On approximating optimum repairs for functional dependency violations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of repairing an inconsistent database that violates a set of functional dependencies by making the smallest possible value modifications. For an inconsistent database, we define an optimum repair as a database that satisfies the functional dependencies, and minimizes, among all repairs, a distance measure that depends on the number of corrections made in the database and the weights of tuples modified. We show that like other versions of the repair problem, checking the existence of a repair within a certain distance of a database is NP-complete. We also show that finding a constant-factor approximation for the optimum repair for any set of functional dependencies is NP-hard. Furthermore, there is a small constant and a set of functional dependencies, for which finding an approximate solution for the optimum repair within the factor of that constant is also NP-hard. Then we present an approximation algorithm that for a fixed set of functional dependencies and an arbitrary input inconsistent database, produces a repair whose distance to the database is within a constant factor of the optimum repair distance. We finally show how the approximation algorithm can be used in data cleaning using a recent extension to functional dependencies, called conditional functional dependencies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".