Papers › Automated data validation: an industrial experience report
Automated data validation: an industrial experience report
Lei Zhang, Sean Howard, Tom Montpool, Jessica Moore, Krittika Mahajan, Andriy Miranskyy
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
There has been a massive explosion of data generated by customers and retained by companies in the last decade. However, there is a significant mismatch between the increasing volume of data and the lack of automation methods and tools. The lack of best practices in data science programming may lead to software quality degradation, release schedule slippage, and budget overruns. To mitigate these concerns, we would like to bring software engineering best practices into data science. Specifically, we focus on automated data validation in the data preparation phase of the software development life cycle. This paper studies a real-world industrial case and applies software engineering best practices to develop an automated test harness called RESTORE. We release RESTORE as an open-source R package. Our experience report, done on the geodemographic data, shows that RESTORE enables efficient and effective detection of errors injected during the data preparation phase. RESTORE also significantly reduced the cost of testing. We hope that the community benefits from the open-source project and the practical advice based on our experience.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections