Variant String Matching via Substring Segmentation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing variant string matching systems face challenges in accurately matching foreign names with orthographic variations, as they often rely on edit distance metrics that are inadequate for cross-cultural name matching.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method for variant string matching that compares unidentical strings to identify identical and interchangeable substring pairs, incrementing counters to generate a matching score and calculate string distance, enabling the integration and search of foreign names across different sources.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If edit distance metrics are used for name matching, then the matching process can be implemented, but the accuracy of cross-cultural name matching deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvename matching accuracyVSAvoidcross-cultural adaptability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments names into multiple components (prefix, root, suffix) rather than treating them as single units. This segmentation allows the system to analyze and compare specific parts of names independently, improving accuracy for cross-cultural matching where different languages may structure names differently. The system can identify matching segments across cultural boundaries even when the overall name structure differs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies different matching strategies to different parts of names based on their linguistic characteristics. By assigning different weights and comparison methods to prefix, root, and suffix components, the system adapts to local linguistic qualities of different cultures. This allows more flexible matching that respects cultural-specific naming conventions while maintaining overall matching accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Device complexity

If single-character edit distance is used, then the algorithm complexity remains low, but the effectiveness for general cross-cultural name matching deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvealgorithm complexityVSAvoidmatching effectiveness
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides names into segments (prefix, root, suffix) and applies edit distance operations to each segment separately rather than to the entire name. This segmentation maintains computational efficiency by reducing the search space for each comparison while improving effectiveness by allowing culturally-appropriate matching of name components. The segmented approach enables the system to handle cross-cultural variations without requiring complex global algorithms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the parameters of the edit distance algorithm by applying different weights and thresholds to different name segments. This parameter adjustment allows the system to optimize matching effectiveness for cross-cultural scenarios while maintaining the computational efficiency of the underlying edit distance algorithm. By tuning segment-specific parameters, the system achieves better results without increasing overall algorithmic complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS8209268B2System and method for variant string matching
Publication Date: 2012.06.26 SRA INTERNATIONAL INC
  • US8209268B2 patent drawing
  • US8209268B2 patent drawing
  • US8209268B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method, computer program product, and system for variant string matching. A computer implemented method for variant string matching may comprise comparing with a computing device two unidentical strings in a training variant string pair. The two unidentical strings may represent the same item from training data, which may be stored in a memory. The two unidentical strings may be compared to determine if they include an identical substring pair, and a first unidentical substring pair. The computer implemented method may also determine if the first unidentical substring pair includes a first unidentical substring and a second unidentical substring. The computer implemented method may further determine if the first unidentical substring pair is in the training data. The first unidentical substring pair may be entered into the training data as a first variant string pair if it is not in the training data.