REVIEW 1 cited by
On the Relative Trust between Inconsistent Data and Inaccurate Constraints
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
On the Relative Trust between Inconsistent Data and Inaccurate Constraints
read the original abstract
Functional dependencies (FDs) specify the intended data semantics while violations of FDs indicate deviation from these semantics. In this paper, we study a data cleaning problem in which the FDs may not be completely correct, e.g., due to data evolution or incomplete knowledge of the data semantics. We argue that the notion of relative trust is a crucial aspect of this problem: if the FDs are outdated, we should modify them to fit the data, but if we suspect that there are problems with the data, we should modify the data to fit the FDs. In practice, it is usually unclear how much to trust the data versus the FDs. To address this problem, we propose an algorithm for generating non-redundant solutions (i.e., simultaneous modifications of the data and the FDs) corresponding to various levels of relative trust. This can help users determine the best way to modify their data and/or FDs to achieve consistency.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Collaborative Large and Small Language Models for Accurate and Scalable Data Repair
LasRepair++ pairs an LLM instructor with an SLM corrector, refines context via EM, and down-weights uncertain repairs using column-calibrated confidence, reporting 18.1% average F1 gain over baselines on data repair tasks.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.