Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Nils Barlaug

dblp:276/5078 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0003-4618-9702ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 3 first-author · 2 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data integration and cleaning · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › attribution methods
feature attribution
0.712023
LEMON: Explainable Entity Matching · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.712023
LEMON: Explainable Entity Matching · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2023
Data integration and cleaning
entity matching
0.712023
LEMON: Explainable Entity Matching · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2023
Data integration and cleaning › entity resolution
explainable entity matching
0.712023
LEMON: Explainable Entity Matching · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

counterfactual explanation · 1.3LIME · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 LEMON: Explainable Entity Matching
abstract
State-of-the-art entity matching (EM) methods are hard to interpret, and there is significant value in bringing explainable AI to EM. Unfortunately, most popular explainability methods do not work well out of the box for EM and need adaptation. In this paper, we identify three challenges of applying local post hoc feature attribution methods to entity matching: cross-record interaction effects, non-match explanations, and variation in sensitivity. We propose our novel model-agnostic and schema-flexible method LEMON that addresses all three challenges by (i) producing dual explanations to avoid cross-record interaction effects, (ii) introducing the novel concept of attribution potential to explain how two records could have matched, and (iii) automatically choosing explanation granularity to match the sensitivity of the matcher and record pair in question. Experiments on public datasets demonstrate that the proposed method is more faithful to the matcher and does a better job of helping users understand the decision boundary of the matcher than previous work. Furthermore, user studies show that the rate at which human subjects can construct counterfactual examples after seeing an explanation from our proposed method increases from 54% to 64% for matches and from 15% to 49% for non-matches compared to explanations from a standard adaptation of LIME.
Nils Barlaug
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.1
2021 Neural Networks for Entity Matching: A Survey
abstract
Entity matching is the problem of identifying which records refer to the same real-world entity. It has been actively researched for decades, and a variety of different approaches have been developed. Even today, it remains a challenging problem, and there is still generous room for improvement. In recent years, we have seen new methods based upon deep learning techniques for natural language processing emerge. In this survey, we present how neural networks have been used for entity matching. Specifically, we identify which steps of the entity matching process existing work have targeted using neural networks, and provide an overview of the different techniques used at each step. We also discuss contributions from deep learning in entity matching compared to traditional methods, and propose a taxonomy of deep neural networks for entity matching.
Nils Barlaug, Jon Atle Gulla
ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data1
2020 Tailoring Entity Matching for Industrial Settings
abstract
Entity matching has received significant attention from the research community over many years. Despite some limited success, most state-of-the-art methods see no widespread usage in industry.
Nils Barlaug
CIKM1