Industry News
October 9, 2026
1 min read
3 views

An Explainable Header-Centric Framework for Large-Scale Semantic Table Interpretation and Data Quality Assessment

Original Source

ArXiv AI (cs.AI)

by Marcelo Valentim Silva, Hannes Herrmann, Valerie Maxville
arXiv:2610.10541v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge Graph (KG) quality depends not only on downstream graph validation, but also on the quality of tabular metadata used before integration. In metadata-only Semantic Table Interpretation (STI), where cell values are unavailab

arXiv:2610.10541v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge Graph (KG) quality depends not only on downstream graph validation, but also on the quality of tabular metadata used before integration. In metadata-only Semantic Table Interpretation (STI), where cell values are unavailable, noisy, or unsuitable, column headers become a critical source of semantic evidence for traceable KG preparation. We present an explainable, header-centric framework for metadata-only Column Type Annotation (CTA) and Data Quality Assessment (DQA). The framework maps headers to 39 interpretable FinalFormat types using curated lexical resources and preserves token-level traceability through SourceKeywords. Each assigned type activates validation rules based on a taxonomy of Data Quality Issues (DQIs), producing detections such as missing data, duplicates, domain violations, wrong data type, and temporal mismatch. These detections are aggregated into HeadersIQ, a lightweight, unweighted data source-level quality metric. The framework was evaluated across heterogeneous benchmarks, including UCI, Prague, Kaggle, VizNet/Sato, SOTAB, T2Dv2, and the SemTab 2024 Metadata-to-KG track, comprising around 120,000 header columns. The results show broad practical coverage across noisy real-world metadata, while a parallel KG-mapping pathway supports alignment to DBpedia and Schema.org. On the SemTab 2024 Metadata-to-KG track, the official GT-strict evaluation was modest. However, a blinded diagnostic audit indicates that many mismatches reflect benchmark granularity, aliasing, and ontology-selection effects rather than wholly implausible header-centric predictions. We report this audit as diagnostic evidence on disagreement patterns, not as revised benchmark performance. Overall, the paper presents a reusable workflow for metadata-driven semantic annotation, data source-level quality monitoring, and KG-oriented benchmark diagnosis.

Tags:AIMeta

Original Content Credit

This summary is sourced from ArXiv AI (cs.AI). For the complete article with full details, research data, and author insights, please visit the original source.

Visit ArXiv AI (cs.AI)

Related Articles

Verification and Self-Improvement in Agentic AI: Foundations and Limits
ArXiv AI (cs.AI)
AI Agents1m

Verification and Self-Improvement in Agentic AI: Foundations and Limits

arXiv:2610.10611v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI systems can improve by searching longer, receiving additional support, or modifying how they propose and verify outputs. A performance score does not distinguish these mechanisms. We compare these changes through bounded

Oct 9, 2026