Probabilistic Record Linkage in Pandas - pandas

Question

I have two dataframes (X & Y). I would like to link them together and to predict the probability that each potential match is correct.
X = pd.DataFrame({'A': ["One", "Two", "Three"]})
Y = pd.DataFrame({'A': ["One", "To", "Free"]})

Answer 1

Method A
I have not yet fully understood the theory but there is an approach presented in:
Sayers, A., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Blom, A.W. and Steele, F., 2015. Probabilistic record linkage. International journal of epidemiology, 45(3), pp.954-964.
Here is my attempt to implementat it in Pandas:
# Probability that Matches are True Matches
m = 0.95
# Probability that non-Matches are True non-Matches
u = min(len(X), len(Y)) / (len(X) * len(Y))
# Priors
M_Pr = u
U_Pr = 1 - M_Pr
O_Pr = M_Pr / U_Pr # Prior odds of a match
# Combine the dataframes
X['key'] = 1
Y['key'] = 1
Z = pd.merge(X, Y, on='key')
Z = Z.drop('key',axis=1)
X = X.drop('key',axis=1)
Y = Y.drop('key',axis=1)
# Levenshtein distance
def Levenshtein_distance(s1, s2):
if len(s1) > len(s2):
s1, s2 = s2, s1
distances = range(len(s1) + 1)
for i2, c2 in enumerate(s2):
distances_ = [i2+1]
for i1, c1 in enumerate(s1):
if c1 == c2:
distances_.append(distances[i1])
else:
distances_.append(1 + min((distances[i1], distances[i1 + 1], distances_[-1])))
distances = distances_
return distances[-1]
L_D = np.vectorize(Levenshtein_distance, otypes=[float])
Z["D"] = L_D(Z['A_x'], Z['A_y'])
# Max string length
def Max_string_length(X, Y):
return max(len(X), len(Y))
M_L = np.vectorize(Max_string_length, otypes=[float])
Z["L"] = M_L(Z['A_x'], Z['A_y'])
# Agreement weight
def Agreement_weight(D, L):
return 1 - ( D / L )
A_W = np.vectorize(Agreement_weight, otypes=[float])
Z["C"] = A_W(Z['D'], Z['L'])
# Likelihood ratio
def Likelihood_ratio(C):
return (m/u) - ((m/u) - ((1-m) / (1-u))) * (1-C)
L_R = np.vectorize(Likelihood_ratio, otypes=[float])
Z["G"] = L_R(Z['C'])
# Match weight
def Match_weight(G):
return math.log(G) * math.log(2)
M_W = np.vectorize(Match_weight, otypes=[float])
Z["R"] = M_W(Z['G'])
# Posterior odds
def Posterior_odds(R):
return math.exp( R / math.log(2)) * O_Pr
P_O = np.vectorize(Posterior_odds, otypes=[float])
Z["O"] = P_O(Z['R'])
# Probability
def Probability(O):
return O / (1 + O)
Pro = np.vectorize(Probability, otypes=[float])
Z["P"] = Pro(Z['O'])
I have verified that this gives the same results as in the paper. Here is a sensitivity check on m, showing that it doesn't make a lot of difference:
Method B
These assumptions won't apply to all applications but in some cases each row of X should match a row of Y. In that case:
The probabilities should sum to 1
If there are many credible candidates to match to then that should reduce the probability of getting the right one
then:
X["I"] = X.index
# Combine the dataframes
X['key'] = 1
Y['key'] = 1
Z = pd.merge(X, Y, on='key')
Z = Z.drop('key',axis=1)
X = X.drop('key',axis=1)
Y = Y.drop('key',axis=1)
# Levenshtein distance
def Levenshtein_distance(s1, s2):
if len(s1) > len(s2):
s1, s2 = s2, s1
distances = range(len(s1) + 1)
for i2, c2 in enumerate(s2):
distances_ = [i2+1]
for i1, c1 in enumerate(s1):
if c1 == c2:
distances_.append(distances[i1])
else:
distances_.append(1 + min((distances[i1], distances[i1 + 1], distances_[-1])))
distances = distances_
return distances[-1]
L_D = np.vectorize(Levenshtein_distance, otypes=[float])
Z["D"] = L_D(Z['A_x'], Z['A_y'])
# Max string length
def Max_string_length(X, Y):
return max(len(X), len(Y))
M_L = np.vectorize(Max_string_length, otypes=[float])
Z["L"] = M_L(Z['A_x'], Z['A_y'])
# Agreement weight
def Agreement_weight(D, L):
return 1 - ( D / L )
A_W = np.vectorize(Agreement_weight, otypes=[float])
Z["C"] = A_W(Z['D'], Z['L'])
# Normalised Agreement Weight
T = Z .groupby('I') .agg({'C' : sum})
D = pd.DataFrame(T)
D.columns = ['T']
J = Z.set_index('I').join(D)
J['P1'] = J['C'] / J['T']
Comparing it against Method A:
Method C
This combines method A with method B:
# Normalised Probability
U = Z .groupby('I') .agg({'P' : sum})
E = pd.DataFrame(U)
E.columns = ['U']
K = Z.set_index('I').join(E)
K['P1'] = J['P1']
K['P2'] = K['P'] / K['U']
We can see that method B (P1) doesn't take account of uncertainty whereas method C (P2) does.