Inconsistent Data Management

We develop fundamental approaches to managing data quality in inconsistent databases

Managing data quality, and particularly data inconsistency, has been one of the major challenges in the research and practice of database management. Sources of inconsistency include imprecise processes of data generation such as mistakes in manual form filling and noisy sensing equipment, as well as data integration where different source databases may contain conflicting information. This problem becomes even more important and central to data management in modern times, where data repositories are increasingly based on imprecise processes (e.g., crowdsourcing and information extraction from natural language) and integration of repositories with varying levels of reliability. In our research, we aim to develop fundamental approaches to managing data quality, including ways to clean, query, and measure the error level in inconsistent databases.

People

Publications

  1. Stress-Testing Causal Claims via Cardinality Repairs

    Yarden Gabbay, Haoquan Guan, Shaull Almagor, El Kindi Rezig, Brit Youngmann, Babak Salimi

    SIGMOD 2026: 1-24

    Inconsistent Data Management

  2. Computing Inconsistency Measures Under Differential Privacy

    Shubhankar Mohapatra, Amir Gilad, Xi He, Benny Kimelfeld

    SIGMOD 2025: 1-27

    Inconsistent Data Management

  3. Repairing Databases over Metric Spaces with Coincidence Constraints

    Youri Kaminsky, Benny Kimelfeld, Ester Livshits, Felix Naumann, David Wajc

    ICDT 2025

    Inconsistent Data Management

  4. The Cost of Representation by Subset Repairs

    Yuxi Liu, Fangzhu Shen, Kushagra Ghosh, Amir Gilad, Benny Kimelfeld, Sudeepa Roy

    VLDB 2025

    Inconsistent Data Management

  5. A Unifying Framework for Incompleteness, Inconsistency, and Uncertainty in Databases

    Benny Kimelfeld, Phokion G. Kolaitis

    Communications of the ACM 67(3): 74-83 (2024)

    Inconsistent Data Management

  6. Database Repairing with Soft Functional Dependencies

    Nofar Carmeli, Martin Grohe, Benny Kimelfeld, Ester Livshits, Muhammad Tibi

    ACM TODS 2024

    Inconsistent Data Management

  7. Counting Subset Repairs with Functional Dependencies

    Ester Livshits, Benny Kimelfeld, Jef Wijsen

    J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 117: 154-164 (2021)

    Inconsistent Data Management Enumeration Algorithms

  8. Database Repairing with Soft Functional Dependencies

    Nofar Carmeli, Martin Grohe, Benny Kimelfeld, Ester Livshits, Muhammad Tibi

    ICDT 2021

    Inconsistent Data Management

  9. Properties of Inconsistency Measures for Databases

    Ester Livshits, Rina Kochirgan, Segev Tsur, Ihab F. Ilyas, Benny Kimelfeld, Sudeepa Roy

    SIGMOD 2021: 1182-1194

    Inconsistent Data Management

  10. The Shapley Value of Inconsistency Measures for Functional Dependencies

    Ester Livshits, Benny Kimelfeld

    ICDT 2021

    Inconsistent Data Management

  11. Approximate Denial Constraints

    Ester Livshits, Alireza Heidari, Ihab F. Ilyas, Benny Kimelfeld

    PVLDB 13: 1682-1695 (2020)

    Inconsistent Data Management

  12. Counting and Enumerating Preferred Database Repairs

    Benny Kimelfeld, Ester Livshits, Liat Peterfreund

    Theor. Comput. Sci. 2020

    Enumeration Algorithms Inconsistent Data Management

  13. A Formal Framework For Probabilistic Unclean Databases

    Christopher De Sa, Ihab F. Ilyas, Benny Kimelfeld, Christopher Ré, Theodoros Rekatsinas

    ICDT 2019

    Inconsistent Data Management

    Abstract

    Most theoretical frameworks that focus on data errors and inconsistencies follow logic-based reasoning. Yet, practical data cleaning tools need to incorporate statistical reasoning to be effective in real-world data cleaning tasks. Motivated by these empirical successes, we propose a formal framework for unclean databases, where two types of statistical knowledge are incorporated: The first represents a belief of how intended (clean) data is generated, and the second represents a belief of how noise is introduced in the actual observed database instance.

