Match weight
The definition as the field writes it comes first, weaknesses and all. What Entity Bind does about it comes last, in its own paragraph, so you can take one without the other. Filed under matching methods.
How two records are compared and how the comparison is made cheap enough to run. Blocking, deterministic rules, probabilistic scoring, string distance.
every figure, with its population →What match weight means
A match weight is what one comparison contributes to a pair's score. In the classical model the weight of an agreeing field is log2(m/u) and the weight of a disagreeing field is log2((1−m)/(1−u)). Because they are logs, weights add, and the total is a log-likelihood ratio which converts to a probability. The scale is intuitive once used: each additional unit doubles the odds of a match.
Reading a weight table is the fastest way to understand a matching system's behaviour, and the fastest way to find its bugs. A feature that fires on almost every pair carries little information regardless of how important it feels; a feature with a large negative weight can veto an otherwise convincing pair, which is correct for a conflicting registration number and wrong for a differing postcode.
Fitted weights need an out-of-fold check, because a weight fitted on pairs whose siblings appear in the same fold measures memorisation. Grouping by entity family before splitting is the standard defence, and a system whose weights were fitted without it is reporting a number about its own training set.
Entity Bind publishes its fitted weights, the fold structure used to fit them, and the features held out of the fit because they had too few observations to support a coefficient. A held feature keeps a fixed decisive penalty and is labelled as held, so a reader can tell which weights came from data and which were set by hand.
Where this shows up in Entity Bind
Three pages where this term stops being vocabulary and starts changing an answer, a payload or a price.
- Fellegi-Sunter explained, with worked arithmeticThe Fellegi-Sunter model, published in 1969, is the framework almost every probabilistic matcher is a variation on. Its idea is simple and still correct: for each field…Open
- The accuracy methodEvery published rate with the population it was measured over, its interval and its fixture — including the input shapes that fail.Open
- The API referenceThe REST surface: payloads, the decision outcomes, the error model, the usage block and the ceiling on the confidence field.Open
The fastest way past a definition is a file: which of your rows are the same company, which of your existing matches we would not have made, and what we could not decide.
Start freeThe terms next to this one
Each with its own sentence, because the next question is usually about the word beside this one.
Fellegi–Sunter
Fellegi–Sunter is the 1969 statistical framework for record linkage that scores a candidate pair as a log-likelihood ratio of field agreements and splits the result into three regions: accept, reject, and refer for review.
m-probability
The m-probability of a comparison field is the probability that the field agrees given that the pair really is a match — in effect, one minus the rate at which that field is wrong, missing or mistyped in true matches.
u-probability
The u-probability of a comparison field is the probability that the field agrees by chance given that the pair is not a match — a measure of how common a value is, and therefore of how little an agreement proves.
Probabilistic matching
Probabilistic matching scores a candidate pair by weighing the agreement and disagreement of several fields into a single number, then applies thresholds to that number rather than to any one field.
Calibration
A confidence score is calibrated when it matches observed reality — of the decisions returned at 0.95, about 95% should be correct — which is a different property from being accurate, and a much rarer one.
The other 12 terms on this shelf
How two records are compared and how the comparison is made cheap enough to run. Blocking, deterministic rules, probabilistic scoring, string distance.
Internal fixtures only. The historical 2026-08-29 per-tier recording covers 317 GB companies with identifier-rich arrivals seeding the catalogue first; the context tier includes country and registered-town prose. Its legacy replay has no full-prompt-verified calls and cannot certify current calibration. The September 5 CI reports cover 1,176 labelled pairs and 705 records over 250 companies using offline stubs. These are not independent customer holdouts or live production validation; the 99% minimum-input product target remains unmet. Scope is company and organisation identity only — not people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions or emissions. Results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy.
Start with your own company records.
Create your workspace, verify your email and run your first company file. The Free plan needs no card. Create API keys in your workspace when you need an integration.
300 credits. No card.
For a guided review of your file, explore the Merge Safety Sprint →