Baselines

Organiser-run baseline systems for both tasks, published before the competition. Participant submissions are not added to these tables — they appear on the results page, fed by the live leaderboard, now that the evaluation window is open (from 12 July 2026).

Task 1 — global alignment

Partiality-corrected P/R/F1

Headline scores are computed against the repaired silver standard R⁺; scores against the unrepaired R are secondary. Metrics score all named-entity equivalences in the reference — classes, properties, and individuals alike — see evaluation metrics. Eight matchers cover all six pairs; five further matchers were run only on the two openly redistributable JC3IEDM pairs and are listed separately (their numbers are not comparable to the full set).

Micro-F1 on R⁺ — all six pairs

LogMap — micro-F1 0.858 (P 0.957, R 0.777) LogMap 0.858 LogMapLt — micro-F1 0.549 (P 0.778, R 0.424) LogMapLt 0.549 AML — micro-F1 0.499 (P 0.894, R 0.346) AML 0.499 Matcha — micro-F1 0.463 (P 0.441, R 0.488) Matcha 0.463 BertMapLt — micro-F1 0.350 (P 0.906, R 0.217) BertMapLt 0.350 SecureBertMap — micro-F1 0.335 (P 0.961, R 0.203) SecureBertMap 0.335 BertMap — micro-F1 0.325 (P 0.941, R 0.197) BertMap 0.325 CySecBertMap — micro-F1 0.324 (P 0.960, R 0.195) CySecBertMap 0.324

Comparable set — 8 matchers, all 6 pairs

Matcher Micro-averaged, R⁺ (headline) Macro-F1, R⁺ Micro-F1, R Macro-F1, R
P R F1
LogMap 0.957 0.777 0.858 0.813 0.793 0.729
LogMapLt 0.778 0.424 0.549 0.665 0.645 0.740
AML 0.894 0.346 0.499 0.644 0.535 0.635
Matcha 0.441 0.488 0.463 0.566 0.464 0.536
BertMapLt 0.906 0.217 0.350 0.475 0.372 0.479
SecureBertMap 0.961 0.203 0.335 0.469 0.303 0.386
BertMap 0.941 0.197 0.325 0.463 0.295 0.379
CySecBertMap 0.960 0.195 0.324 0.459 0.294 0.377

Headline = micro-F1 on the repaired reference R⁺; the unrepaired R columns are secondary. Columns sort on click.

Partial coverage — 5 matchers, JC3IEDM pairs only (n=2)
Matchern pairs Micro-P (R⁺)Micro-R (R⁺)Micro-F1 (R⁺)Macro-F1 (R⁺)
LogMapLLM 2 0.996 0.877 0.933 0.946
ALOD2Vec 2 0.963 0.255 0.403 0.592
ATMatcher 2 0.926 0.242 0.384 0.537
Fine-TOM 2 0.625 0.161 0.256 0.263
KGMatcher 2 1.000 0.084 0.155 0.268

Run only on jc3iedm-mio and jc3iedm-facility; not comparable with the six-pair set above. Micro pools TP/judgeable/|R| across the two pairs; macro is the unweighted mean of the per-pair F1 values.

Best matcher per pair

PairBest matcherMappings |A|PRF1 (R⁺)Coherent (TBox)
thinkhome-brick AML 112 0.828 0.727 0.774 no — 1,123 unsat classes
brick-smartenv LogMap 40 0.739 0.944 0.829 yes
city-brick LogMap 27 0.778 0.737 0.757 yes
jc3iedm-mio LogMapLLM 238 0.996 0.869 0.928 yes
jc3iedm-brick LogMapLt 105 0.824 0.813 0.819 yes
jc3iedm-facility LogMap 44 0.977 0.977 0.977 yes

“Coherent (TBox)” is the TBox-level coherence of the merged ontology pair under the system's alignment (complete reasoner, individuals removed; data: coherence_best_per_pair.json); with-ABox effects are reported separately in the supplementary analysis. Full matcher × pair detail: global_detail.tsv · global_aggregate.tsv · global_results.json.

Reference sizes

Pair|R≈||R⁺≈|Repaired
thinkhome-brick 116 66 yes
brick-smartenv 47 18 yes
city-brick 61 19 yes
jc3iedm-mio 267 267
jc3iedm-brick 75 75
jc3iedm-facility 43 43

Unique equivalence pairs per reference. “Repaired: —” means the silver was already coherent at the TBox level (R ≡ R⁺); see how the repaired reference was constructed.

Reported analysis: TBox-only scoring ablation

Because 60% of the headline reference consists of individual–individual correspondences, we also publish a counterfactual in which every individual cell is removed from both the alignments and the references and everything is rescored. The reference shrinks (|R⁺| 488 → 190) and the top ranks reorder — the gap between the two views is itself a finding about instance matching. Read the TBox-only ablation →

Task 2 — local equivalence ranking

Hits@k and MRR

Reference baselines with a fixed abstention threshold τ=0.5; references are private. The headline is the unweighted macro-average over the two pairs. The silver is lexically clean (same-label equivalences dominate), so the naive string baseline beats the neural encoder — the contribution is the task design.

Macro-averaged over both pairs

BaselineHits@1Hits@3Hits@5Hits@10MRR
naive-lexical (char-3-gram Jaccard) 0.8350.9680.9700.9860.899
all-MiniLM-L6-v2 0.6650.8810.9430.9700.786

Per pair

PairBaselineQueriesHits@1Hits@3Hits@5Hits@10MRR
uco-stix lexical 217 0.9170.9770.9821.0000.950
uco-stix MiniLM 217 0.7280.9260.9540.9820.830
stix-d3fend lexical 73 0.7530.9590.9590.9730.849
stix-d3fend MiniLM 73 0.6030.8360.9310.9590.743
Matched-only / NIL-only breakdown
PairBaselineSubsetQueriesHits@1MRR
uco-stix lexical matched 194 0.954 0.977
uco-stix lexical NIL 23 0.609 0.719
uco-stix MiniLM matched 194 0.789 0.873
uco-stix MiniLM NIL 23 0.217 0.465
stix-d3fend lexical matched 38 0.816 0.890
stix-d3fend lexical NIL 35 0.686 0.805
stix-d3fend MiniLM matched 38 0.789 0.871
stix-d3fend MiniLM NIL 35 0.400 0.605

Metrics are reported overall plus matched-only, NIL-only, and per-type; see evaluation metrics and the Task 2 description.

Editions

Baselines and results by edition

DISO-OAEI 2026 is the first edition, so there are no previous years yet. As the track matures, each edition's final baselines and participant results will be archived here, and changes to the datasets and results between editions are recorded in the changelog.

EditionStatusBaselinesMachine-readable snapshot
2026 current — evaluation & leaderboard opened 12 July 2026 this page results/2026/leaderboard.json