Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Neuro-Symbolic Query Optimization in Knowledge Graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey of knowledge-graph query optimization argues that hybrid neuro-symbolic optimizers form a coherent design space, and that one key hybrid component — a neuro-symbolic cost model for knowledge graphs — has not yet been built.

desk verdict A useful taxonomy and research agenda for neuro-symbolic KG query optimization, but the central gap claim in Sec. 4.1 is asserted without a systematic literature check and should be softened or substantiated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14277 v1 pith:FNQGUHLW submitted 2024-11-21 cs.DB cs.AI

Maribel Acosta , Chang Qin , Tim Schwabe This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.AI
keywords neuro-symbolicqueryoptimizationknowledgegraphscardinalityestimationcostmodelsplantraversalSPARQLreinforcementlearning
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

This chapter tries to establish that neuro-symbolic query optimization for knowledge graphs is a coherent and promising design space, distinct from both fully symbolic and fully learned optimizers. It organizes existing work along a spectrum from traditional symbolic optimizers to fully learned ones, placing hybrid optimizers in the middle. The paper's sharpest concrete claim is that while learned cardinality estimators, learned cost models, and learned planners for knowledge graphs all exist, no neuro-symbolic cost model for knowledge graphs has been proposed so far. That claimed gap matters because knowledge graphs have skewed, power-law data distributions that make symbolic cost formulas inaccurate, while purely learned cost models are hard to interpret and retrain.

What carries the argument

The central organizing object is a spectrum of optimizer architectures running from fully symbolic to fully learned, with the middle region labeled the region of neuro-symbolic optimizers. Within that region, the paper decomposes optimizers into three replaceable components — cardinality estimator, cost model, and planner — and ties each to a concrete neural or neuro-symbolic mechanism: graph representations such as adjacency tensors, graph neural networks, and autoregressive models for cardinality estimation; tree convolutions and vector encodings for learned cost models; and reinforcement-learning policies with matrix or tree-LSTM encodings for learned plan traversal. The spectrum does the work of showing that existing knowledge-graph systems occupy only parts of the space, especially leaving the neuro-symbolic cost model cell empty.

What would settle it

A systematic literature search for knowledge-graph query optimizers whose cost model learns the weights of a formula-based cost function, or that combines neural cost estimates with symbolic cost formulas, would settle the claim; finding one published or implemented such system would falsify the paper's assertion that no neuro-symbolic cost models over knowledge graphs exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the existence of a region of neuro-symbolic query optimizers for knowledge graphs, defined as optimizers that combine symbolic components with learned neural components in at least one of three roles: cardinality estimation, cost modeling, or plan traversal. It states explicitly that there are currently no approaches for neuro-symbolic cost models over knowledge graphs, meaning no system that learns the weights or parameters of a formula-based cost model or blends neural estimates with a traditional cost model for knowledge-graph queries. The paper surveys the existing neural components for each role and argues that the graph-structured, schema-light nature of knowledge graphs makes this hybrid space genuinely different from the relational-database setting.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that no neuro-symbolic cost model for knowledge graphs exists rests on the completeness of the paper's curated reference list; if a relevant approach was omitted, the central characterization of the research gap would be inaccurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the taxonomy is right, the natural next work item is a knowledge-graph neuro-symbolic cost model that learns formula weights offline and adjusts them online as data or hardware change.
  • Knowledge-graph cardinality estimators already exploit graph structure via GNNs and embeddings; the same graph-aware representations could be used inside a hybrid cost model rather than a black-box latency predictor.
  • Because knowledge graphs have skewed degree distributions and schema-less data, purely relational learned techniques cannot be transplanted directly, so the paper's claim implies that KG-specific hybrid components are needed.
  • For plan traversal, the paper's survey implies that reinforcement-learning planners over query trees can match dynamic-programming quality at linear runtime, making learned traversal a viable component to pair with symbolic cost estimation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader should treat the central gap claim as a claim about the surveyed literature, not a formal proof of absence; a targeted search might surface a neuro-symbolic cost model for knowledge graphs that this chapter does not cite.
  • Several of the cited knowledge-graph approaches come from the same research group, so the completeness of the gap analysis would benefit from an independent literature audit.
  • A testable next step implied by the paper is to take an existing formula-based SPARQL cost model and learn only its weighting constants from latency data, then measure whether that hybrid beats both the fixed formula and a fully neural predictor.
  • The paper's emphasis on uncertainty and robustness suggests that neuro-symbolic cost models could double as calibration devices: when the neural component reports high uncertainty, the optimizer could fall back to the symbolic formula.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey chapter on neuro-symbolic query optimization for knowledge graphs (KGs). It introduces a conceptual spectrum ranging from fully symbolic optimizers to fully learned optimizers, with a middle region of neuro-symbolic systems that combine learned components (cardinality estimators, cost models, planners) with traditional symbolic components. The paper reviews existing neural techniques for cardinality estimation, cost modeling, and plan traversal over KGs, proposes an architecture for each component, and closes with challenges and future directions. The central claim is that neuro-symbolic query optimizers form a coherent and promising design space, and that one specific region—neuro-symbolic cost models for KGs—is currently unexplored, as stated explicitly in Section 4.1.

