Efficiently Cleaning Structured Event Logs: A Graph Repair Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Event data are often dirty owing to various recording conventions or simply system errors. These errors may cause serious damage to real applications, such as inaccurate provenance answers, poor profiling results, or concealing interesting patterns from event data. Cleaning dirty event data is strongly demanded. While existing event data cleaning techniques view event logs as sequences, structural information does exist among events, such as the task passing relationships between staffs in workflow or the invocation relationships among different micro-services in monitoring application performance. We argue that such structural information enhances not only the accuracy of repairing inconsistent events but also the computation efficiency. It is notable that both the structure and the names (labeling) of events could be inconsistent. In real applications, while an unsound structure is not repaired automatically (which requires manual effort from business actors to handle the structure error), it is highly desirable to repair the inconsistent event names introduced by recording mistakes. In this article, we first prove that the inconsistent label repairing problem is NP-complete. Then, we propose a graph repair approach for (1) detecting unsound structures, and (2) repairing inconsistent event names. Efficient pruning techniques together with two heuristic solutions are also presented. Extensive experiments over real and synthetic datasets demonstrate both the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".