Accurate Summary-based Cardinality Estimation Through the Lens of Cardinality Estimation Graphs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study two classes of summary-based cardinality estimators that use statistics about input relations and small-size joins: (i) optimistic estimators, which were defined in the context of graph database management systems, that make uniformity and conditional independence assumptions; and (ii) the recent pessimistic estimators that use information theoretic linear programs (LPs). We show that optimistic estimators can be modeled as picking bottom-to-top paths in a cardinality estimation graph (CEG), which contains subqueries as nodes and edges whose weights are average degree statistics. We show that existing optimistic estimators have either undefined or fixed choices for picking CEG paths as their estimates and ignore alternative choices. Instead, we outline a space of optimistic estimators to make an estimate on CEGs, which subsumes existing estimators. We show, using an extensive empirical analysis, that effective paths depend on the structure of the queries. We next show that optimistic estimators and seemingly disparate LP-based pessimistic estimators are in fact connected. Specifically, we show that CEGs can also model some recent pessimistic estimators. This connection allows us to provide insights into the pessimistic estimators, such as showing that they have combinatorial solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it