Parallel Acyclic Joins: Optimal Algorithms and Cyclicity Separation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study equi-join computation in the massively parallel computation (MPC) model. Currently, a main open question under this topic is whether it is possible to design an algorithm that can process any join with load O(N polylog N/p 1/ρ* ) — measured in the number of words communicated per machine — where N is the total number of tuples in the input relations, ρ * is the join’s fractional edge covering number, and p is the number of machines. We settle the question in the negative for the class of tuple-based algorithms (all the known MPC join algorithms fall in this class) by proving the existence of a join query with ρ * = 2 that requires a load of Ω ( N/p 1/3 ) to evaluate. Our lower bound provides solid evidence that the “AGM bound” alone is not sufficient for characterizing the hardness of join evaluation in MPC (a phenomenon that does not exist in RAM). The hard join instance identified in our argument is cyclic, which leaves the question of whether O(N polylog N/p 1/ρ* ) is still possible for acyclic joins. We answer this question in the affirmative by showing that any acyclic join can be evaluated with load O(N / p 1/ρ* ), which is asymptotically optimal (there are no polylogarithmic factors in our bound). The separation between cyclic and acyclic joins is yet another phenomenon that is absent in RAM. Our algorithm owes to the discovery of a new mathematical structure — we call “canonical edge cover” — of acyclic hypergraphs, which has numerous non-trivial properties and makes an elegant addition to database theory.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".