DataPrep.EDA: Task-Centric Exploratory Data Analysis for Statistical Modeling in Python
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) is a crucial step in any data science project. However, existing Python libraries fall short in supporting data scientists to complete common EDA tasks for statistical modeling. Their API design is either too low level, which is optimized for plotting rather than EDA, or too high level, which is hard to specify more fine-grained EDA tasks. In response, we propose DataPrep.EDA, a novel task-centric EDA system in Python. DataPrep.EDA allows data scientists to declaratively specify a wide range of EDA tasks in different granularity with a single function call. We identify a number of challenges to implement DataPrep.EDA, and propose effective solutions to improve the scalability, usability, customizability of the system. In particular, we discuss some lessons learned from using Dask to build the data processing pipelines for EDA tasks and describe our approaches to accelerate the pipelines. We conduct extensive experiments to compare DataPrep.EDA with Pandas-profiling, the state-of-the-art EDA system in Python. The experiments show that DataPrep.EDA significantly outperforms Pandas-profiling in terms of both speed and user experience. DataPrep.EDA is open-sourced as an EDA component of DataPrep: https://github.com/sfu-db/dataprep.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.025 |
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".