates. SIGMOD Conference 2004: 743-754 [TF95] Howard R. Turtle, James Flood: Query Evaluation: Strategies and Optimizations. Inf. Process. Manage. 31(6): 831-850 (1995) [TKF01] S. Tejada, C. Knoblock, S. Minton : Learning object identification rules for information integration. Information Systems, Vol 26, No 8, 607-633, 2001. [W94] William E. Winkler: Advanced methods for record linkage. Proceedings of the section on survey research methods, American Statistical Association 1994: 467-472 [W99] William E. Winkler: The state of record linkage and current research problems. IRS publication R99/04 (http://www.census.gov/srd/www/byname.html) [Y02] William E. Yancey: BigMatch: A program for extracting probable matches from a large file for record linkage. RRC 2002-01. Statistical Research Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

9/23/06

130