Data Quality Rule Generation with LLMs

High-stakes tabular pipelines rely on scattered, static quality checks that are hard to evolve and audit against policy intent. Regulated domains particularly suffer as the LLM-era automation raises expectations for traceability and accountability. We propose a vision for an ontology-grounded, repository-native data quality layer in which rules are first-class artifacts: versioned, provenance-linked to governance texts, and re-playable through immutable execution traces. As a first step toward validating this vision, we present a concrete implementation of its agentic rule-discovery core with two rule acquisition modes (Full-Agentic and Guided) and a human-in-the-loop (HITL) review interface. We define an evaluation framework and run experiments addressing whether our fully autonomous, divide-and-conquer agentic rule discovery produces rules of the same quality and diversity as those specified by a human expert, reporting preliminary results on two real world industry datasets in the finance and retail domains.

Despite decades of data quality (DQ) research, a gap remains between DQ dimensions, such as accuracy or completeness, which the literature defines in textual form, and DQ tools, which typically implement low-level checks that are not aligned with these dimensions. ISO/IEC 25024 and ISO/IEC 5259 attempt to bridge this gap by defining DQ metrics for each dimension. However, these DQ metrics are hardly used, because the standards leave open how to implement them: for example, the metric for syntactic accuracy counts syntactically accurate values, but does not state how to decide that a value is syntactically accurate. This simply moves the problem to another level without solving it. As a result, DQ assessment currently cannot build on the standards. In this paper, we make the ISO DQ metrics executable. We classify all data-level metrics of both standards into (i) generalizable metrics that need no input beyond the data, (ii) parameterized metrics whose parameters can be learned from clean reference data or set by an expert, and (iii) non-generalizable metrics that need qualitative judgment and cannot be automated. For the metrics that can be automated, i.e., categories (i) and (ii), we propose implementation guidelines that resolve what the standards leave open. We realize the guidelines in dqmeasure, an open-source library of 20 metrics that learns these parameters from reference data instead of relying on manually defined rules. Our experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets show that the metric scores decrease monotonically with an increasing number of injected errors, decline together with downstream ML performance, and scale linearly with the number of rows, which enables automated DQ monitoring based on the standards.

LLMs have been increasingly used to catch data quality issues automatically, but we know very little about how consistent these judgments actually are. This study tests an LLM on two e-commerce data quality tasks, entity matching and brand mislabeling, against rule based baselines and human verified ground truth, under both zero-shot and few-shot prompting. On entity matching while using the Abt Buy benchmark (2,194 labeled pairs), a simple rule based baseline (F1=0.950) performed about as well as LLM zero shot prompting (F1=0.948). Moreover, a few-shot prompt revision that looked effective on a small validation sample reduced full-scale performance to F1=0.914. This showed that small sample prompt evaluation can be misleading. On brand mislabeling detection, using 500 Amazon product listings with synthetically injected labeling errors, the LLM clearly outperformed a naive rule based baseline (F1=0.833 vs 0.721), because it could draw on background knowledge of brand product relationships that a simple rule could not access. Testing consistency across repeated runs (200 pairs, 5 runs at temperature 0.7) showed the model agreeing with itself 99.7% of the time on average, with 99% of pairs giving identical answers across all 5 runs. Using majority voting across these runs only improved F1 by 0.005, at 5 times the inference cost. These results suggest that the value of using an LLM over traditional methods depends heavily on the task. LLMs offer little advantage when strong lexical signals already exist, but a clear advantage when the task requires background knowledge, all while remaining highly consistent across repeated queries.