跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1878新增论文
+1565其中 AI 相关
+113已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-10 12:17 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-10 13:19各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-09 13:48 — 2026-11-10 13:48(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-10 12:17最近发现新增版本:2026-11-10 13:19库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-09 16:22

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

20,050 已收录论文17,071 AI 相关5,370 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-10 12:16(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.11045

Agents Propose, Code Verifies, Humans Decide: Verified Agentic Ingestion of Heterogeneous Scientific Tables into Relational Databases

Bharatha Rankothge, Suzanne Hodgkins, Virginia Rich, Michael Kirby

原文摘要

Public scientific datasets rarely arrive analysis-ready. They arrive as messy folders of wide matrices, long tables, spreadsheets, and per-cohort files whose keys and encodings differ, and every reanalysis must reconnect them first. A coding agent can automate this, but its mistakes can look plausible, and without an audit trail, a mistake that corrupts data can go uncaught. We present an AI-assisted ingestion pipeline built on one rule: LLM agents propose, deterministic code verifies, and humans decide. Narrow agents see compact, citable evidence about the files, never the data, and return typed proposals. A verifier with 39 check types tests each proposal against that evidence in two loops, one for the schema's structure and one for its meaning, and a human reviewer approves the schema and the load. Code compiles PostgreSQL DDL, reshapes the data, quarantines rows it cannot place, records provenance, and reconciles every staged row against the database. On four public biomedical datasets, one held out from development, 9 of 20 first proposals failed a check and every failure was caught: the loops repaired eight, and a one-line reviewer edit fixed the ninth. All 45.1 million values loaded with zero reconciliation gap. Discovering a dataset's structure took 4-7 LLM calls and preparing its data at most one more, costing under $0.50 per dataset. In a separate test, each of nine planted data errors was quarantined with a reason or recorded in an audit log.

cs.DB · cs.AI · q-bio.QM