A Cognitive Model of Human Bias in Matching

The schema matching problem is at the basis of integrating structured and semi-structured data. Being investigated in the fields of databases, AI, semantic Web and data mining for many years, the core challenge still remains the ability to create quality matchers, automatic tools for identifying correspondences among data concepts (e.g., database attributes). In this work, we investigate human matchers behavior using a new concept termed match consistency and introduce a novel use of cognitive models to explain human matcher performance. Using empirical evidence, we further show that human matching suffers from predictable biases when matching schemata, which prevent them from providing consistent matching.

[1]  Avigdor Gal,et al.  Heterogeneous Data Integration by Learning to Rerank Schema Matches , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM).

[2]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[3]  L. Barsalou.  Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists , 1992 .

[4]  Gerardo Hermosillo,et al.  Supervised learning from multiple experts: whom to trust when everyone lies a bit , 2009, ICML '09.

[5]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  The puzzle of study time allocation for the most challenging items , 2017, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  J. Euzenat,et al.  Ontology Matching , 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[8]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Measures of association for cross classifications , 1979 .

[9]  Karl Aberer,et al.  On Leveraging Crowdsourcing Techniques for Schema Matching Networks , 2013, DASFAA.

[10]  Avigdor Gal,et al.  From Diversity-based Prediction to Better Ontology & Schema Matching , 2016, WWW.

[11]  Elena Paslaru Bontas Simperl,et al.  CrowdMap: Crowdsourcing Ontology Alignment with Microtasks , 2012, SEMWEB.

[12]  A. Koriat.  When Reality Is Out of Focus: Can People Tell Whether Their Beliefs and Judgments Are Correct or Wrong? , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  R. Bjork,et al.  Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[14]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Pay-as-you-go user feedback for dataspace systems , 2008, SIGMOD Conference.

[15]  Patrick Lambrix,et al.  User Validation in Ontology Alignment , 2016, SEMWEB.

[16]  Jayant Madhavan,et al.  Corpus-Based Knowledge Representation , 2003, IJCAI.

[17]  AnHai Doan,et al.  Matching Schemas in Online Communities: A Web 2.0 Approach , 2008, 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[18]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Schema Matching and Mapping , 2013, Schema Matching and Mapping.

[19]  Eric Peukert,et al.  AMC - A framework for modelling and comparing matching systems as matching processes , 2011, 2011 IEEE 27th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[20]  Karl Aberer,et al.  Pay-as-you-go reconciliation in schema matching networks , 2014, 2014 IEEE 30th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[21]  Tim Kraska,et al.  CrowdDB: answering queries with crowdsourcing , 2011, SIGMOD '11.

[22]  Avigdor Gal,et al.  Uncertain Schema Matching , 2011, Uncertain Schema Matching.

[23]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing , 2017 .

[24]  Avigdor Gal,et al.  In schema matching, even experts are human: Towards expert sourcing in schema matching , 2014, 2014 IEEE 30th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops.

[25]  J C Simonsen.  Coefficient of variation as a measure of subject effort. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches , 2002, VLDB.

[27]  J. Suls,et al.  Flawed Self-Assessment , 2004, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[28]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  Lei Chen,et al.  Reducing Uncertainty of Schema Matching via Crowdsourcing with Accuracy Rates , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[30]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Generic schema matching, ten years later , 2011, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[31]  Vasilis Vassalos,et al.  Two Phase User Driven Schema Matching , 2015, ADBIS.

[32]  Avigdor Gal,et al.  What Type of a Matcher Are You?: Coordination of Human and Algorithmic Matchers , 2018, HILDA@SIGMOD.

[33]  Neil Brewer,et al.  The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[34]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Machine Learning and Constraint Programming for Relational-To-Ontology Schema Mapping , 2018, IJCAI.

[35]  Asher Koriat,et al.  Subjective confidence in one's answers: the consensuality principle. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.