Cited by 24Data Quality and ManagementAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningMachine Learning and Data Classification

Planning meets Data Cleansing

Open access
Boselli, Roberto, Cesarini, Mirko, Mercorio, Fabio, Mezzanzanica, Mario·2014·Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling

Abstract

One of the motivations for research in data quality is to automatically identify cleansing activities, namely a sequence of actions able to cleanse a dirty dataset, which today are often developed manually by domain-experts. Here we explore the idea that AI Planning can contribute to identify data inconsistencies and automatically fix them. To this end, we formalise the concept of cost-optimal Universal Cleanser — a collection of cleansing actions for each data inconsistency — as a planning problem. We present then a motivating government application in which it has be used.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/icaps.v24i1.13667

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Methods to automatically identify appropriate data cleaning activities for an incomplete or biased dataset are still emerging, but could be achieved with frameworks such as MLClean, HoloClean, Activeclean and Universal Cleanser.

    “Methods to automatically identify the appropriate data cleaning activities for an incomplete or biased dataset are still emerging, but could be achieved with the use of frameworks such as MLClean (that removes data poisoning to help training accurate and fair models [100]) and tools such as like HoloClean, Activeclean [98,99] and Universal Cleanser [160].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dallachiesa, M.; Ebaid, A.; Eldawy, A.; Elmagarmid, A. K.; Ilyas, I. F.; Ouzzani, M.; and Tang, N. 2013. Nadeef: a commodity data cleaning system. In Ross, K. A.; Srivastava, D.; and Papadias, D., eds., SIGMOD Conference, 541-552.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boselli, R., Cesarini, M., Mercorio, F., & Mezzanzanica, M.
Affiliations
University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
Venue
Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling
Published
2014-05-11
Volume
24
Pages
439-443
ISSN
  • 2334-0835 (ISSN-L)
  • 2334-0843
OpenAlex
W2240123196
Cited by
24
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4
FWCI
8.61
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (publishedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
data cleaning, data quality, automated planning, data inconsistency

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