The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conditional functional dependencies for capturing data inconsistencies
Abstract
We propose a class of integrity constraints for relational databases, referred to as conditional functional dependencies (CFDs), and study their applications in data cleaning. In contrast to traditional functional dependencies (FDs) that were developed mainly for schema design, CFDs aim at capturing the consistency of data by enforcing bindings of semantically related values. For static analysis of CFDs we investigate the consistency problem , which is to determine whether or not there exists a nonempty database satisfying a given set of CFDs, and the implication problem , which is to decide whether or not a set of CFDs entails another CFD. We show that while any set of transitional FDs is trivially consistent, the consistency problem is NP-complete for CFDs, but it is in PTIME when either the database schema is predefined or no attributes involved in the CFDs have a finite domain. For the implication analysis of CFDs, we provide an inference system analogous to Armstrong's axioms for FDs, and show that the implication problem is coNP-complete for CFDs in contrast to the linear-time complexity for their traditional counterpart. We also present an algorithm for computing a minimal cover of a set of CFDs. Since CFDs allow data bindings, in some cases CFDs may be physically large, complicating the detection of constraint violations. We develop techniques for detecting CFD violations in SQL as well as novel techniques for checking multiple constraints by a single query. We also provide incremental methods for checking CFDs in response to changes to the database. We experimentally verify the effectiveness of our CFD-based methods for inconsistency detection. This work not only yields a constraint theory for CFDs but is also a step toward a practical constraint-based method for improving data quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Holistic data cleaning: Putting violations into context
Chu, X., Ilyas, I. F., & Papotti, P. (2013) · 2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde.2013.6544847 · Cited by 326
Data quality: The other face of Big Data
Saha, B., & Srivastava, D. (2014) · 2014 IEEE 30th International Conference on Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/icde.2014.6816764 · Cited by 262
Conflict resolution with data currency and consistency
Fan, W., Geerts, F., Tang, N., & Yu, W. (2014) · Journal of Data and Information Quality · doi:10.1145/2631923 · Cited by 30
Self-citationThe Full Provenance Stack: Five Layers for Complete and Meaningful Provenance
Ko, R. K. L., & Phua, T. W. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72395-2_18 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Fan, W., Geerts, F., Jia, X., & Kementsietsidis, A.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Database Systems
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1-48
- ISSN
- 0362-5915 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-4644
- OpenAlex
- W2171332293
- Cited by
- 460
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conditional functional dependencies for capturing data inconsistencies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1366102.1366103
- The paper
- Fan, W., Geerts, F., Jia, X., & Kementsietsidis, A. (2008). Conditional functional dependencies for capturing data inconsistencies. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1366102.1366103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.