Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Adaptive Learning of Aggregate Analytics under Dynamic Workloads

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Aggregate-query answers can be predicted locally with under 10% error, and a distance-based drift detector keeps those predictions accurate when analysts' query patterns shift.

desk verdict A plausible query-driven analytics system with a genuinely new drift-detection loop, but the load-bearing distance-to-error proxy is weakly validated and the theoretical bounds do not hold up; worth a serious referee but needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04772 v2 pith:VVXMDTRX submitted 2019-08-13 cs.DB cs.LG

Fotis Savva , Christos Anagnostopoulos , Peter Triantafillou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.LG
keywords aggregatequeryapproximationquery-drivenlearningconceptdriftdetectionlocalregressionensembleapproximateprocessingCUSUMchangeclient-sideanalyticsdynamicworkloads
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that aggregate analytical queries over large or geo-distributed data can be answered locally, on the analyst's device, without touching the big-data backend each time. It claims that a small ensemble of regression models, trained on past query-answer pairs and organized by query clusters, predicts COUNT, SUM, MEAN, and MAX results with relative error well below 10% and prediction times below a millisecond. The distinctive contribution is handling workload drift: when analysts' interests move to a new region of the query space, a change-detection mechanism estimates the resulting degradation in prediction error from distances in the query space, triggers a buffering phase, and sends only the genuinely novel queries to the central system until a new local model has converged. If these claims hold, exploratory analytics over federated or latency-sensitive data can remain interactive while the cloud backend is used far less often.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the query-vector representation $q=[l_1,u_1,\ldots,l_d,u_d]\in\mathbb{R}^{2d}$, with squared Euclidean distance as the similarity measure, together with a growing set of cluster representatives $w_k$. Each cluster $C_k$ trains a local regression model $\hat{g}_k$, and prediction is $\hat{y}=\sum_{k=1}^K I_k\,\hat{g}_k(q)$, where $I_k$ selects the closest representative. For drift detection, the paper replaces the unavailable true error $(y-\hat{y})^2$ with the distance-based estimate $\tilde{u} = \ln\bigl(1 + d(q,w_k) - \min_{q_\ell\in C_k} d(w_k,q_\ell)\bigr)\cdot u_k$, and feeds the log-likelihood ratios of $\tilde{u}$ into a CUSUM control chart with decision function $G_t=\max(0,G_{t-1}+s_t)$ and threshold $h$. Adaptation is carried by an SGD update that converges a new prototype to the median of the forwarded queries, together with a rival-representative variance rule that decides which queries must go to the central system.

What would settle it

Run the proposed change detector on a labeled stream in which query-region drift is injected at known times, and record both the distance-based error estimate of Equation (2) and the true prediction error. If the two do not rise together, or if the CUSUM alarm fires while the true error remains flat, the proxy at the heart of the drift detector is not doing the work the paper requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that query-driven learning, previously used for cardinality estimation, can be turned into a full aggregate-answer prediction service that is robust to non-stationary workloads. Each query is encoded as a vector of range-predicate bounds, the query space is quantized into clusters, and a local regression model is trained inside every cluster. During prediction mode, only the model of the closest cluster is consulted, giving a predicted answer in well under a millisecond. Because the true answer is not available to the client, the paper replaces the true prediction error by a distance-based estimate and feeds its log-likelihood ratios into a CUSUM control chart; when the cumulative sum crosses a threshold, the device enters buffering mode, where a new cluster representative is adapted toward the median of the queries that had to be executed centrally. Once the new representative converges, the expanded model set is returned to the device, and the paper reports that accuracy stays below 10% relative error across all tested aggregates.

