skip to main content
10.1145/1516360.1516413acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesedbtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Efficient top-k count queries over imprecise duplicates

Published:24 March 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose efficient techniques for processing various Top-K count queries on data with noisy duplicates. Our method differs from existing work on duplicate elimination in two significant ways: First, we dedup on the fly only the part of the data needed for the answer --- a requirement in massive and evolving sources where batch deduplication is expensive. The non-local nature of the problem of partitioning data into duplicate groups, makes it challenging to filter only those tuples forming the K largest groups. We propose a novel method of successively collapsing and pruning records which yield an order of magnitude reduction in running time compared to deduplicating the entire data first.

Second, we return multiple high scoring answers to handle situations where it is impossible to resolve if two records are indeed duplicates of each other. Since finding even the highest scoring deduplication is NP-hard, the existing approach is to deploy one of many variants of score-based clustering algorithms which do not easily generalize to finding multiple groupings. We model deduplication as a segmentation of a linear embedding of records and present a polynomial time algorithm for finding the R highest scoring answers. This method closely matches the accuracy of an exact exponential time algorithm on several datasets.

References

  1. R. Ananthakrishna, S. chaudhuri, and V. Ganti. Eliminating fuzzy duplicates in data warehouses. In VLDB, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. P. Andritsos, A. Fuxman, and R. J. Miller. Clean answers over dirty databases: A probabilistic approach. In ICDE, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Arasu, V. Ganti, and R. Kaushik. Efficient exact set-similarity joins. In VLDB, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Bansal, A. Blum, and S. Chawla. Correlation clustering. In FOCS '02: Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, page 238, Washington, DC, USA, 2002. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. I. Bhattacharya and L. Getoor. Collective entity resolution in relational data. TKDD, 1(1), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Bilenko. Learnable similarity functions and their applications to clustering and record linkage. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sixteenth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, July 25--29, 2004, San Jose, California, USA, pages 981--982. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Bilenko, S. Basu, and M. Sahami. Adaptive product normalization: Using online learning for record linkage in comparison shopping. In ICDM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Bilenko, B. Kamath, and R. J. Mooney. Adaptive blocking: Learning to scale up record linkage. In ICDM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Bilenko, R. Mooney, W. Cohen, P. Ravikumar, and S. Fienberg. Adaptive name-matching in information integration. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Charikar, V. Guruswami, and A. Wirth. Clustering with qualitative information. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 71(3):360--383, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Chaudhuri, B.-C. Chen, V. Ganti, and R. Kaushik. Example-driven design of efficient record matching queries. In VLDB, pages 327--338, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Chaudhuri, K. Ganjam, V. Ganti, and R. Motwani. Robust and efficient fuzzy match for online data cleaning. In SIGMOD, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Chaudhuri, V. Ganti, and R. Motwani. Robust identification of fuzzy duplicates. In ICDE, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Cheng, R. Kannan, S. Vempala, and G. Wang. A divide-and-merge methodology for clustering. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 31(4):1499--1525, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. W. Cohen and J. Richman. Learning to match and cluster entity names. In ACM SIGIR' 01 Workshop on Mathematical/Formal Methods in Information Retrieval, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. W. W. Cohen. Data integration using similarity joins and a word-based information representation language. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 18(3):288--321, July 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. X. Dong, A. Y. Halevy, and C. Yu. Data integration with uncertainty. In VLDB '07: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on Very large data bases, pages 687--698, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. I. P. Fellegi and A. B. Sunter. A theory for record linkage. Journal of the American Statistical Society, 64:1183--1210, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. L. Gravano, P. Ipeirotis, H. V. Jagadish, N. Koudas, S. Muthukrishnan, and D. Srivastava. Approximate string joins in a database (almost) for free. In Proc. of the 27th Int'l Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), Rome, Italy, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. I. F. Ilyas, G. Beskales, and M. A. Soliman. Survey of top-k query processing techniques in relational database systems,. To Appear in the ACM Computing Surveys, 2008, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. K. Jain and R. C. Dubes. Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice Hall, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. Ko, T. Mitamura, and E. Nyberg. Language-independent probabilistic answer ranking for question answering. In ACL, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. D. Koller and N. Friedman. Structured probabilistic models. Under preparation, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Y. Koren and D. Harel. A multi-scale algorithm for the linear arrangement problem. In WG, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. Li, K. C.-C. Chang, and I. F. Ilyas. Supporting ad-hoc ranking aggregates. In SIGMOD Conference, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. McCallum, K. Nigam, and L. H. Ungar. Efficient clustering of high-dimensional data sets with application to reference matching. In Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 169--178, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. McCallum and B. Wellner. Toward conditional models of identity uncertainty with application to proper noun coreference. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-2003 Workshop on Information Integration on the Web, pages 79--86, Acapulco, Mexico, Aug. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. A. E. Monge and C. P. Elkan. The field matching problem: Algorithms and applications. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-96), 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. H. Pasula, B. Marthi, B. Milch, S. Russell, and I. Shpitser. Identity uncertainty and citation matching. In Advances in Neural Processing Systems 15, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2002. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. S. Sarawagi. The crf project: a java implementation. http://crf.sourceforge.net, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Sarawagi and A. Bhamidipaty. Interactive deduplication using active learning. In Proc. of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining(KDD-2002), Edmonton, Canada, July 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. S. Sarawagi and A. Kirpal. Scaling up the alias duplicate elimination system: A demostration. In Proc. of the 19th IEEE Int'l Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Bangalore, March 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. S. Sarawagi and A. Kirpal. Efficient set joins on similarity predicates. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. A. D. Sarma, X. Dong, and A. Halevy. Bootstrapping pay-as-you-go data integration systems. In SIGMOD '08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. A. Soliman, I. F. Ilyas, and K. C.-C. Chang. Probabilistic top- and ranking-aggregate queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 33(3), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. M. L. Wick, K. Rohanimanesh, K. Schultz, and A. McCallum. A unified approach for schema matching, coreference and canonicalization. In KDD, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. X. Yang, B. Wang, and C. Li. Cost-based variable-length-gram selection for string collections to support approximate queries efficiently. In SIGMOD Conference, pages 353--364, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Efficient top-k count queries over imprecise duplicates

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        EDBT '09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Extending Database Technology: Advances in Database Technology
        March 2009
        1180 pages
        ISBN:9781605584225
        DOI:10.1145/1516360

        Copyright © 2009 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 March 2009

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate7of10submissions,70%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader