The iBench integration metadata generator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the maturity of the data integration field it is surprising that rigorous empirical evaluations of research ideas are so scarce. We identify a major roadblock for empirical work - the lack of comprehensive metadata generators that can be used to create benchmarks for different integration tasks. This makes it difficult to compare integration solutions, understand their generality, and understand their performance. We present iBench, the first metadata generator that can be used to evaluate a wide-range of integration tasks (data exchange, mapping creation, mapping composition, schema evolution, among many others). iBench permits control over the size and characteristics of the metadata it generates (schemas, constraints, and mappings). Our evaluation demonstrates that iBench can efficiently generate very large, complex, yet realistic scenarios with different characteristics. We also present an evaluation of three mapping creation systems using iBench and show that the intricate control that iBench provides over metadata scenarios can reveal new and important empirical insights. iBench is an open-source, extensible tool that we are providing to the community. We believe it will raise the bar for empirical evaluation and comparison of data integration systems.
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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".