Loading…
A Data Quality Metric (DQM): How to Estimate The Number of Undetected Errors in Data Sets
Data cleaning, whether manual or algorithmic, is rarely perfect leaving a dataset with an unknown number of false positives and false negatives after cleaning. In many scenarios, quantifying the number of remaining errors is challenging because our data integrity rules themselves may be incomplete,...
Saved in:
Published in: | arXiv.org 2017-05 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | arXiv.org |
container_volume | |
creator | Chung, Yeounoh Krishnan, Sanjay Kraska, Tim |
description | Data cleaning, whether manual or algorithmic, is rarely perfect leaving a dataset with an unknown number of false positives and false negatives after cleaning. In many scenarios, quantifying the number of remaining errors is challenging because our data integrity rules themselves may be incomplete, or the available gold-standard datasets may be too small to extrapolate. As the use of inherently fallible crowds becomes more prevalent in data cleaning problems, it is important to have estimators to quantify the extent of such errors. We propose novel species estimators to estimate the number of distinct remaining errors in a dataset after it has been cleaned by a set of crowd workers -- essentially, quantifying the utility of hiring additional workers to clean the dataset. This problem requires new estimators that are robust to false positives and false negatives, and we empirically show on three real-world datasets that existing species estimators are unstable for this problem, while our proposed techniques quickly converge. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2076091549</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2076091549</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20760915493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjMsKgkAUQIcgSMp_uNCmFsI4vrJdlNHGQLJFK5nqSoo6NXMl-vuC-oBWZ3EOZ8As4Xmus_CFGDHbmJpzLsJIBIFnsdMKNpIkZL1sKnpBiqSrC8w2WTpfwk49gRQkhqpWEkJ-Q9j37Rk1qBKO3RUJL4RXSLRW2kDVfW8HJDNhw1I2Bu0fx2y6TfL1zrlr9ejRUFGrXncfVQgehTx2Az_2_qveWkg_pw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2076091549</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Data Quality Metric (DQM): How to Estimate The Number of Undetected Errors in Data Sets</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><creator>Chung, Yeounoh ; Krishnan, Sanjay ; Kraska, Tim</creator><creatorcontrib>Chung, Yeounoh ; Krishnan, Sanjay ; Kraska, Tim</creatorcontrib><description>Data cleaning, whether manual or algorithmic, is rarely perfect leaving a dataset with an unknown number of false positives and false negatives after cleaning. In many scenarios, quantifying the number of remaining errors is challenging because our data integrity rules themselves may be incomplete, or the available gold-standard datasets may be too small to extrapolate. As the use of inherently fallible crowds becomes more prevalent in data cleaning problems, it is important to have estimators to quantify the extent of such errors. We propose novel species estimators to estimate the number of distinct remaining errors in a dataset after it has been cleaned by a set of crowd workers -- essentially, quantifying the utility of hiring additional workers to clean the dataset. This problem requires new estimators that are robust to false positives and false negatives, and we empirically show on three real-world datasets that existing species estimators are unstable for this problem, while our proposed techniques quickly converge.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Cleaning ; Datasets ; Estimators</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2017-05</ispartof><rights>2017. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2076091549?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>780,784,25753,37012,44590</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chung, Yeounoh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krishnan, Sanjay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraska, Tim</creatorcontrib><title>A Data Quality Metric (DQM): How to Estimate The Number of Undetected Errors in Data Sets</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>Data cleaning, whether manual or algorithmic, is rarely perfect leaving a dataset with an unknown number of false positives and false negatives after cleaning. In many scenarios, quantifying the number of remaining errors is challenging because our data integrity rules themselves may be incomplete, or the available gold-standard datasets may be too small to extrapolate. As the use of inherently fallible crowds becomes more prevalent in data cleaning problems, it is important to have estimators to quantify the extent of such errors. We propose novel species estimators to estimate the number of distinct remaining errors in a dataset after it has been cleaned by a set of crowd workers -- essentially, quantifying the utility of hiring additional workers to clean the dataset. This problem requires new estimators that are robust to false positives and false negatives, and we empirically show on three real-world datasets that existing species estimators are unstable for this problem, while our proposed techniques quickly converge.</description><subject>Cleaning</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Estimators</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjMsKgkAUQIcgSMp_uNCmFsI4vrJdlNHGQLJFK5nqSoo6NXMl-vuC-oBWZ3EOZ8As4Xmus_CFGDHbmJpzLsJIBIFnsdMKNpIkZL1sKnpBiqSrC8w2WTpfwk49gRQkhqpWEkJ-Q9j37Rk1qBKO3RUJL4RXSLRW2kDVfW8HJDNhw1I2Bu0fx2y6TfL1zrlr9ejRUFGrXncfVQgehTx2Az_2_qveWkg_pw</recordid><startdate>20170526</startdate><enddate>20170526</enddate><creator>Chung, Yeounoh</creator><creator>Krishnan, Sanjay</creator><creator>Kraska, Tim</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170526</creationdate><title>A Data Quality Metric (DQM): How to Estimate The Number of Undetected Errors in Data Sets</title><author>Chung, Yeounoh ; Krishnan, Sanjay ; Kraska, Tim</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20760915493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Cleaning</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Estimators</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chung, Yeounoh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krishnan, Sanjay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraska, Tim</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chung, Yeounoh</au><au>Krishnan, Sanjay</au><au>Kraska, Tim</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>A Data Quality Metric (DQM): How to Estimate The Number of Undetected Errors in Data Sets</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2017-05-26</date><risdate>2017</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>Data cleaning, whether manual or algorithmic, is rarely perfect leaving a dataset with an unknown number of false positives and false negatives after cleaning. In many scenarios, quantifying the number of remaining errors is challenging because our data integrity rules themselves may be incomplete, or the available gold-standard datasets may be too small to extrapolate. As the use of inherently fallible crowds becomes more prevalent in data cleaning problems, it is important to have estimators to quantify the extent of such errors. We propose novel species estimators to estimate the number of distinct remaining errors in a dataset after it has been cleaned by a set of crowd workers -- essentially, quantifying the utility of hiring additional workers to clean the dataset. This problem requires new estimators that are robust to false positives and false negatives, and we empirically show on three real-world datasets that existing species estimators are unstable for this problem, while our proposed techniques quickly converge.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | EISSN: 2331-8422 |
ispartof | arXiv.org, 2017-05 |
issn | 2331-8422 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2076091549 |
source | Publicly Available Content (ProQuest) |
subjects | Cleaning Datasets Estimators |
title | A Data Quality Metric (DQM): How to Estimate The Number of Undetected Errors in Data Sets |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T12%3A46%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=A%20Data%20Quality%20Metric%20(DQM):%20How%20to%20Estimate%20The%20Number%20of%20Undetected%20Errors%20in%20Data%20Sets&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Chung,%20Yeounoh&rft.date=2017-05-26&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2076091549%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20760915493%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2076091549&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |