Conditional functional dependencies for capturing data inconsistencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a class of integrity constraints for relational databases, referred to as conditional functional dependencies (CFDs), and study their applications in data cleaning. In contrast to traditional functional dependencies (FDs) that were developed mainly for schema design, CFDs aim at capturing the consistency of data by enforcing bindings of semantically related values. For static analysis of CFDs we investigate the consistency problem , which is to determine whether or not there exists a nonempty database satisfying a given set of CFDs, and the implication problem , which is to decide whether or not a set of CFDs entails another CFD. We show that while any set of transitional FDs is trivially consistent, the consistency problem is NP-complete for CFDs, but it is in PTIME when either the database schema is predefined or no attributes involved in the CFDs have a finite domain. For the implication analysis of CFDs, we provide an inference system analogous to Armstrong's axioms for FDs, and show that the implication problem is coNP-complete for CFDs in contrast to the linear-time complexity for their traditional counterpart. We also present an algorithm for computing a minimal cover of a set of CFDs. Since CFDs allow data bindings, in some cases CFDs may be physically large, complicating the detection of constraint violations. We develop techniques for detecting CFD violations in SQL as well as novel techniques for checking multiple constraints by a single query. We also provide incremental methods for checking CFDs in response to changes to the database. We experimentally verify the effectiveness of our CFD-based methods for inconsistency detection. This work not only yields a constraint theory for CFDs but is also a step toward a practical constraint-based method for improving data quality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".