Contextual Data Cleaning with Ontology Functional Dependencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional Dependencies define attribute relationships based on syntactic equality, and when used in data cleaning, they erroneously label syntactically different but semantically equivalent values as errors. We explore dependency-based data cleaning with Ontology Functional Dependencies (OFDs), which express semantic attribute relationships such as synonyms defined by an ontology. We study the theoretical foundations of OFDs, including sound and complete axioms and a linear-time inference procedure. We then propose an algorithm for discovering OFDs (exact ones and ones that hold with some exceptions) from data that uses the axioms to prune the search space. Toward enabling OFDs as data quality rules in practice, we study the problem of finding minimal repairs to a relation and ontology with respect to a set of OFDs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our techniques on real datasets and show that OFDs can significantly reduce the number of false positive errors in data cleaning techniques that rely on traditional Functional Dependencies.
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 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".