Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Simple and Fast Way to Handle Semantic Errors in Transactions

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A middleware can let LLM-made transactions be undone after human review without breaking database consistency.

desk verdict The buffering algorithm has a genuine bug that breaks its central consistency guarantee; the paper is a useful design discussion but not yet a proven system. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12493 v1 pith:SWIFEYV7 submitted 2024-12-17 cs.DB cs.AI

Jinghan Zeng , Eugene Wu , Sanjay Krishnan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.AI
keywords LLM-generatedtransactionsInvariantSatisfactionlong-livedcompensatingdatabaseconsistencyACIDmiddlewareTPC-C
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 argues that database systems can safely absorb LLM-generated transactions that may be semantically wrong by treating them as long-lived and coordinating their dependencies. It introduces Invariant Satisfaction, a rule that lets a buffered transaction and a new transaction proceed without coordination when they are invariant confluent, and holds the new transaction otherwise. This makes it possible to remove a reviewed-and-rejected transaction from database history while still satisfying all constraints. The payoff is an undo mechanism for LLM agents that works without rewriting the database or the schema. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as establishing this coordination rule as a practical middleware layer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Invariant Satisfaction, a single-branch restriction of invariant confluence: starting from a common ancestor database state, a buffered transaction and a new transaction are I-satisfied if merging their effects cannot violate the database invariants. Coordination means holding the new transaction until the buffered one is reviewed. The machinery around it is a dependency-checking function that developers register once per pair of SQL query templates, a transaction manager that buffers suspicious or compensating transactions, and a dependency matrix that tracks which buffered transactions new transactions depend on. The I-Satisfaction check acts as a knowledge-aware lock: with complete query and invariant information it locks only the affected field, and with no invariant information it degrades to a table lock.

What would settle it

Run the middleware on a workload where a pair of transaction templates has a hidden dependency not registered in the dependency table, have a buffered compensating transaction followed by a new transaction that consumes the resource, then remove the original transaction and check whether a constraint such as balance greater than zero is violated; a violation would refute the consistency guarantee. A second check is to search for a counterexample to the claimed single-branch invariant-confluence theorem by constructing two buffered transactions that are individually consistent but whose remove-then-commit order violates an application invariant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the invariant confluence property from coordination avoidance can be restricted to a single-branch, buffered setting, which the paper calls Invariant Satisfaction. If the buffered transaction and the new transaction are invariant confluent, they can proceed without coordination; if not, the new transaction must be held. This lets the system guarantee that undoing a suspicious transaction leaves the database in a consistent state. The paper also shows how the dependency check degrades gracefully as query and invariant information becomes incomplete, and it implements this as middleware that routes transaction requests through a transaction manager with a dependency matrix. Using TPC-C, it reports that buffered rates are about half when complete invariant and query information is available compared to table-level locking.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism presumes that developers have manually analyzed every SQL query template and registered the correct dependency checks; if the registered invariants are incomplete or the actual transaction does not match its template, the coordination decisions are wrong and consistency is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, LLM-generated write transactions can be committed and later removed without sacrificing ACID consistency, provided that the required dependency information is registered.
  • The buffered-rate experiments indicate that complete invariant and query knowledge roughly halves the buffered rate compared with table-level locking, so investing in invariant registration pays off in throughput.
  • Because the coordination happens in middleware, existing MVC web applications can add undoable LLM transactions without schema changes or database replacement.
  • The dependency matrix means the cost of checking each new transaction grows linearly with the number of buffered transactions.
  • The paper's consistency-availability-dependency trade-off implies that no system can simultaneously have full consistency, high availability, and low dependency among transactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the invariant-confluence theorem transfers unchanged to the single-branch buffered setting; if that transfer fails, the simple proceed-or-hold rule would need extra coordination.
  • Because the dependency table is hand-built per pair of SQL templates, a natural testable extension is to auto-generate or verify that table through static analysis or shadow-database simulation.
  • The middleware assumes a transaction's runtime behavior matches its registered template; dynamic SQL or side-effecting operations such as sending notifications would require extending the dependency checks to cover those effects.
  • The TPC-C buffered-rate results could be compared against sandbox simulation and pure buffering under identical workloads to isolate when logical dependency checks actually improve availability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a middleware framework that sits between applications and a database to handle LLM-generated transactions that may contain semantic errors. The middleware buffers suspicious transactions (or their compensating transactions) while they await human review. To decide whether a new transaction can proceed, it uses a dependency check based on 'Invariant Satisfaction' (I-Satisfaction), which the authors adapt from invariant confluence: if a new transaction is not I-satisfied with a buffered transaction, the new transaction is held until the buffered transaction is accepted or removed. The authors claim this guarantees database consistency (the C in ACID) while allowing incorrect transactions to be undone. They report a TPC-C-based evaluation measuring the buffered rate under varying suspicious-transaction intervals, review intervals, and information completeness, and they state several conclusions about how these factors affect the buffered rate. They also introduce an informal 'CAD theorem' (consistency, availability, dependency) analogous to CAP.

