Predicting Data Contract Failures Using Machine Learning
Main Article Content
Abstract
Data contracts have emerged as a foundational mechanism for ensuring reliable communication between producers and consumers in modern distributed data ecosystems. They specify expected schemas, semantic intentions, and quality constraints, forming the basis for trustworthy data exchange across pipelines and organizational boundaries. Despite their growing adoption, contract violations remain a persistent operational challenge. These failures frequently stem from subtle schema shifts, unexpected type variations, incomplete records, or semantic inconsistencies introduced during upstream system changes. Traditional validation approaches—often built on static rules or manual inspection—struggle to keep pace with evolving datasets, diverse integration patterns, and continuous delivery cycles. As a result, contract breaches propagate downstream, causing pipeline interruptions, test instability, and avoidable production incidents. This paper presents a machine learning–driven framework designed to anticipate data contract failures before they manifest. The approach draws on both historical and real-time metadata, capturing patterns in schema evolution, anomaly trajectories, operational log signals, and field-level drift behavior. A hybrid modeling strategy is employed, combining gradient-boosted decision trees for structured anomaly detection, temporal drift modules for sequential pattern monitoring, and embedding-based schema representations for high-dimensional contract features. By integrating these components, the system provides early warning indicators that enable teams to intervene proactively rather than react after failures disrupt operations. The framework was evaluated using datasets from financial services, e-commerce platforms, and healthcare systems—domains characterized by diverse data heterogeneity and high operational sensitivity. Across these environments, the model achieved up to 79% accuracy in predicting contract violations, reduced downstream pipeline failures by 42%, and shortened incident triage time by 37%. These results highlight the potential of ML-driven predictive validation as a practical path toward resilient, self-monitoring data infrastructures in enterprise settings.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
D. J. Hernandez, A. S. David, E. S. Menges, C. A. Searcy, and M. E. Afkhami, “Environmental stress destabilizes microbial networks,” ISME J., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1722–1734, 2021.
H. Ouyang et al., “Resilience building and collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in response to a new state of more frequent and intense extreme weather events,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 162–169, 2023.
L. Huang, Z. Liang, N. Sreekumar, S. Kaushik, A. Chandra, and J. Weissman, “Towards elasticity in heterogeneous edge-dense environments,” in 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2022, pp. 403–413.
S. K. Gupta and S. Singh, “Energy efficient dynamic sink multi level heterogeneous extended distributed clustering routing for scalable WSN: ML-HEDEEC,” Wirel. Pers. Commun., vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 559–585, 2023.
Z. Wang et al., “Towards next-generation logic synthesis: A scalable neural circuit generation framework,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 37, pp. 99202–99231, 2024.
A. Hoffman et al., “Patients’ and providers’ needs and preferences when considering fertility preservation before cancer treatment: decision-making needs assessment,” JMIR Form. Res., vol. 5, no. 6, p. e25083, 2021.
B. Johnson, “The Compliance Paradox: Balancing Innovation and Regulation in AI-Blockchain-Based AML for Cryptocurrency Oversight,” 2025.
N. D. Khan, J. A. Khan, J. Li, T. Ullah, and Q. Zhao, “Mining software insights: uncovering the frequently occurring issues in low-rating software applications,” PeerJ Comput. Sci., vol. 10, p. e2115, 2024.
D. Silver, C. Childress, M. Lee, A. Slez, and F. Dias, “Balancing categorical conventionality in music,” Am. J. Sociol., vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 224–286, 2022.
L. E. Dee et al., “Clarifying the effect of biodiversity on productivity in natural ecosystems with longitudinal data and methods for causal inference,” Nat. Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 2607, 2023.
T. Hernandez-Boussard, A. Y. Lee, J. Stoyanovich, and L. Biven, “Promoting transparency in AI for biomedical and behavioral research,” Nat. Med., pp. 1–2, 2025.
R. Kumar, P. Kumar, and A. A. Elngar, “Scrutinizing Domain-Specific Integrated Web Query Interfaces for Enhanced Security and Reliability in Storage Systems,” in 2024 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA), 2024, pp. 1–9.
T. P. Campbell, X. Sun, V. H. Patel, C. Sanz, D. Morgan, and G. Dantas, “The microbiome and resistome of chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans across host lifestyle and geography,” ISME J., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1584–1599, 2020.
S. Mondal, S. Singh, and H. Gupta, “Green entrepreneurship and digitalization enabling the circular economy through sustainable waste management-An exploratory study of emerging economy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 422, p. 138433, 2023.
R.-J. Qin et al., “NeoRL: A near real-world benchmark for offline reinforcement learning,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 35, pp. 24753–24765, 2022.
Y. Hao et al., “Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data,” Cell, vol. 184, no. 13, pp. 3573–3587, 2021.
S. Chandra, “Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Governance: Enhancing the Resilience of Legal Systems, Mitigating Corruption, and Reinforcing Democratic Setup,” in Artificial Intelligence in Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2025, pp. 141–168.
M. D. Johnson et al., “API continuous cooling and antisolvent crystallization for kinetic impurity rejection in cGMP manufacturing,” Org. Process Res. Dev., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1284–1351, 2021.
K. E. Silver and R. F. Levant, “An appraisal of the American Psychological Association’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.,” Psychotherapy, vol. 56, no. 3, p. 347, 2019.
V. J. Straub, D. Morgan, Y. Hashem, J. Francis, S. Esnaashari, and J. Bright, “A multidomain relational framework to guide institutional AI research and adoption,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv2303.10106, 2023.