A Record Linkage Production Data Quality (RLPDQ) tool provides an independent record linkage system producing comparative results with a production record linkage system and an efficient arbitration operation to resolve respective confusion matrices for the two systems. The tool can be used for enhancing the output of record linkage engines, for merging different files into a third file containing expanded descriptions of common entities in both files, and for making testable improvements to a record linkage engine.
Please help me write a proper abstract based on the patent claims. CLAIM: 1. A method of enhancing the performance of a production record linkage engine under control of a processor configured with executable instructions for establishing first comparative links between individual records that empirically describe a person or thing in different electronically encoded files, the first comparative links including predicted positive matches between some of the individual records in the different files and predicted negative matches between other of the individual records in the different files, comprising steps of: establishing second comparative links between the individual records of the different electronically encoded files with an independent record linkage engine under the control of a processor configured with different executable instructions from the executable instructions of the processor of the production record linkage engine, the second comparative links including predicted positive matches between some of the individual records in the different files and predicted negative matches between other of the individual records in the different files, using a processor configured with additional executable instructions to identify the predicted positive matches in common among the first and second comparative links as true positive matches, performing an arbitration to identify additional true positive matches from among at least one of: (a) the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links and (b) the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links, while substantially avoiding similar arbitration from among the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links, and revamping the first comparative links established by the production record linkage system by at least one of: (a) excluding from revamped predicted positive matches predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that are not among the true positive matches and (b) including within the revamped predicted positive matches predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that are among the true positive matches, wherein the individual records in the different electronically encoded files include respective record addresses, and the revamped first comparative links include electronically encoded record links between the record addresses of the revamped predicted positive matches in the two different files. 2. The method of claim 1 in which the step of using a processor includes using the processor to identify the predicted positive matches in common among the first and second comparative links as a first set of true positive matches, and the step of performing an arbitration includes performing the arbitration (a) to identify a second set of true positive matches from among the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links and (b) to identify a third set of true positive matches from among the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links. 3. The method of claim 2 in which the step of revamping includes revamping the first comparative links established by the production record linkage system to: (a) exclude from the revamped predicted positive matches predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that are not among the first and second sets of true positive matches, and (b) include within the revamped predicted positive matches predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that are among the third set of true positive matches. 4. The method of claim 3 in which the revamped predicted positive matches include predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that are among the first and second sets of true positive matches. 5. The method of claim 2 in which the step of using a processor includes using the processor to identify the predicted negative matches in common among the first and second comparative links as a first set of true negative matches, and the step of performing an arbitration includes performing the arbitration (a) to identify a second set of true negative matches from among the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links and (b) to identify a third set of true negative matches from among the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted positive matches of the second comparative links. 6. The method of claim 5 in which the step of excluding from revamped predicted positive matches corresponds to excluding from revamped predicted positive matches predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that are among the second set of true negative matches. 7. The method of claim 5 in which the step of including within the revamped predicted positive matches predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that are among the true positive matches, corresponds to including within the revamped predicted positive matches predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that are not among the among the third set of true negative matches. 8. The method of claim 1 in which the step of using the processor includes arranging the addresses of the records in the different electronically encoded files in a record matrix within which individual elements of the record matrix are located by unique pairings of the record addresses from the different files and the individual elements hold information concerning record matching drawn from both the first and second comparative links established by the production and independent record linkage engines. 9. The method of claim 8 in which the individual elements hold information corresponding to the combination of a predicted positive or negative match from the first comparative links and a predicted positive or negative match from the second comparative links, and the step of performing an arbitration adds additional information to individual elements holding information corresponding to a predicted positive match from either one of the first and second comparative links and a predicted negative match from the other of the first and second comparative links in which the additional information is sufficient to identify the individual elements subject to the arbitration as either a true positive match or a true negative match. 10. The method of claim 1 in which at least one of the first and second comparative links established by the production and independent record linkage engines is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, and the processor configured with additional executable instructions is arranged to access the at least one of the first and second comparative links that is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium. 11. The method of claim 10 in which the revamped first comparative links are stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium as an enhanced output of the production record linkage engine. 