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,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2017-05
Main Authors: Chung, Yeounoh, Krishnan, Sanjay, Kraska, Tim
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 &amp; 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