MixedSAND: Semantic Annotation of Mixed-unit Numeric Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative information about entities constitutes a significant portion of tabular data in open sources and data lakes.Such tables often lack consistent labeling and proper schema, posing significant challenges for querying and integration.This paper studies the problem of numerical column annotation in scenarios where quantitative data may be gathered from different sources and unit consistency is a concern.For instance, weight measurements may vary between entities, expressed in kilograms for some and pounds for others, with no accompanying unit information.We investigate the conditions for effectively annotating mixed-unit numeric data, introduce a benchmark for such an annotation task, and propose an algorithm that reliably detects semantic types (e.g., height) and links them to the corresponding types present in a knowledge graph.Our evaluation on a diverse set of columns with mixed units and varying levels of annotation difficulty shows that our method significantly outperforms strong baselines such as GPT-4o-mini and SAND in terms of accuracy, excelling in both detecting mixed units and annotating them with appropriate semantic labels.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".