12. The method of claim 1 in which the executable instructions of a first of the production and independent record linkage engines include at least one of (a) rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files and (b) algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files. 13. The method of claim 12 in which the executable instructions of a second of the production and independent record linkage engines differ from the executable instructions of the first of the production and independent record linkage engines by including at least one of (a) unique rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files and (b) unique algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files. 14. The method of claim 1 in which the executable instructions of the production record linkage engine include rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files, the executable instructions of the independent record linkage engine include algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files, and the step of performing an arbitration is primarily directed to identifying additional true positive matches from among the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links. 15. The method of claim 1 in which the step of performing an arbitration substantially avoids a similar arbitration among the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links. 16. The method of claim 1 in which the step of performing an arbitration is at least partially automated. 17. The method of claim 16 in which the step of performing an arbitration includes establishing third comparative links between subsets of the individual records of the different electronically encoded files with an arbitration record linkage engine under the control of a processor configured with executable instructions that differ from the executable instructions of the production and independent record linkage systems. 18. The method of claim 1 in which at least one of the different files includes individual records comprising at least one of census data, tax payer data, and patient medical data. 19. The method of claim 1 in which the different electronically encoded files include first and second electronically encoded files, and including a further step of generating a third electronically encoded file by appending to the individual records of the first electronically encoded file matching individual records from the second electronically coded file using the revamped first comparative links. 20. A method of using a compound record linkage system to merge individual records that empirically describe a person or thing from first and second electronically encoded files, comprising steps of: establishing first comparative links between the individual records of the first and second electronically encoded files with a first record linkage engine under the control of a processor configured with executable instructions, the first comparative links including predicted positive matches between some of the individual records in the first and second files and predicted negative matches between other of the individual records in the first and second files, establishing second comparative links between the individual records of the first and second electronically encoded files with a second record linkage engine under the control of a processor configured with different executable instructions from the executable instructions of the processor of the first record linkage engine, the second comparative links including predicted positive matches between some of the individual records in the first and second files and predicted negative matches between other of the individual records in the first and second files, using a processor configured with additional executable instructions for identifying the predicted positive matches in common among the first and second comparative links as true positive matches, performing an arbitration to identify additional true positive matches from among at least one of: (a) the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links and (b) the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links, and merging the first and second electronically encoded files into a third electronically encoded file in which individual record pairings between the first and second files identified as true positive matches are combined as expanded empirical descriptions of common persons or things within individual records of the third electronically encoded file. 21. The method of claim 20 in which the individual records in the first and second electronically encoded files include respective record addresses, and the true positive matches are associated with electronically encoded record links between the record addresses in the first and second files. 22. The method of claim 20 in which the combined records in the third electronically encoded file include record pairings between the first and second electronically encoded files that include predicted positive matches of the first comparative links and predicted negative matches of the second comparative links. 23. The method of claim 20 in which the step of using a processor includes using the processor to identify the predicted positive matches in common among the first and second comparative links as a first set of true positive matches, and the step of performing an arbitration includes performing the arbitration (a) to identify a second set of true positive matches from among the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links and (b) to identify a third set of true positive matches from among the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links. 24. The method of claim 23 in which the individual record pairings between the first and second files identified as being among the second and third sets of true positive matches are combined as expanded empirical descriptions of common persons or things within individual records of the third electronically encoded file. 25. The method of claim 20 in which the step of using a processor includes identifying the predicted negative matches in common among the first and second comparative links as true negative matches, and in which the step of performing an arbitration includes performing the arbitration (a) to identify a second set of true negative matches from among the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links and (b) to identify a third set of true negative matches from among the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted positive matches of the second comparative links. 