Significance. If the consistency guarantee were valid, the paper would address a timely and practically relevant problem: making LLM-generated transactions undoable without abandoning ACID consistency or resorting to full database locking. The core idea of using invariant confluence to drive coordination is a reasonable starting point, and the paper explicitly considers application-level constraints and partial query/invariant information, which are important in real deployments. The middleware architecture is concrete, with clear API endpoints and a dependency matrix. However, the central guarantee is not established: the paper asserts rather than proves that I-Satisfaction ensures consistency, and the materialization algorithm in Section 5.2.5 contains a release rule that directly contradicts the paper's own dependency definition. The experimental evaluation measures only the buffered rate and never checks whether final states satisfy the invariants, so even the empirical support for consistency is absent. The contradiction between Conclusion 1.2 and Benchmark Conclusion 1.3 further undermines confidence in the evaluation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2.5 (with Sections 2 and 3.1)] The materialization algorithm for buffered suspicious transactions violates consistency in the paper's own running example. The algorithm states that once a buffered transaction is approved, the transaction manager will 'Release any transactions that depend on it' and then 'Commit the transaction to the DBMS.' But Section 2 defines dependency as the case where the system 'may be unable to accept both due to consistency constraints.' Consider an account balance of 50 with a CHECK balance > 0, a buffered suspicious transaction T_A that deducts 40, and a new transaction T_B that deducts 20. Section 3.1 says these two are not invariant confluent, so T_B is held. If the admin accepts T_A, the algorithm commits T_A (balance 10) and releases T_B, which then commits and leaves the balance at -10, violating the CHECK constraint. The only consistent resolutions are to reject or compensate one of the two transactions; releasing and committing the dependent transaction after the earlier transaction is accepted defeats the stated purpose of the dependency check. This is an internal inconsistency in the central mechanism, not a peripheral corner case.
  2. [Section 3.1 (invariant confluence theorem)] The paper's consistency guarantee rests on an unproven assertion. Section 3.1 cites 'a key theorem of invariant confluence' but provides no proof or formal statement, and then asserts that this theorem carries over to the single-branch buffered setting (I-Satisfaction). The buffered setting differs critically from the theorem's assumptions: one branch's transaction is not committed and may later be removed, whereas invariant confluence concerns committed branches that are merged. The paper does not show that the equivalence between invariant confluence and absence of coordination remains valid when one branch may be aborted. Section 4's 'Consistency Validation' paragraph even concedes that the logical dependency check 'does not determine whether a transaction can ultimately commit while preserving consistency' — but that determination is exactly what the claimed guarantee requires. A formal derivation, or at least a complete proof sketch with the necessary assumptions made explicit, is needed.
  3. [Section 6 (Conclusions 1.2 and 1.3)] Conclusion 1.2 states that with user reviews at an 80% rate (RI = 50, SI = 5), 'the average buffered transaction rate in the case with complete information is higher than in the case without complete information.' Benchmark Conclusion 1.3 states that 'regardless of user reviews, the buffered rate in the baseline benchmark (without invariant information) is double that of the benchmark utilizing complete query and invariant information.' These two statements are mutually contradictory in the reviewed setting: if the complete-information scenario has a higher buffered rate than the no-information baseline (Conclusion 1.2), then the baseline cannot also be double the complete-information rate in the same setting (Conclusion 1.3). The text, the figures, or the conclusions contain an error that must be corrected and the results re-examined.
  4. [Section 6 (experimental methodology)] The evaluation measures only the buffered rate and never verifies whether the final database state satisfies the invariants. Since the paper's central claim is that the middleware preserves consistency, the experiments should at minimum assert that all committed or released transactions passed constraint validation, and should report how many transactions had to be aborted or held because of invariant violations. Additionally, the paper reports no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests for any of the 20-trial averages, and the provided manuscript contains only figure captions (Figures 6-11) rather than the plots themselves, so the magnitude and significance of the reported effects cannot be assessed.
