Modeling and querying possible repairs in duplicate detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most prominent data quality problems is the existence of duplicate records. Current duplicate elimination procedures usually produce one clean instance (repair) of the input data, by carefully choosing the parameters of the duplicate detection algorithms. Finding the right parameter settings can be hard, and in many cases, perfect settings do not exist. Furthermore, replacing the input dirty data with one possible clean instance may result in unrecoverable errors, for example, identification and merging of possible duplicate records in health care systems. In this paper, we treat duplicate detection procedures as data processing tasks with uncertain outcomes. We concentrate on a family of duplicate detection algorithms that are based on parameterized clustering. We propose a novel uncertainty model that compactly encodes the space of possible repairs corresponding to different parameter settings. We show how to efficiently support relational queries under our model, and to allow new types of queries on the set of possible repairs. We give an experimental study illustrating the scalability and the efficiency of our techniques in different configurations.
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 | 0.019 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".