Duplicate detection in the Reuters collection

In a bibliographic database, the main task is not to find exact duplicate records, rather it is to find those that refer to the same work but differ in some manner. Differences are typically due to inaccurate or inconsistent data entry. One such detection method was developed by Ridley [Ridley 92] who adopted a two stage technique. First, all records in a database were assigned a number generated from a hashing function that used as its input, fields of a bibliographic record. Any records that had the same hashing number were examined in greater detail in the second stage. This entailed a comparison of fields by customised processes: i.e. the author field process looked for missing initials; the title field process looked for a missing suffix. Detection techniques of this kind are supported by the work of O’Neill et al. [O’Neill 93] who manually examined duplicate bibliographic records to find which fields were most likely to differ.