MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541476024

Consistent query answering under inclusion dependencies

2004· article· en· W1541476024 on OpenAlexaff
Loreto Bravo, Leopoldo Bertossi

Bibliographic record

VenueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDecidabilitySet (abstract data type)Query languageSemantics (computer science)Data integrityNull (SQL)DatabaseInformation retrievalQuery optimizationTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For several reasons a database may not satisfy certain integrity constraints (ICs), for example, when it is the result of integrating several independent data sources. However, most likely most of the information in it is still consistent with the ICs; and could be retrieved when queries are answered. Consistent answers with respect to a set of ICs have been characterized as answers that can be obtained from every possible minimal repair of the database. In this paper we show and analyze how specify those repairs using disjunctive logic program with a stable model semantics in the presence of referential ICs. In this case, repairs are obtained by introduction of null values that do not propagate through other constraints, which makes the problem of consistent query answering decidable. We also present results about cases where the implementation of consistent query answering can be made more efficient due to the fact that the program can be simplified into a non-disjunctive program. Finally, we discuss several research issues around the implementation of system for retrieving consistent answers to queries from a DBMS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative ResearchSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207