  5. [Section 2 (CAD theorem)] The 'CAD theorem' is presented as a trade-off among consistency, availability, and dependency, but it is never formally stated or proved. The three bullet points are informal plausibility arguments, and the claim that 'we cannot achieve the three of them at the same time' is not derived from any model of the system. If the purpose of this section is motivational, it should be labeled as a design observation; if it is intended as a formal contribution, it requires precise definitions, a model of the system, and a proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2.2] The algorithm text says 'Go to Table 1 and check whether these two have actions paired in the same row,' but the table that lists action pairs under different query/invariant completeness conditions is Table 2; Table 1 is the comparison of undo strategies. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Sections 3 and 4] The abbreviation for Invariant Satisfaction is inconsistent: the text uses both 'IC' (in Section 4, 'an Invariant Satisfaction Check (IC)') and 'IS' elsewhere. Choose one abbreviation and use it consistently.
  3. [Section 7.3] The sentence 'Transaction orders can lead to different database states if two transactions are not non-commutative' contains a double negative; it should be 'if two transactions are not commutative' or 'if they are non-commutative.'
  4. [Section 6] The experimental section includes only figure captions for Figures 6-11 in the provided manuscript, with no actual plots, axis labels, or error bars. The final revision should include the full charts and a description of what each axis represents.
  5. [Section 7.5] The claim that the proposed method 'provides an exact procedure for verifying r-soundness through Invariant-C' is too strong. The paper does not define r-soundness formally, and no proof of equivalence between I-Satisfaction and r-soundness is provided; please either add the formal definitions and proof or soften the claim to 'a procedure that checks a sufficient condition for r-soundness.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the consistency argument rests on an externally cited invariant-confluence theorem, not on re-fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is that holding non-I-satisfied new transactions until buffered suspicious transactions are resolved preserves consistency, and this rests on the invariant-confluence theorem of Bailis et al. [1] and Whittaker/Hellerstein [36], which are external prior works, not the authors' own results. The middleware applies that theorem to the single-buffered-transaction case, and the paper explicitly notes the adaptation: 'A key difference from traditional invariant confluence is that our setting involves only a single transaction in each branch' (Section 3.1). The authors' self-citations ([10], [29], [34]) are contextual or supplementary, such as the commutativity discussion in Section 7.3, and are not load-bearing for the consistency guarantee. No parameters are fitted to data; the TPC-C experiments simulate explicitly stated dependency-check policies and report buffered rates, so no result is statistically forced by construction. The paper also openly disclaims a stronger guarantee in Section 4 ('The logical dependency check only identifies dependencies between transactions; it does not determine whether a transaction can ultimately commit while preserving consistency') and in Section 7.1.4, which weighs against any hidden circular claim. The reviewer's soundness concern about releasing held dependent transactions after a buffered transaction is accepted is a correctness bug in the algorithm, not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The paper builds on prior work: invariant confluence, sagas, compensating transactions, and serializability theory. No free parameters are fitted in the reported experiments. The main external input is the developer-supplied dependency table; the correctness of the system is contingent on that table and on the unproved transfer of the invariant-confluence theorem to the buffered setting.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Invariant-confluence theorem (Bailis et al. [1]): a set of transactions can execute without coordination iff it is invariant confluent.
    The central coordination rule is imported from [1] and [36] without reproof.
  • domain assumption Developers will provide a correct, complete dependency-check function covering all query templates and invariants.
    Section 2 requires manual analysis of each pair of SQL templates; Section 4 says if invariant info is incomplete the system must fall back to coarser locking, so the guarantee is contingent on this input.
  • domain assumption Transaction behavior is fully captured by query template plus parameters, and constraints are the only consistency requirement.
    Section 3 categorizes invariants but side effects, dynamic SQL, and external actions are not modeled; Section 7.4 admits compensating transactions may not exist for irreversible actions.
  • ad hoc to paper CAD trade-off theorem (consistency, availability, dependency) is true.
    Section 2 asserts a CAP-like trade-off without formal proof; it is not needed for the core buffering algorithm but is presented as a result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Simple and Fast Way to Handle Semantic Errors in Transactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWIFEYV7

