MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411141774 · doi:10.1145/3725254

Towards Update-Dependent Analysis of Query Maintenance

2025· article· en· W4411141774 on OpenAlexaff
Qichen Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsComputer scienceQuery optimizationInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the hardness of maintaining self-join-free conjunctive queries over a dynamic database, where tuples can be inserted or deleted. The worst-case complexity of this problem under arbitrary updates has been well understood. It is known that most practical queries require Ω(√|D|) maintenance time for each update to ensure O(1)-delay enumeration, barring a very restricted class of queries (known as "q-hierarchical" queries). Nonetheless, most real-world update sequences are not arbitrary, far away from the worst-case scenario; instead, they are so "nice" that queries can greatly benefit from their inherent structure in query maintenance. In this paper, we aim to understand the hardness of query maintenance under different update sequences, in particular, the insertion-only (or deletion-only), first-in-first-out (FIFO), arbitrarily worse sequences, as well as their "mixed" sequences. We first provide a comprehensive characterization of queries that can be maintained in O(1) time for O(1)-delay enumeration over FIFO sequences. Then, we address mixed sequences, which may exhibit insertion-only or FIFO patterns on subqueries but lack a specific pattern in totality, and introduce a structural dichotomy for determining whether the input query can be maintained in O(1) time for O(1)-delay enumeration over mixed sequences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.016
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Management of DataSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207