Load-bearing premise

The change detector assumes that a query's distance to its nearest cluster representative tracks how wrong its predicted answer is; the only reported evidence for that link is a single Pearson correlation of 0.3 on one dataset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In prediction mode, each answer is a single forward pass through one small local model, so response time stays in the sub-millisecond range and exploratory interaction remains within the roughly 500 ms interactivity budget even when the backend is remote or federated.
  • During buffering, only queries that fall outside the variance radius of their rival cluster representative are sent to the central system, and the Chebyshev bound caps this forwarding probability at a bounded fraction, so most buffering-mode queries are still answered locally.
  • Affiliate devices pool their executed queries in the central system, so when many analysts drift at once the new representative converges faster and the expected number of centrally executed queries over any interval is bounded rather than growing linearly with workload.
  • If the query space contains finitely many analyst subspaces, repeated drift cycles eventually cover all of them and the probability of entering buffering mode drops to zero, making the system an offline predictor for the learned workload.
  • Since one regression algorithm suffices for all tested aggregate operators, the deployed client can store a single model class, keeping the footprint small enough for an analyst's device.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the weakest link would be to measure, on several real workloads with injected drift, whether the distance-based error estimate and the true prediction error move together; if not, the CUSUM trigger should be redesigned around a different proxy.
  • The query-vector representation is operator-agnostic, so the same machinery could plausibly be applied to join or window aggregates, but each new operator family would need its own validation of the distance-error correlation.
  • The affiliate mechanism implies a network effect that the paper does not isolate: devices with overlapping query subspaces should converge faster together, a prediction that a multi-client simulation with correlated drift could test.
  • The convergence to an offline mode depends on the set of query subspaces being finite; under open-ended exploration the model ensemble would keep growing, so memory and stale-model management would become the practical bottleneck.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a client-side, learning-based approximate query processing system for aggregate analytics. Queries are encoded as range vectors, clustered in the query space, and per-cluster regression models are trained to predict aggregate answers without accessing the backend. During prediction mode, a Change Detection Mechanism (CDM) monitors a distance-based proxy of the prediction error to detect concept drift in query workloads, and an Adaptation Mechanism (ADM) selectively forwards queries to the central server, trains new models, and exploits affiliate adaptations from other analysts. The evaluation reports sub-millisecond prediction times and relative errors below 10% on synthetic and real datasets, and claims that the system detects and adapts to dynamic workloads.

