Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrity constraints play an important role in data design. However, in an operational database, they may not be enforced for many reasons. Hence, over time, data may become inconsistent with respect to the constraints. To manage this, several approaches have proposed techniques to repair the data, by finding minimal or lowest cost changes to the data that make it consistent with the constraints. Such techniques are appropriate for the old world where data changes, but schemas and their constraints remain fixed. In many modern applications however, constraints may evolve over time as application or business rules change, as data is integrated with new data sources, or as the underlying semantics of the data evolves. In such settings, when an inconsistency occurs, it is no longer clear if there is an error in the data (and the data should be repaired), or if the constraints have evolved (and the constraints should be repaired). In this work, we present a novel unified cost model that allows data and constraint repairs to be compared on an equal footing. We consider repairs over a database that is inconsistent with respect to a set of rules, modeled as functional dependencies (FDs). FDs are the most common type of constraint, and are known to play an important role in maintaining data quality. We evaluate the quality and scalability of our repair algorithms over synthetic data and present a qualitative case study using a well-known real dataset. The results show that our repair algorithms not only scale well for large datasets, but are able to accurately capture and correct inconsistencies, and accurately decide when a data repair versus a constraint repair is best.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".