Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study systematically investigates the impact of matcher architecture, model variant, and size on the performance of language models in entity matching through a controlled factorial experiment involving 1,215 fine-tuning runs across nine datasets. The findings reveal that model variant significantly influences bi-encoder performance, while cross-encoders consistently outperform bi-encoders due to their ability to jointly encode record pairs. Additionally, generative matchers demonstrate advantages primarily under distribution shifts, highlighting the complex interplay between model design and real-world applicability in entity matching tasks.
Bi-encoder performance hinges on model variant, while cross-encoders maintain a robust edge by jointly encoding record pairs, revealing critical insights for entity matching strategies.
Entity matching identifies records that refer to the same real-world entity. Language models can be adapted to this task through bi-encoder, cross-encoder, and generative matcher architectures. However, prior studies often conflate matcher architecture with differences in model backbone, model variant(reflecting different pretraining objectives), and model size, making it difficult to isolate the sources of performance gains. We address this issue through a controlled factorial study spanning three matcher architectures, three model variants and three model sizes from the Qwen3 family, and nine datasets, totaling 1,215 fine-tuning runs. We also evaluate cross-dataset transferability and computational cost. Our results show that model variant is critical for bi-encoders: embedding-oriented variants provide stronger initialization and more favorable representation geometry predictive of downstream matching performance. Cross-encoders retain a consistent advantage over bi-encoders because they jointly encode record pairs rather than representing each record independently, although larger models partially narrow this gap. Generative matchers do not universally outperform cross-encoders. Instead, their advantages concentrate under distribution shift, including subtle unseen differences in record schemas and cross-dataset transfer. We further find that larger models rely more heavily on shortcut learning and therefore do not necessarily perform better. These findings clarify the factors underlying performance differences across matcher architectures and motivate future research and benchmark designs that better disentangle architectural choices from model-level factors while explicitly evaluating distribution shift and cross-dataset transferability. We release our experimental results, code, training scripts, and evaluation data at https://github.com/Jantory/llm-trained-matcher.