Significance. If the drift-detection claim can be substantiated, the work would be a practical contribution: a lightweight alternative to approximate query processing engines for exploratory analytics, with fast local predictions and explicit handling of non-stationary query workloads, an issue often neglected in query-driven learning. The empirical evaluation is broad, covering multiple regression models, aggregate operators, dimensions, predicates, real and synthetic data, and a comparison with VerdictDB. The paper also provides detailed algorithms and data-generation procedures, which support reproducibility. However, the validity of the adaptation mechanism rests on an unvalidated distance-to-error proxy, supported only by a weak 0.3 Pearson correlation reported in a footnote, and the theoretical forwarding bounds contain mathematical errors. The core accuracy and latency claims are credible, but the adaptivity and bound claims require major additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (2); footnote 2; 5.4] The drift-detection claim is not established because the proxy in Eq. (2) has not been validated. The only supporting evidence is footnote 2, which reports a 0.3 Pearson correlation on a single real dataset but omits the dataset, aggregate operator, model, and confidence interval; a 0.3 correlation is weak. Section 5.4's adaptivity experiment uses a single synthetic distribution shift, reports no error bars, detection-delay statistics, or false-alarm rates, and never plots the monitored u_t against the true error (y - y_hat)^2. Moreover, Eq. (2) can produce negative values when d(q, w_k) is smaller than the training minimum min_{q_l in C_k} d(w_k, q_l), which is incompatible with the Gamma distributions assumed for p0 and p1 in the likelihood-ratio CUSUM. Without direct validation of the proxy, the CDM cannot be claimed to distinguish genuine query-pattern drift from random distance fluctuations.
  2. [4, Theorem 4.1] Theorem 4.1 misapplies Chebyshev's inequality. The theorem is stated for a random query q whose distance from its rival representative w_k is greater than lambda*sigma, but that distance condition is exactly the forwarding event; conditioning on the event makes the probability 1. The intended bound is presumably the unconditional probability P(||q - w_k||_2 >= lambda*sigma) <= 1/lambda^2, but this requires q to be drawn from the distribution of cluster C_k with mean w_k and variance sigma^2. In the forwarding scenario, q is drawn from the novel distribution that produced w_{K+1}, so its distance to w_k is not governed by w_k's within-cluster variance. The O(1/lambda^2) forwarding bound is therefore not justified.
  3. [4.3, Theorem 4.3] The bound in Theorem 4.3 does not follow from the preceding derivation. The proof combines the per-query forwarding probability O(1/lambda^2) with the probability of at least one affiliate being in buffering mode, but the expected number of executions in the CS over an interval T also requires a per-AD query arrival rate and a forwarding probability conditional on the novel-representative event, neither of which is specified. Furthermore, the expression 1 + (1 - (1 - beta)^(n-1)) is not the expected number of affiliates: for independent Bernoulli entries with common probability beta, the expected number of affiliates in buffering mode is (n-1)*beta. As written, the theorem's expression has no clear derivation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The estimations are performed in milliseconds are inexpensive and accurate' is missing a comma or conjunction; it should read '...performed in milliseconds, are inexpensive, and accurate...'.
  2. [Definition 2.2] The text calls ||q - q'||_2^2 the Euclidean distance, but the formula is the squared Euclidean distance; this should be clarified to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [3.1] The symbol EPE is defined as a global expected prediction error but is not used afterward; the per-cluster error u_k is used instead. The relationship between EPE, u_k, and Eq. (2) should be made explicit.
  4. [4.2, Eq. (4)] The text claims that a higher number of affiliate query representatives leads to faster convergence to the median, but the learning rate gamma = 1/(1 + |Q| + |QA|) decreases as |QA| grows, which typically slows SGD updates; the intended relationship should be clarified.
  5. [5.4, Figure 9] The relative error for the no-adaptivity baseline reaches values around 1250%; this is far larger than the typical errors reported elsewhere and should be explained, for instance by showing that the drifted distribution is largely disjoint from the training support.
  6. [5.4, Figure 10(right)] The formula beta = P(G > h) = 1 - l/K is asserted without derivation; it should be justified as an approximation and its relationship to the CUSUM threshold h clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the main caveat is an empirically weak but non-circular distance-to-error proxy.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Query vectors are clustered from logged queries, local regressors are trained on query-answer pairs, and prediction accuracy is evaluated against held-out actual answers (Sections 2 and 5.2), including an external comparison with VerdictDB. The CDM's distance-based error proxy in Eq. (2) is a modeling assumption supported only by the footnote in Section 3.1 reporting 'A 0.3 Pearson's Correlations was obtained on a real dataset.' This is weak empirical support for the load-bearing link between d(q, w_k) and (y - yhat)^2, but it is not circular: the proxy is not defined in terms of the outcomes it is used to predict, and the drift-detection experiment does not fit any parameter to the target error reduction. The self-citations [5,6] to prior query-driven learning are contextual and not load-bearing; the paper re-derives and evaluates its own query representation, clustering, and local models rather than importing a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz from those citations. Theorems 4.1-4.3 are in-paper bounding and convergence arguments, not imported results. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the correct circularity finding is no significant circularity, with the empirical adequacy of Eq. (2) flagged as a correctness risk rather than a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a set of heuristics (h, λ, c) and a weakly supported domain assumption about the distance-error correlation. The theoretical bounds in Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 depend on distributional assumptions about forwarded queries that the paper does not justify. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • h (change detection threshold) = 3σ to 5σ (heuristic, authors state hyper-tuning is ongoing)
    Controls when the CUSUM decision function G_t signals drift; set by rule of thumb, not by data, and directly affects detection sensitivity.
  • λ (forwarding selectivity parameter) = 3 to 5 (adopted from h)
    Controls how far a query may be from a known representative before being forwarded to the backend; the theoretical forwarding bound in Theorem 4.1 depends on it.
  • c (convergence threshold for representative update) = 0.008 in the main experiment; varied 0.005-0.02
    Determines when the system exits buffering mode; Figure 10 shows it changes relative error from about 274% to 280%.
  • Gamma distribution parameters (e1, e2) for p0 and p1 = not reported
    Fitted to the distance-based error estimates in the training and rival sets; these parameters define the likelihood ratio in the CUSUM test.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Distance-based error approximation is a valid proxy for true prediction error
    Eq. (2) defines the error estimate using a log-scaled distance multiplied by the cluster EPE; the paper supports this with a single Pearson correlation of 0.3 on one real dataset, which is weak evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper Forwarded queries satisfy the same distributional assumptions as the cluster around the rival representative
    Theorem 4.1 applies Chebyshev's inequality to the cluster C_k to bound the forwarding probability, but forwarded queries are, by construction, from a novel distribution not represented by C_k.
  • domain assumption All ADs enter buffering mode independently with equal probability β
    Section 4.1 assumes β_j = β for the expected number of affiliates E[|A|] ≈ β(n-1), which feeds into Theorem 4.3's execution rate bound.
  • domain assumption The query space is finite and fully learnable
    Section 4.3's claim that all query subspaces become known and buffering probability tends to zero assumes a finite, enumerable set of query patterns; the paper only demonstrates this on a synthetic set of K=16 query spaces.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Learning of Aggregate Analytics under Dynamic Workloads." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VVXMDTRX