Significance. If the proposed taxonomy and gap analysis are reliable, the chapter could serve as a useful organizing framework for future research on machine-learning-assisted query optimization over knowledge graphs. The paper's strengths are its clear conceptual decomposition of query optimizer components, the helpful schematic figures (Figures 1–5), and its descriptive coverage of representative neural techniques for cardinality estimation, cost prediction, and plan enumeration. It also gives an explicit, falsifiable claim about an open research problem. However, the value of the survey rests on the completeness and correctness of the literature coverage, and the manuscript does not provide a systematic methodology to support its categorical absence claim. The chapter is more persuasive as a position piece than as a comprehensive survey, and the central gap claim needs to be either substantiated or carefully scoped.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 2] The bullet under 'Neuro-Symbolic Cost Model' states, 'Currently, there are no approaches for neuro-symbolic cost models over KGs.' This categorical absence claim is the central gap that motivates the chapter's agenda-setting contribution, but the manuscript provides no systematic search protocol, inclusion criteria, or completeness argument to support it. The reference base is a curated selection, including several works co-authored by the authors (e.g., [33], [34], [39], [41], [42]), and relevant venues such as VLDB, SIGMOD, ICDE, ISWC, and ESWC for 2018–2024 are not comprehensively covered. Because a single qualifying existing system would invalidate the stated research gap, the claim should be either backed by a reproducible literature-search methodology or softened to a scoped, 'to the best of our knowledge' statement with an explicit discussion of related positions.
  2. [§4.3 and §3.2.2] The distinction between 'neuro-symbolic cost models' and 'learned cost models' is not drawn sharply enough to make the claimed gap in Section 4.1 precise. In Section 3.2.2, neuro-symbolic cost models are described as formula-based models whose parameters are learned, while Figure 2 defines a neuro-symbolic cost model more broadly as one that 'integrates a learned model into the cost estimation process, either by learning the weights of the factors in the cost model or by combining neural estimates with traditional cost models.' Section 4.3 reviews learned cost models for KGs without indicating which, if any, of the reviewed systems qualify as neuro-symbolic under the Figure 2 definition. The absence claim cannot be evaluated until this boundary is operationalized with concrete examples.
  3. [§5, first paragraph] The chapter uses the term 'neuro-symbolic optimizer' inconsistently. Section 4.1 characterizes the neuro-symbolic region as optimizers that combine learned models with traditional symbolic components, including the case where a single component is replaced by a neural model. Section 5 opens by saying, 'This chapter has presented the architecture of neuro-symbolic optimizers, where one or several symbolic components of the optimizer are entirely replaced by neural components,' and then describes a 'hybrid architecture' with neural networks in a supporting role as 'another paradigm.' The relationship between these two characterizations should be clarified so readers know whether the supporting-role hybrid is inside or outside the proposed taxonomy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] There are several typos in the plan-traversal section, including 'travesal' for 'traversal' and 'maximun' for 'maximum'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption reads 'adjaceny tensors'; this should be 'adjacency tensors'.
  3. [Reference [32]] The reference title contains 'Charaterizing'; it should be 'Characterizing'.
  4. [§4, introductory paragraph] The introductory paragraph refers to 'learned planned traversal' while Section 4.4 is titled 'Learned Plan Traversal'; the wording should be made consistent.
  5. [§2.2.1] The phrase 'very large KG' should be 'very large KGs' for grammatical consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey/taxonomy with no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is an agenda-setting survey chapter, not a derivation. It defines a spectrum of neuro-symbolic query optimizers (Figure 2) and maps existing work onto that spectrum. There are no equations whose outputs are fixed by construction, no parameters fitted to data and then renamed as predictions, and no claimed first-principles result. The paper cites several works by its own authors (e.g., [34], [39], [41], [42]) and relies on related work for the taxonomy, but those citations are used descriptively as examples of components, not as load-bearing evidence for a derived claim. The only categorical assertion, that 'Currently, there are no approaches for neuro-symbolic cost models over KGs' (Section 4.1), is an empirical absence claim whose vulnerability is potential incompleteness of the literature review, not circularity: the chapter does not define 'neuro-symbolic cost model' in terms of the absence, nor does it fit anything to produce the absence. Under the review rule, lack of a systematic search is a correctness or completeness concern, not a circularity concern. The taxonomy and component descriptions are self-contained relative to the cited literature, and no step in the chapter's argument reduces to its own inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities. It relies on two qualitative domain assumptions about knowledge graph data and the benefits of neural models, both sourced to existing literature. There are no free parameters because the paper contains no fitted models or quantitative derivations.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Knowledge graphs exhibit connectedness, semi-structuredness, and power-law degree distributions, and these properties fundamentally hinder direct application of relational database optimization techniques.
    Invoked in Section 4 to motivate KG-specific learned components; this is a qualitative empirical claim about KG data and is not experimentally established in this chapter.
  • domain assumption Neural models can capture non-linear aspects of query optimization better than traditional summary statistics.
    Stated in the abstract and Section 1 and attributed to prior literature, but not demonstrated here. It underpins the rationale for learned components.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neuro-Symbolic Query Optimization in Knowledge Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNQGUHLW

