We present our participation in the SOMD 2026 shared task on cross-document software mention coreference resolution, where our systems ranked second across all three subtasks. We compare two fine-tuning-free approaches: Fuzzy Matching (FM), a lexical string-similarity method, and Context Aware Representations (CAR), which combines mention-level and document-level embeddings. Both achieve competitive performance across all subtasks (CoNLL F1 of 0.94-0.96), with CAR consistently outperforming FM by 1 point on the official test set, consistent with the high surface regularity of software names, which reduces the need for complex semantic reasoning. A controlled noise-injection study reveals complementary failure modes: as boundary noise increases, CAR loses only 0.07 F1 points from clean to fully corrupted input, compared to 0.20 for FM, whereas under mention substitution, FM degrades more gracefully (0.52 vs. 0.63). Our inference-time analysis shows that FM scales superlinearly with corpus size, whereas CAR scales approximately linearly, making CAR the more efficient choice at large scale. These findings suggest that system selection should be informed by both the noise profile of the upstream mention detector and the scale of the target corpus. We release our code to support future work on this underexplored task.
Figures & tables
Statistic
Subtask 1
Subtasks 2 & 3
(gold)
(predicted)
Corpus
Documents
973
967
Sentences with mentions
2,153
2,140
Mention instances
2,974
2,860
Unique surface forms
837
791
Table 1: Corpus statistics for the SOMD 2026 training sets. Subtask 1 uses gold-standard mentions; Subtasks 2 and 3 share a common training set of automatically predicted mentions. Cross-doc rate (non-singletons) excludes singleton clusters, which require no linking decision.
Noise Type
Example
Original
We used MATLAB for statistical analysis and visualization.
Boundary
We used MATLAB for statistical analysis and visualization.
Modification
We used the MATLAB for statistical analysis and visualization.
Mention
We used Python for statistical analysis and visualization.
Substitution
We used NumPy for statistical analysis and visualization.
Table 2: Illustration of noise injection methods applied to a software mention. The original mention is shown in blue , while noisy mentions are shown in red . Boundary modification extends or truncates mention spans; mention substitution replaces the mention string with another software name sampled from the training set. Each noise type simulates a different failure mode of upstream mention detection. All methods are tested at noise rates of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%.
Subtask 1
Subtask 2
Subtask 3
System
CoNLL
B 3
CEAF e
MUC
CoNLL
B 3
CEAF e
MUC
CoNLL
B 3
CEAF e
MUC
System A †
0.98
0.99
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.95
0.99
0.96
0.97
0.92
0.99
System B †
0.92
0.94
0.86
0.97
0.92
0.93
0.85
0.98
‡
‡
‡
‡
Fuzzy Matching
0.95
0.95
0.91
0.98
0.95
0.94
0.91
0.99
0.94
0.94
0.90
0.99
Context Aware
0.96
0.96
0.93
0.98
0.96
0.96
0.93
0.99
‡
‡
‡
‡
Table 3: Official test-set results for SOMD 2026. CoNLL is the average of MUC, B 3 , and CEAFe F 1 . Bold = best overall. Underline = best among our systems. † = other participants. ‡ = no submission on Codabench.
Injected Noise Rate
Noise Type
System
∅
25%
50%
75%
100%
Δ
Subtask 1 (gold mentions)
Boundary Modification
Fuzzy Matching
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.54
0.50
0.20
Context Aware
0.82
0.80
0.79
0.77
0.75
0.07
Mention Substitution
Fuzzy Matching
0.70
0.49
0.34
0.23
0.18
0.52
Context Aware
0.82
0.57
0.39
0.25
0.19
0.63
Table 4: CoNLL F 1 under all noise types at increasing noise rates on the training set. Δ = F 1 at 0% − F 1 at 100% (lower = more robust). Baseline scores differ from official test-set results (Table 3 ) as noise experiments are conducted on the training set. Underline = best F 1 ; bold Δ = most robust system per noise type.
Subtask
System
Time (s)
CoNLL F 1
F1/sec
Subtask 1
FM
0.60 ± 0.00
0.95
1.584
CAR
4.45 ± 0.69
0.96
0.215
Subtask 2
FM
47.06 ± 0.41
0.95
0.020
CAR
45.39 ± 5.14
0.96
0.021
Table 5: Inference time and precision–speed trade-off on official test sets of Subtasks 1 and 2. Efficiency = CoNLL F 1 / inference time (s). Measured on an Intel x86_64 CPU (14 cores, 33.3 GB RAM) over 5 runs.
Deployment condition
Recommended
Small corpus, high detector quality
FM
Large corpus ( n≫ 1k mentions)
CAR
Boundary errors dominate
CAR
Mention identity errors dominate
Improve detector
Table 6: Practical system selection guide based on deployment context.