@misc{pith2026241212493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Simple and Fast Way to Handle Semantic Errors in Transactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWIFEYV7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12493}
}
read the original abstract

Many computer systems are now being redesigned to incorporate LLM-powered agents, enabling natural language input and more flexible operations. This paper focuses on handling database transactions created by large language models (LLMs). Transactions generated by LLMs may include semantic errors, requiring systems to treat them as long-lived. This allows for human review and, if the transaction is incorrect, removal from the database history. Any removal action must ensure the database's consistency (the "C" in ACID principles) is maintained throughout the process. We propose a novel middleware framework based on Invariant Satisfaction (I-Confluence), which ensures consistency by identifying and coordinating dependencies between long-lived transactions and new transactions. This middleware buffers suspicious or compensating transactions to manage coordination states. Using the TPC-C benchmark, we evaluate how transaction generation frequency, user reviews, and invariant completeness impact system performance. For system researchers, this study establishes an interactive paradigm between LLMs and database systems, providing an "undoing" mechanism for handling incorrect operations while guaranteeing database consistency. For system engineers, this paper offers a middleware design that integrates removable LLM-generated transactions into existing systems with minimal modifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System Setting transactions that may require coordination for the consistency of long-lived transactions waiting for reviewing. Sections 5 and 6 explain the roles of transaction managers and middleware in sup￾porting coordination mechanisms. Section 7 explores the interplay between system availability, human review, LLM-generated trans￾actions, and the completeness of query and invariant information. Section 8 compa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MVC with Middleware the transaction name and parameters (details in section 3). The web developer needs to pre-analyze that logic’s dependency and register it in the dependency check function. In the runtime, if the server receives one new transaction, it can always check its dependency with former transactions with the dependency check function. 2.3 Buffering Compensating Transactions 2.3.1 Request from the User. A… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Web Development Middleware Framework (1) Endpoint: transaction_request Description: Initiates a transaction request and returns a unique transaction ID. HTTP Method: POST Parameters: • transaction_name (string): The name of the transac￾tion. • transaction_parameters (object): Specific parame￾ters required for the transaction. Returns: • transaction_id (string): A unique identifier for the requested transaction. (2) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison between Invariant Confluence (IC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependency Matrix If the transaction has missing parameters related to columns or rows because it "read" real-time information from the database, we should check "Partial Query with Invariant: missing row/column information." If we do not know which rows/columns/tables…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Conclusion 1.1: Without user reviews to reduce buffered transactions (RI = 50, SI = 5, and 20 trials per transaction length), the average buffered transaction rate is higher in scenarios with complete information compared to those without complete information [PITH_FU…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Conclusion 3.1: If the RI is infinite, the buffered rate does not change signifi￾cantly as the number of trans￾actions increases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Conclusion 3.4: A shorter RI leads to a lower average number of buffered transactions (SI = 5). Conclu￾sion 3.5: When RI is fixed, the number of buffered transac￾tions remains relatively sta￾ble, even as the total number of transactions increases (SI = 5) [PITH_FULL_…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ChronoMem: Version Control and Semantic Rollback for Large Language Model Agent Memory

