MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117687674 · doi:10.1145/3786785

Finding Smallest Witnesses for Conjunctive Queries

2025· article· en· W7117687674 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao Hu, Stavros Sintos

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Database Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjunctive queryRewritingProperty (philosophy)LogarithmClass (philosophy)Time complexityPolynomialConstant (computer programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A witness is a sub-database that preserves the query results of the original database, but of a much smaller size. It has wide applications in query rewriting and debugging, query explanation, IoT analytics, multi-layer network routing, and so on. In this article, we study the smallest witness problem ( SWP ) for the class of conjunctive queries (CQs) without self-joins. We first establish the dichotomy that SWP for a CQ can be computed in polynomial time if and only if it has head-cluster property , unless P = NP . Furthermore, we discover the dichotomy that SWP for a CQ with head-cluster property can be computed in linear time if and only if it is acyclic, assuming some well-known conjectures. We next turn to the approximated version by relaxing the size of a witness from being minimum. We surprisingly find that the head-domination property—that has been identified for the deletion propagation problem [ 40 ]—can also precisely capture the hardness of the approximated smallest witness problem. In polynomial time, SWP for any CQ with head-domination property can be approximated within a constant factor, while SWP for any CQ without such a property cannot be approximated within a logarithmic factor, unless P = NP . We further explore efficient approximation algorithms for CQs without the head-domination property: (1) we show a trivial algorithm that achieves a polynomially large approximation ratio for general CQs; (2) for any CQ with only one non-output attribute, such as star CQs, we show a greedy algorithm with a logarithmic approximation ratio; (3) for line CQs, which contain at least two non-output attributes, we relate SWP problem to the directed Steiner forest problem, whose algorithms can be applied to line CQs directly. Meanwhile, we establish an exponentially larger lower bound than above. It remains open to close the gap between the lower and upper bounds of the approximated SWP for CQs without the head-domination property.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.019
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Database SystemsSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207