Mozi: Discovering DBMS Bugs via Configuration-Based Equivalent Transformation
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
Testing database management systems (DBMSs) is a complex task. Traditional approaches, such as metamorphic testing, need a precise comprehension of the SQL specification to create diverse inputs with equivalent semantics. The vagueness and intricacy of the SQL specification make it challenging to accurately model query semantics, thereby posing difficulties in testing the correctness and performance of DBMSs. To address this, we propose Mozi, a framework that finds DBMS bugs via configuration-based equivalent transformation. The key idea behind Mozi is to compare the results of equivalent DBMSs with different configurations, rather than between semantically equivalent queries. The framework involves analyzing the query plan, changing configurations to transform the DBMS to an equivalent one, and re-executing the query to compare the results using various test oracles. For example, detecting differences in query results indicates correctness bugs, while observing faster execution times on the optimization-closed DBMS suggests performance bugs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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