Saggitarius: A DSL for Specifying Grammatical Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common data types like dates, addresses, phone numbers and tables can have multiple textual representations, and many heavily-used languages, such as SQL, come in several dialects. These variations can cause data to be misinterpreted, leading to silent data corruption, failure of data processing systems, or even security vulnerabilities. Saggitarius is a new language and system designed to help programmers reason about the format of data, by describing grammatical domains---that is, sets of context-free grammars that describe the many possible representations of a datatype. We describe the design of Saggitarius via example and provide a relational semantics. We show how Saggitarius may be used to analyze a data set: given example data, it uses an algorithm based on semi-ring parsing and MaxSAT to infer which grammar in a given domain best matches that data. We evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm on a benchmark suite of 110 example problems, and we demonstrate that our system typically returns a satisfying grammar within a few seconds with only a small number of examples. We also delve deeper into a more extensive case study on using Saggitarius for CSV dialect detection. Despite being general-purpose, we find that Saggitarius offers comparable results to hand-tuned, specialized tools; in the case of CSV, it infers grammars for 84% of benchmarks within 60 seconds, and has comparable accuracy to custom-built dialect detection tools.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".