MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171332293 · doi:10.1145/1366102.1366103

Conditional functional dependencies for capturing data inconsistencies

2008· article· en· W2171332293 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Database Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceFunctional dependencyData integrityConsistency (knowledge bases)Relational databaseSQLData miningSet (abstract data type)Schema (genetic algorithms)DatabaseProgramming languageTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.592
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it