@misc{pith2026190804772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Learning of Aggregate Analytics under Dynamic Workloads},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VVXMDTRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04772}
}
read the original abstract

Large organizations have seamlessly incorporated data-driven decision making in their operations. However, as data volumes increase, expensive big data infrastructures are called to rescue. In this setting, analytics tasks become very costly in terms of query response time, resource consumption, and money in cloud deployments, especially when base data are stored across geographically distributed data centers. Therefore, we introduce an adaptive Machine Learning mechanism which is light-weight, stored client-side, can estimate the answers of a variety of aggregate queries and can avoid the big data backend. The estimations are performed in milliseconds are inexpensive and accurate as the mechanism learns from past analytical-query patterns. However, as analytic queries are ad-hoc and analysts' interests change over time we develop solutions that can swiftly and accurately detect such changes and adapt to new query patterns. The capabilities of our approach are demonstrated using extensive evaluation with real and synthetic datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04772 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Aggregate analytics eco-system with analysts’ de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Change detection based on the likelihood ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the operation of CDM and ADM which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstration of the forwarding rule by the ADM. Both queries (in blue) have wk+1 (the non-converged) as the closest representative. Only one of them is send to the CS be locally answered by models in M and (2) the ones that cannot be answered, since these queries are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative prediction error for descriptive statistics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative error vs. number of training queries; (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Figure 8 shows two different query distributions. Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Error with concept drift detection/adaptation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URL: https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public- Safety/Crimes-2001-to-present/ijzp-q8t2, 2018

    Crimes - 2001 to present. URL: https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public- Safety/Crimes-2001-to-present/ijzp-q8t2, 2018. Accessed: 2018-08-10

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    URL: https://github.com/Skeftical/GrowingNetworks, 2018

    Growing networks. URL: https://github.com/Skeftical/GrowingNetworks, 2018. Accessed: 2018-08-10

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    URL: http://db.csail.mit.edu/labdata/labdata.html, 2018

    Intel lab data. URL: http://db.csail.mit.edu/labdata/labdata.html, 2018. Accessed: 2018-08-10

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Agarwal, B

    S. Agarwal, B. Mozafari, A. Panda, H. Milner, S. Madden, and I. Stoica. Blinkdb: queries with bounded errors and bounded response times on very large data. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems , pages 29–42. ACM, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Anagnostopoulos and P

    C. Anagnostopoulos and P. Triantafillou. Learning set cardinality in distance nearest neighbours. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, pages 691–696. IEEE, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Anagnostopoulos and P

    C. Anagnostopoulos and P. Triantafillou. Query-driven learning for predictive analytics of data subspace cardinality. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 11(4):47, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    L. Bottou. Stochastic gradient descent tricks. In Neural networks: Tricks of the trade, pages 421–436. Springer, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. InProceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 785–794. ACM, 2016

    2016

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Ditzler, M

    G. Ditzler, M. Roveri, C. Alippi, and R. Polikar. Learning in nonstationary en- vironments: A survey. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine , 10(4):12–25, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Elwell and R

