On Desirable Semantics of Functional Dependencies over Databases with Incomplete Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Codd’s relational model describes just one possible world. To better cope with incomplete information, extended database models allow several possible worlds. Vague tables are one such convenient extended model where attributes accept sets of possible values (e.g., the manager is either Jill or Bob). However, conceptual database design in such cases remains an open problem. In particular, there is no canonical definition of functional dependencies (FDs) over possible worlds (e.g., each employee has just one manager). We identify several desirable properties that the semantics of such FDs should meet including Armstrong’s axioms, the independence from irrelevant attributes, seamless satisfaction and implied by strong satisfaction. We show that we can define FDs such that they have all our desirable properties over vague tables. However, we also show that no notion of FD can satisfy all our desirable properties over a more general model (disjunctive tables). Our work formalizes a trade-off between having a general model and having well-behaved FDs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".