    To capture this noisy channel model, we introduce the concept of a Probabilistic Unclean Database, a triple that consists of a probabilistic database that we call the intention, a probabilistic data transformator that we call the realization and captures how noise is introduced, and a dirty observed database instance that we call the observation. We define three computational problems in the PUD framework: cleaning (infer the most probable clean instance given a PUD), probabilistic query answering (compute the probability of an answer tuple over the unclean observed instance), and learning (estimate the most likely intention and realization models of a PUD given a collection of training data). We illustrate the PUD framework on concrete representations of the intention and realization, show that they generalize traditional concepts of repairs such as cardinality and value repairs, draw connection to consistent query answering, and prove tractability results. We further show that parameters can be learned in practical instantiations, and in fact, prove that under certain conditions we can learn a PUD directly from a single dirty database instance without any need for clean examples.

  14. Computing Optimal Repairs for Functional Dependencies

    Ester Livshits, Benny Kimelfeld, Sudeepa Roy

    PODS 2018: 225-237

    Inconsistent Data Management

    Abstract

    We investigate the complexity of computing an optimal repair of an inconsistent database, in the case where integrity constraints are Functional Dependencies (FDs). We focus on two types of repairs: an optimal subset repair (optimal S-repair) that is obtained by a minimum number of tuple deletions, and an optimal update repair (optimal U-repair) that is obtained by a minimum number of value (cell) updates. For computing an optimal S-repair, we present a polynomial-time algorithm that succeeds on certain sets of FDs and fails on others. We prove the following about the algorithm. When it succeeds, it can also incorporate weighted tuples and duplicate tuples. When it fails, the problem is NP-hard, and in fact, APX-complete (hence, cannot be approximated better than some constant). Thus, we establish a dichotomy in the complexity of computing an optimal Srepair. We present general analysis techniques for the complexity of computing an optimal U-repair, some based on the dichotomy for S-repairs. We also draw a connection to a past dichotomy in the complexity of finding a “most probable database” that satisfies a set of FDs with a single attribute on the left hand side; the case of general FDs was left open, and we show how our dichotomy provides the missing generalization and thereby settles the open problem.

  15. Counting and Enumerating (Preferred) Database Repairs

    Ester Livshits, Benny Kimelfeld

    PODS 2017: 289-301

    Enumeration Algorithms Inconsistent Data Management

    Abstract

    In the traditional sense, a subset repair of an inconsistent database refers to a consistent subset of facts (tuples) that is maximal under set containment. Preferences between pairs of facts allow to distinguish a set of preferred repairs based on relative reliability (source credibility, extraction quality, recency, etc.) of data items. Previous studies explored the problem of categoricity, where one aims to determine whether preferences suffice to repair the database unambiguously, or in other words, whether there is precisely one preferred repair. In this paper we study the ability to quantify ambiguity, by investigating two classes of problems. The first is that of counting the number of subset repairs, both preferred (under various common semantics) and traditional. We establish dichotomies in data complexity for the entire space of (sets of) functional dependencies. The second class of problems is that of enumerating (i.e., generating) the preferred repairs. We devise enumeration algorithms with efficiency guarantees on the delay between generated repairs, even for constraints represented as general conflict graphs or hypergraphs.

  16. Detecting Ambiguity in Prioritized Database Repairing

    Benny Kimelfeld, Ester Livshits, Liat Peterfreund

    ICDT 2017: 17:1-17:20

    Inconsistent Data Management Preference Data Management

    Abstract

    In its traditional definition, a repair of an inconsistent database is a consistent database that differs from the inconsistent one in a “minimal way.” Often, repairs are not equally legitimate, as it is desired to prefer one over another; for example, one fact is regarded more reliable than another, or a more recent fact should be preferred to an earlier one. Motivated by these considerations, researchers have introduced and investigated the framework of preferred repairs, in the context of denial constraints and subset repairs. There, a priority relation between facts is lifted towards a priority relation between consistent databases, and repairs are restricted to the ones that are optimal in the lifted sense. Three notions of lifting (and optimal repairs) have been proposed: Pareto, global, and completion. In this paper we investigate the complexity of deciding whether the priority relation suffices to clean the database unambiguously, or in other words, whether there is exactly one optimal repair. We show that the different lifting semantics entail highly different complexities. Under Pareto optimality, the problem is coNP-complete, in data complexity, for every set of functional dependencies (FDs), except for the tractable case of (equivalence to) one FD per relation. Under global optimality, one FD per relation is still tractable, but we establish Pi-2-p-completeness for a relation with two FDs. In contrast, under completion optimality the problem is solvable in polynomial time for every set of FDs. In fact, we present a polynomial-time algorithm for arbitrary conflict hypergraphs. We further show that under a general assumption of transitivity, this algorithm solves the problem even for global optimality. The algorithm is extremely simple, but its proof of correctness is quite intricate.