Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".