MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512595308 · doi:10.14778/3067421.3067422

Effective and complete discovery of order dependencies via set-based axiomatization

2017· preprint· en· W2512595308 on OpenAlexaff
Jaroslaw Szlichta, Parke Godfrey, Lukasz Golab, Mehdi Kargar, Divesh Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of WaterlooYork UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTupleCompleteness (order theory)InferenceAxiomRule of inferenceFunctional dependencySet (abstract data type)Data miningTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceRelational databaseDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrity constraints (ICs) are useful for query optimization and for expressing and enforcing application semantics. However, formulating constraints manually requires domain expertise, is prone to human errors, and may be excessively time consuming, especially on large datasets. Hence, proposals for automatic discovery have been made for some classes of ICs, such as functional dependencies (FDs), and recently, order dependencies (ODs). ODs properly subsume FDs, as they can additionally express business rules involving order; e.g., an employee never has a higher salary while paying lower taxes than another employee. We present a new OD discovery algorithm enabled by a novel polynomial mapping to a canonical form of ODs, and a sound and complete set of axioms (inference rules) for canonical ODs. Our algorithm has exponential worst-case time complexity, O (2 | R | ), in the number of attributes | R | and linear complexity in the number of tuples. We prove that it produces a complete and minimal set of ODs. Using real and synthetic datasets, we experimentally show orders-of-magnitude performance improvements over the prior state-of-the-art.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207