MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411141319 · doi:10.1145/3725250

Smallest Synthetic Witnesses for Conjunctive Queries

2025· article· en· W4411141319 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsConjunctive queryComputer scienceInformation retrievalRelational database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a self-join-free conjunctive query Q and a set of tuples S , a synthetic witness D is a database instance such that the result of Q on D is S . In this work, we are interested in two problems. First, the existence problem ESW decides whether any synthetic witness D exists. Second, given that a synthetic witness exists, the minimization problem SSW computes a synthetic witness of minimal size. The SSW problem is related to the smallest witness problem recently studied by Hu and Sintos [22]; however, the objective and the results are inherently different. More specifically, we show that SSW is poly-time solvable for a wider range of queries. Interestingly, in some cases, SSW is related to optimization problems in other domains, such as the role mining problem in data mining and the edge concentration problem in graph drawing. Solutions to ESW and SSW are of practical interest, e.g., for test database generation for applications accessing a database and for data compression by encoding a dataset S as a pair of a query Q and database D . We prove that ESW is in P, presenting a simple algorithm that, given any S , decides whether a synthetic witness exists in polynomial time in the size of S . Next, we focus on the SSW problem. We show an algorithm that computes a minimal synthetic witness in polynomial time with respect to the size of S for any query Q that has the head-domination property. If Q does not have such a property, then SSW is generally hard. More specifically, we show that for the class of path queries (of any constant length), SSW cannot be solved in polynomial time unless P = NP. We then extend this hardness result to the class of Berge-acyclic queries that do not have the head-domination property, obtaining a full dichotomy of SSW for Berge-acyclic queries. Finally, we investigate the hardness of SSW beyond Berge-acyclic queries by showing that SSW cannot be solved in polynomial time for some cyclic queries unless P = NP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0130.014
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it