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Memory versioning with semantic rollback lets LLM agents behave counterfactually after later interactions, improving rollback-consistent QA and summarization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Peter Bailis, Alan Fekete, Michael J Franklin, Ali Ghodsi, Joseph M Hellerstein, and Ion Stoica. 2014. Coordination avoidance in database systems (Extended version). arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.2237 (2014)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Philip A Bernstein, Vassos Hadzilacos, Nathan Goodman, et al. 1987. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems . Vol. 370. Addison-wesley Reading

    1987

  3. [3]

    Alexandros Biliris, Shaul Dar, Narain Gehani, HV Jagadish, and Krithi Ramam- ritham. 1994. ASSET: A system for supporting extended transactions. ACM SIGMOD Record 23, 2 (1994), 44–54

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Steve Burbeck. 1992. Applications programming in smalltalk-80 (tm): How to use model-view-controller (mvc). Smalltalk-80 v2 5 (1992), 1–11

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Donald D Chamberlin and Raymond F Boyce. 1974. SEQUEL: A structured English query language. In Proceedings of the 1974 ACM SIGFIDET (now SIGMOD) workshop on Data description, access and control . 249–264

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    Zui Chen, Lei Cao, Sam Madden, Tim Kraska, Zeyuan Shang, Ju Fan, Nan Tang, Zihui Gu, Chunwei Liu, and Michael Cafarella. 2024. SEED: Domain-Specific Data Curation With Large Language Models. arXiv:2310.00749 [cs.DB] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2310.00749 Jinghan Zeng, Eugene Wu, and Sanjay Krishnan Table 3: Comparison of Possible Transaction Management Strateg...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Panos K Chrysanthis and Krithi Ramamritham. 1992. ACTA: the SAGA contin- ues

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Neil Conway, William R Marczak, Peter Alvaro, Joseph M Hellerstein, and David Maier. 2012. Logic and lattices for distributed programming. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing . 1–14

    work page 2012

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Eswaran, Jim N Gray, Raymond A

    Kapali P. Eswaran, Jim N Gray, Raymond A. Lorie, and Irving L. Traiger. 1976. The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. Commun. ACM 19, 11 (1976), 624–633

    1976

  2. [10]

    Elmore, Michael J

    Raul Castro Fernandez, Aaron J. Elmore, Michael J. Franklin, Sanjay Krishnan, and Chenhao Tan. 2023. How Large Language Models Will Disrupt Data Man- agement. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16 (2023), 3302–3309. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:261193780

    2023

  3. [11]

    Hector Garcia-Molina. 1983. Using semantic knowledge for transaction process- ing in a distributed database. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 8, 2 (1983), 186–213

    1983

  4. [12]

    Hector Garcia-Molina and Kenneth Salem. 1987. Sagas. ACM Sigmod Record 16, 3 (1987), 249–259

    1987

  5. [13]

    Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch. 2002. Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. Acm Sigact News 33, 2 (2002), 51–59

    2002

  6. [14]

    Jim Gray et al. 1981. The transaction concept: Virtues and limitations. In VLDB, Vol. 81. 144–154

    1981

  7. [15]

    Theo Haerder and Andreas Reuter. 1983. Principles of transaction-oriented database recovery. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 15, 4 (1983), 287–317

    1983

  8. [16]

    Henry F Korth, Eliezer Levy, and Abraham Silberschatz. 1990. A formal ap- proach to recovery by compensating transactions . University of Texas at Austin, Department of Computer Sciences

    1990

  9. [17]

    LangChain. 2024. LangChain Documentation. https://www.langchain.com/ Accessed: 2024-11-16

    2024

  10. [18]

    Peng Liu, Paul Ammann, and Sushil Jajodia. 2000. Rewriting histories: Recovering from malicious transactions. Security of Data and Transaction Processing (2000), 7–40

    2000

  11. [19]

    Nancy A Lynch and Michael Merritt. 1993. Atomic transactions: in concurrent and distributed systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc

    1993

  12. [20]

