Sampling the repairs of functional dependency violations under hard constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violations of functional dependencies (FDs) are common in practice, often arising in the context of data integration or Web data extraction. Resolving these violations is known to be challenging for a variety of reasons, one of them being the exponential number of possible "repairs". Previous work has tackled this problem either by producing a single repair that is (nearly) optimal with respect to some metric, or by computing consistent answers to selected classes of queries without explicitly generating the repairs. In this paper, we propose a novel data cleaning approach that is not limited to finding a single repair or to a particular class of queries, namely, sampling from the space of possible repairs. We give several motivating scenarios where sampling from the space of FD repairs is desirable, propose a new class of useful repairs, and present an algorithm that randomly samples from this space. We also show how to restrict the space of generated repairs based on user-defined hard constraints that define an immutable trusted subset of the input relation, and we experimentally evaluate our algorithm against previous approaches. While this paper focuses on repairing FDs, we envision the proposed sampling approach to be applicable to other integrity constraints with large repair spaces.
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 | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".