MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967167578 · doi:10.14778/1453856.1453980

Discovering data quality rules

2008· article· en· W1967167578 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData qualityConsistency (knowledge bases)Context (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Data miningData integritySet (abstract data type)Data consistencyProcess (computing)DatabaseArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dirty data is a serious problem for businesses leading to incorrect decision making, inefficient daily operations, and ultimately wasting both time and money. Dirty data often arises when domain constraints and business rules, meant to preserve data consistency and accuracy, are enforced incompletely or not at all in application code. In this work, we propose a new data-driven tool that can be used within an organization's data quality management process to suggest possible rules, and to identify conformant and non-conformant records. Data quality rules are known to be contextual, so we focus on the discovery of context-dependent rules. Specifically, we search for conditional functional dependencies (CFDs), that is, functional dependencies that hold only over a portion of the data. The output of our tool is a set of functional dependencies together with the context in which they hold (for example, a rule that states for CS graduate courses, the course number and term functionally determines the room and instructor). Since the input to our tool will likely be a dirty database, we also search for CFDs that almost hold. We return these rules together with the non-conformant records (as these are potentially dirty records). We present effective algorithms for discovering CFDs and dirty values in a data instance. Our discovery algorithm searches for minimal CFDs among the data values and prunes redundant candidates. No universal objective measures of data quality or data quality rules are known. Hence, to avoid returning an unnecessarily large number of CFDs and only those that are most interesting, we evaluate a set of interest metrics and present comparative results using real datasets. We also present an experimental study showing the scalability of our techniques.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.046 · 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