mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Labeling Training Data for Entity Matching Using Large Language Models

arXiv 2606.28823 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2026cs.CLcited by 1

On the map: Knowledge distillation → Knowledge distillation for LLMs

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong entity matching performance without task-specific training data, but applying them to large sets of candidate pairs is slow and costly. Matchers built on pretrained language models (PLMs), such as BERT, offer faster inference but require training data. We systematically study knowledge-distillation workflows in which an LLM teacher labels training pairs for a smaller student matcher. We vary pair selection, labeling budget, teacher model, correspondence post-processing, and student model across eight benchmarks, including unseen entities and non-English data. We compare students trained on machine-labeled data with matchers trained on the original benchmark training sets. In most cases, PLM-based matchers trained on LLM-labeled data perform similarly to those trained on benchmark sets. Pair selection matters most for small labeling budgets, where active learning is often most effective. An open-weight teacher trains competitive students, so distillation requires no closed-weight models. Compact PLM-based students compete with much larger LLM students on most tasks while requiring 34 to 459 times less inference time than direct LLM matching. On the two benchmarks with high shares of unseen products, PLM-based students substantially underperform their teachers, as do students trained on benchmark data. Under GPT-5.2 pricing, LLM labeling costs per training set average 5.86 to 8.11. These findings support knowledge distillation as a practical approach to reduce the effort of labeling task-specific training data while enabling efficient inference.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Knowledge distillation for LLMs, one of 12 directions in Knowledge distillation. Builds on 22 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2026.

Builds on

22 of 50 references.

References · 22

  1. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
  2. 2019Confident Learning: Estimating Uncertainty in Dataset Labelscited by 413
  3. 2022Can Foundation Models Wrangle Your Data?cited by 175
  4. 2020Deep Entity Matching with Pre-Trained Language Modelscited by 144
  5. 2023CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotationcited by 94
  6. 2019Low-resource Deep Entity Resolution with Transfer and Active Learningcited by 37
  7. 2020Neural Networks for Entity Matching: A Surveycited by 33
  8. 2023Large Language Models as Annotators: Enhancing Generalization of NLP Models at Minimal Costcited by 33
  9. 2024Match, Compare, or Select? An Investigation of Large Language Models for Entity Matchingcited by 32
  10. 2022Supervised Contrastive Learning for Product Matchingcited by 24
  11. 2022The Effects of Data Quality on Machine Learning Performance on Tabular Datacited by 19
  12. 2021Machamp: A Generalized Entity Matching Benchmarkcited by 16
10 more
  1. 2024Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Entity Matchingcited by 16
  2. 2022Bridging the Gap between Reality and Ideality of Entity Matching: A Revisiting and Benchmark Re-Constructioncited by 10
  3. 2021Deep Indexed Active Learning for Matching Heterogeneous Entity Representationscited by 9
  4. 2023Are Chatbots Reliable Text Annotators? Sometimescited by 9
  5. 2024Learning from Natural Language Explanations for Generalizable Entity Matchingcited by 6
  6. 2023The Battleship Approach to the Low Resource Entity Matching Problemcited by 4
  7. 2023Towards Better Entity Linking with Multi-View Enhanced Distillationcited by 3
  8. 2026BEACON: Budget-Aware Entity Matching Across Domains (Extended Technical Report)cited by 3
  9. 2025Progressive Entity Resolution: A Design Space Explorationcited by 1
  10. 20253dSAGER: Geospatial Entity Resolution over 3D Objects (Technical Report)cited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023UniversalNER: Targeted Distillation from Large Language Models for Open Named Entity Recognition
  2. 2023Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizes
  3. 2024Entity Alignment with Noisy Annotations from Large Language Models
  4. 2024Matchmaker: Self-Improving Large Language Model Programs for Schema Matching
  5. 2024Leveraging Large Language Models for Enhanced NLP Task Performance through Knowledge Distillation and Optimized Training Strategies
  6. 2024Learning with Less: Knowledge Distillation from Large Language Models via Unlabeled Data
  7. 2024KcMF: A Knowledge-compliant Framework for Schema and Entity Matching with Fine-tuning-free LLMs
  8. 2026CaRL-EM: Cost-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Entity Matching with LLMs