Computing Local Sensitivities of Counting Queries with Joins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local sensitivity of a query Q given a database instance D, i.e. how much the output Q(D) changes when a tuple is added to D or deleted from D, has many applications including query analysis, outlier detection, and in differential privacy. However, it is NP-hard to find local sensitivity of a conjunctive query in terms of the size of the query, even for the class of acyclic queries. Although the complexity is polynomial when the query size is fixed, the naive algorithms are not efficient for large databases and queries involving multiple joins. In this paper, we present a novel approach to compute local sensitivity of counting queries involving join operations by tracking and summarizing tuple sensitivities -- the maximum change a tuple can cause in the query result when it is added or removed. We give algorithms for the sensitivity problem for full acyclic join queries using join trees, that run in polynomial time in both the size of the database and query for an interesting sub-class of queries, which we call 'doubly acyclic queries' that include path queries, and in polynomial time in combined complexity when the maximum degree in the join tree is bounded. Our algorithms can be extended to certain non-acyclic queries using generalized hypertree decompositions. We evaluate our approach experimentally, and show applications of our algorithms to obtain better results for differential privacy by orders of magnitude.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".