26. The method of claim 25 in which in which individual record pairings between the first and second files identified as being among the second and third sets of true negative matches are excluded from being combined as expanded empirical descriptions of common persons or things within individual records of the third electronically encoded file. 27. The method of claim 20 in which the first and second comparative links established by the first and second record linkage engines are stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, and the processor configured with additional executable instructions is arranged to access the first and second comparative links that are stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium. 28. The method of claim 20 in which the executable instructions of the first record linkage engine differ from the executable instructions of the second record linkage engine by including at least one of (a) unique rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files and (b) unique algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files. 29. The method of claim 20 in which the executable instructions of the first record linkage engine include rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files, and the executable instructions of the second record linkage engine include algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files. 30. The method of claim 29 in which the step of performing an arbitration is primarily directed to identifying additional true positive matches from among the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links. 31. The method of claim 20 in which the step of performing an arbitration substantially avoids a similar arbitration among the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links. 32. The method of claim 20 in which the step of performing an arbitration includes establishing third comparative links between subsets of the individual records of the different electronically encoded files with an arbitration record linkage engine under the control of a processor configured with executable instructions that differ from the executable instructions of the production and independent record linkage systems. 33. The method of claim 20 in which at least one of the different files includes individual records comprising at least one of census data, tax payer data, and patient medical data. 34. A method of customizing a production record linkage engine under control of a processor configured with executable instructions for linking records between different electronically encoded files in which the production record linkage engine establishes first comparative links between the individual records in the different files that include predicted positive matches between some of the individual records in the different files and predicted negative matches between other of the individual records in the different files, comprising steps of: establishing second comparative links between the individual records of the different electronically encoded files with an independent record linkage engine under the control of a processor configured with different executable instructions from the executable instructions of the processor of the production record linkage engine, the second comparative links including predicted positive matches between some of the individual records in the different files and predicted negative matches between other of the individual records in the different files, using a processor configured with additional executable instructions for identifying the predicted positive matches in common among the first and second comparative links as true positive matches, performing an arbitration to identify additional true positive matches from among at least one of: (a) the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links and (b) the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links, and changing the algorithm of the production record linkage engine to at least one of: (a) reduce the predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that are not among the true positive matches and (b) increase predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that are among the true positive matches. 35. The method of claim 34 in which the step of performing the arbitration includes identifying true negative matches from among the predicted positive matches of one of the first and second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the other of the first and second comparative links, and in which the step of changing the algorithm of the production record linkage engine includes changing the algorithm of the production record linkage engine to at least one of increase the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that are among the true negative matches and decrease the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that are not among the true negative matches. 36. The method of claim 34 in which the executable instructions of a first of the production and independent record linkage engines include at least one of (a) rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files and (b) algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files, and in which the executable instructions of a second of the production and independent record linkage engines differ from the executable instructions of the first of the production and independent record linkage engines by including at least one of (a) unique rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files and (b) unique algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files. 37. The method of claim 34 in which the executable instructions of the production record linkage engine include rules for making deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files, the executable instructions of the independent record linkage engine include algorithms for weighting multiple comparisons for making probabilistic matches between the individual records in the different files, and the step of performing an arbitration is primarily directed to identifying additional true positive matches from among the predicted positive matches of the second comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the first comparative links. 38. The method of claim 37 in which the step of changing the algorithm of the production record linkage engine includes changing the algorithm of the production record linkage engine to increase predicted positive matches of the first comparative links that are among the true positive matches. 39. The method of claim 37 in which the step of changing the algorithm of the production record linkage engine includes increasing the deterministic matches between the individual records in the different files. 40. The method of claim 34 in which the step of performing an arbitration substantially avoids a similar arbitration among the predicted negative matches of the first comparative links that correspond to predicted negative matches of the second comparative links. 41. The method of claim 34 in which the step of performing an arbitration includes establishing third comparative links between subsets of the individual records of the different electronically encoded files with an arbitration record linkage engine under the control of a processor configured with executable instructions that differ from the executable instructions of the production and independent record linkage systems.