    R. Elwell and R. Polikar. Incremental learning of concept drift in nonstationary environments. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , 22(10):1517–1531, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Friedman, T

    J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. The elements of statistical learning , volume 1. Springer series in statistics New York, NY, USA:, 2001

    2001

  4. [12]

    Gepperth and B

    A. Gepperth and B. Hammer. Incremental learning algorithms and applications. In European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks (ESANN) , 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    O. A. Grigg, V. Farewell, and D. Spiegelhalter. Use of risk-adjusted cusum and rsprtcharts for monitoring in medical contexts. Statistical methods in medical research, 12(2):147–170, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    J. M. Hellerstein, P. J. Haas, and H. J. Wang. Online aggregation. In Acm Sigmod Record, volume 26, pages 171–182. ACM, 1997

    1997

  7. [15]

    Idreos, O

    S. Idreos, O. Papaemmanouil, and S. Chaudhuri. Overview of data exploration techniques. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 277–281. ACM, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Kandula, A

    S. Kandula, A. Shanbhag, A. Vitorovic, M. Olma, R. Grandl, S. Chaudhuri, and B. Ding. Quickr: Lazily approximating complex adhoc queries in bigdata clusters. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data , pages 631–646. ACM, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Liu and J

    Z. Liu and J. Heer. The effects of interactive latency on exploratory visual analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics , (1):1–1

  10. [18]

    L. Ma, D. Van Aken, A. Hefny, G. Mezerhane, A. Pavlo, and G. J. Gordon. Query- based workload forecasting for self-driving database management systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data , pages 631–645. ACM, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Marsland, J

    S. Marsland, J. Shapiro, and U. Nehmzow. A self-organising network that grows when required. Neural networks, 15(8-9):1041–1058, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Masoudnia and R

    S. Masoudnia and R. Ebrahimpour. Mixture of experts: a literature survey. Artifi- cial Intelligence Review, 42(2):275–293, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Melnik, A

    S. Melnik, A. Gubarev, J. J. Long, G. Romer, S. Shivakumar, M. Tolton, and T. Vas- silakis. Dremel: interactive analysis of web-scale datasets. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 3(1-2):330–339, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Y. Park, B. Mozafari, J. Sorenson, and J. Wang. Verdictdb: universalizing approx- imate query processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1461–1476. ACM, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Y. Park, A. S. Tajik, M. Cafarella, and B. Mozafari. Database learning: Toward a database that becomes smarter every time. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data , pages 587–602. ACM, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Sattler, I

    K.-U. Sattler, I. Geist, and E. Schallehn. Quiet: Continuous query-driven index tuning. In Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Very large data bases-Volume 29, pages 1129–1132. VLDB Endowment, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Sculley, G

    D. Sculley, G. Holt, D. Golovin, E. Davydov, T. Phillips, D. Ebner, V. Chaudhary, M. Young, J.-F. Crespo, and D. Dennison. Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 2503–2511, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Thusoo, J

    A. Thusoo, J. S. Sarma, N. Jain, Z. Shao, P. Chakka, S. Anthony, H. Liu, P. Wyckoff, and R. Murthy. Hive: a warehousing solution over a map-reduce framework. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , 2(2):1626–1629, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    A. Tsymbal. The problem of concept drift: definitions and related work.Computer Science Department, Trinity College Dublin , 106(2), 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Van Aken, A

    D. Van Aken, A. Pavlo, G. J. Gordon, and B. Zhang. Automatic database man- agement system tuning through large-scale machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data , pages 1009–1024. ACM, 2017. Adaptive Learning of Aggregate Ana...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Vulimiri, C

    A. Vulimiri, C. Curino, P. B. Godfrey, T. Jungblut, K. Karanasos, J. Padhye, and G. Varghese. Wanalytics: Geo-distributed analytics for a data intensive world. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, pages 1087–1092. ACM, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Wasay, X

    A. Wasay, X. Wei, N. Dayan, and S. Idreos. Data canopy: Accelerating exploratory statistical analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data, pages 557–572. ACM, 2017. Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Fotis Savva, Christos A...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.