Descriptive and prescriptive data cleaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data cleaning techniques usually rely on some quality rules to identify violating tuples, and then fix these violations using some repair algorithms. Oftentimes, the rules, which are related to the business logic, can only be defined on some target report generated by transformations over multiple data sources. This creates a situation where the violations detected in the report are decoupled in space and time from the actual source of errors. In addition, applying the repair on the report would need to be repeated whenever the data sources change. Finally, even if repairing the report is possible and affordable, this would be of little help towards identifying and analyzing the actual sources of errors for future prevention of violations at the target. In this paper, we propose a system to address this decoupling. The system takes quality rules defined over the output of a transformation and computes explanations of the errors seen on the output. This is performed both at the target level to describe these errors and at the source level to prescribe actions to solve them. We present scalable techniques to detect, propagate, and explain errors. We also study the effectiveness and efficiency of our techniques using the TPC-H Benchmark for different scenarios and classes of quality rules.
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 | 0.022 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".