Combining quantitative and logical data cleaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative data cleaning relies on the use of statistical methods to identify and repair data quality problems while logical data cleaning tackles the same problems using various forms of logical reasoning over declarative dependencies. Each of these approaches has its strengths: the logical approach is able to capture subtle data quality problems using sophisticated dependencies, while the quantitative approach excels at ensuring that the repaired data has desired statistical properties. We propose a novel framework within which these two approaches can be used synergistically to combine their respective strengths. We instantiate our framework using (i) metric functional dependencies, a type of dependency that generalizes functional dependencies (FDs) to identify inconsistencies in domains where only large differences in metric data are considered to be a data quality problem, and (ii) repairs that modify the inconsistent data so as to minimize statistical distortion, measured using the Earth Mover's Distance. We show that the problem of computing a statistical distortion minimal repair is NP-hard. Given this complexity, we present an efficient algorithm for finding a minimal repair that has a small statistical distortion using EMD computation over semantically related attributes. To identify semantically related attributes, we present a sound and complete axiomatization and an efficient algorithm for testing implication of metric FDs. While the complexity of inference for some other FD extensions is co-NP complete, we show that the inference problem for metric FDs remains linear, as in traditional FDs. We prove that every instance that can be generated by our repair algorithm is set-minimal (with no unnecessary changes). Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that our techniques obtain a considerably lower statistical distortion than existing repair techniques, while achieving similar levels of efficiency.
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 | 0.020 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".