    Samuel Madden, Michael Cafarella, Michael Franklin, and Tim Kraska. 2024. Databases Unbound: Querying All of the World’s Bytes with AI. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 12 (Nov. 2024), 4546–4554. https://doi.org/10.14778/3685800.3685916

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chandrasekaran Mohan, Don Haderle, Bruce Lindsay, Hamid Pirahesh, and Peter Schwarz. 1992. ARIES: A transaction recovery method supporting fine- granularity locking and partial rollbacks using write-ahead logging. ACM Trans- actions on Database Systems (TODS) 17, 1 (1992), 94–162

    1992

  14. [22]

    Anand Natrajan and Paul F Reynolds. 1999. Resolving concurrent interactions. In Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Interactive Simulation and Real-Time Applications. IEEE, 85–92

    1999

  15. [23]

    Marian H Nodine, Sridhar Ramaswamy, and Stanley B Zdonik. 1992. A coopera- tive transaction model for design databases

    1992

  16. [24]

    Patrick E O’Neil. 1986. The escrow transactional method. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 11, 4 (1986), 405–430

    1986

  17. [25]

    Shishir G Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Vivian Fang, Roy Huang, Aaron Hao, Martin Casado, Joseph E Gonzalez, Raluca Ada Popa, Ion Stoica, et al . 2024. GoEX: Perspectives and Designs Towards a Runtime for Autonomous LLM Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06921 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E

    Shishir G. Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. 2023. Go- rilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15334 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Andy Pavlo. 2011. py-tpcc: Python Implementation of TPC-C. https://github. com/apavlo/py-tpcc Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2011

  20. [28]

    Krithi Ramamritham and Panos K Chrysanthis. 1996. A taxonomy of correctness criteria in database applications. The VLDB Journal 5 (1996), 85–97

    1996

  21. [29]

    Nalin Ranjan, Zechao Shang, Sanjay Krishnan, and Aaron J Elmore. 2021. Version Reconciliation for Collaborative Databases. InProceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing. 473–488

    2021

  22. [30]

    Rajeev Rastogi, Sharad Mehrotra, Yuri Breitbart, Henry F Korth, and Avi Silber- schatz. 1993. On correctness of non-serializable executions. In Proceedings of the twelfth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems. 97–108

    1993

  23. [31]

    Hans-Jörg Schek, Gerhard Weikum, and Haiyan Ye. 1993. Towards a unified theory of concurrency control and recovery. In Proceedings of the twelfth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems. 300–311

    1993

  24. [32]

    Marc Shapiro, Nuno Preguiça, Carlos Baquero, and Marek Zawirski. 2011. A comprehensive study of convergent and commutative replicated data types . Ph.D. Dissertation. Inria–Centre Paris-Rocquencourt; INRIA

    2011

  25. [33]

    Gregory D Speegle and Andrew L Gordon. 1992. Quantifying the benefits of semantics. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM annual conference on Communications . 423–430

    1992

  26. [34]

    Pranav Subramaniam and Sanjay Krishnan. 2024. Intent-Based Access Control: Using LLMs to Intelligently Manage Access Control. arXiv:2402.07332 [cs.DB] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07332

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2010.TPC Benchmark™ C Standard Specification, Revision 5.11

    Transaction Processing Performance Council. 2010.TPC Benchmark™ C Standard Specification, Revision 5.11. Retrieved from http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/

    2010

  28. [36]

    Michael Whittaker and Joseph M Hellerstein. 2020. Checking invariant conflu- ence, in whole or in parts. ACM SIGMOD Record 49, 1 (2020), 7–14

    2020

  29. [37]

    Shah, and Christopher Re

    Michael Wornow, Avanika Narayan, Krista Opsahl-Ong, Quinn McIntyre, Nigam H. Shah, and Christopher Re. 2024. Automating the Enterprise with Foundation Models. arXiv:2405.03710 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03710

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2024. Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2401.11817 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Xiang Zhang, Khatoon Khedri, and Reza Rawassizadeh. 2024. Can LLMs substi- tute SQL? Comparing Resource Utilization of Querying LLMs versus Traditional Relational Databases. arXiv:2404.08727 [cs.DB] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08727

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.