  An important part of cooking with computers is using statistical methods to
create new, flavorful ingredient combinations. The flavor pairing hypothesis
states that culinary ingredients with common chemical flavor components combine
well to produce pleasant dishes. It has been recently shown that this design
principle is a basis for modern Western cuisine and is reversed for Asian
cuisine.
  Such data-driven analysis compares the chemistry of ingredients to ingredient
sets found in recipes. However, analytics-based generation of novel flavor
profiles can only be as good as the underlying chemical and recipe data.
Incomplete, inaccurate, and irrelevant data may degrade flavor pairing
inferences. Chemical data on flavor compounds is incomplete due to the nature
of the experiments that must be conducted to obtain it. Recipe data may have
issues due to text parsing errors, imprecision in textual descriptions of
ingredients, and the fact that the same ingredient may be known by different
names in different recipes. Moreover, the process of matching ingredients in
chemical data and recipe data may be fraught with mistakes. Much of the
`dirtiness' of the data cannot be cleansed even with manual curation.
  In this work, we collect a new data set of recipes from Medieval Europe
before the Columbian Exchange and investigate the flavor pairing hypothesis
historically. To investigate the role of data incompleteness and error as part
of this hypothesis testing, we use two separate chemical compound data sets
with different levels of cleanliness. Notably, the different data sets give
conflicting conclusions about the flavor pairing hypothesis in Medieval Europe.
As a contribution towards social science, we obtain inferences about the
evolution of culinary arts when many new ingredients are suddenly made
available.