@misc{pith2026241114277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neuro-Symbolic Query Optimization in Knowledge Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNQGUHLW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14277}
}
read the original abstract

This chapter delves into the emerging field of neuro-symbolic query optimization for knowledge graphs (KGs), presenting a comprehensive exploration of how neural and symbolic techniques can be integrated to enhance query processing. Traditional query optimizers in knowledge graphs rely heavily on symbolic methods, utilizing dataset summaries, statistics, and cost models to select efficient execution plans. However, these approaches often suffer from misestimations and inaccuracies, particularly when dealing with complex queries or large-scale datasets. Recent advancements have introduced neural models, which capture non-linear aspects of query optimization, offering promising alternatives to purely symbolic methods. In this chapter, we introduce neuro-symbolic query optimizers, a novel approach that combines the strengths of symbolic reasoning with the adaptability of neural computation. We discuss the architecture of these hybrid systems, highlighting the interplay between neural and symbolic components to improve the optimizer's ability to navigate the search space and produce efficient execution plans. Additionally, the chapter reviews existing neural components tailored for optimizing queries over knowledge graphs and examines the limitations and challenges in deploying neuro-symbolic query optimizers in real-world environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simplified architecture of query optimizers Heuristic-based Optimization These optimizers use heuristics and ‘rules of thumb’ to make decisions about query plans. They rely on strategies or heuristics to simplify and speed up the optimization process. For example, a heuristic might dictate that certain sub￾plans should always be preferred. These optimizers are generally fast (i.e., polynomial time), but they do not … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectrum of integrating learned components into a query optimizer Due to these fundamental differences, neural and neuro-symbolic methods for query optimization have been proposed for KGs. In this chapter, first, we present a character￾ization of neuro-symbolic architectures for query optimizers (§4.1). Then, we describe how the components of a KG query optimizer can implement learned cardinality estima￾tion (§4.2),… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Neural architectures of learned cardinality estimators for knowledge graphs 4.2. Learned Cardinality Estimation Different architectures can be applied to learn cardinality estimations over KGs as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Architecture of learned cost models for KGs Autoregressive Models In the context of cardinality estimation, autoregressive models learn the correlation between the nodes and edges in the KG in an unsupervised way. For this, the models perform random walks over the KG w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Architecture of learned plan traversal models for KG 4.4. Learned Plan Traversal Learned end-to-end models for plan traversal in KG aim to learn a greedy heuristic for operator ordering that minimizes the query execution latency. Similar to relational databases, existi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    LMKG: Learned Models for Cardinality Estimation in Knowledge Graphs

    Davitkova A, Gjurovski D, Michel S. LMKG: Learned Models for Cardinality Estimation in Knowledge Graphs. In: Stoyanovich J, Teubner J, Guagliardo P, Nikolic M, Pieris A, M ¨uhlig J, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, EDBT 2022, Edinburgh, UK, March 29 - April 1, 2022. OpenProceedings.org; 20...

    work page doi:10.48786/edbt.2022.07 2022

  2. [34]

    Cardinality Estimation over Knowledge Graphs with Embeddings and Graph Neural Networks

    Schwabe T, Acosta M. Cardinality Estimation over Knowledge Graphs with Embeddings and Graph Neural Networks. Proc ACM Manag Data. 2024;2(1):44:1-44:26. Available from:https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3639299

    doi:10.1145/3639299 2024

  3. [39]

    Reinforcement Learning-Based SPARQL Join Or- dering Optimizer

    Eschauzier R, Taelman R, Morren M, Verborgh R. Reinforcement Learning-Based SPARQL Join Or- dering Optimizer. In: Pesquita C, Skaf-Molli H, Efthymiou V , Kirrane S, Ngonga A, Collarana D, et al., editors. The Semantic Web: ESWC 2023 Satellite Events - Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, May 28 - June 1, 2023, Proceedings. vol. 13998 of Lecture Notes in Computer S...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43458-7_8 2023

  4. [41]

    Cost- and Robustness-Based Query Optimization for Linked Data Fragments

    Heling L, Acosta M. Cost- and Robustness-Based Query Optimization for Linked Data Fragments. In: Pan JZ, Tamma V AM, d’Amato C, Janowicz K, Fu B, Polleres A, et al., editors. The Semantic Web - ISWC 2020 - 19th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, Greece, November 2-6, 2020, Proceedings, Part I. vol. 12506 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. S...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62419-4_14 2020

  5. [42]

    Robust query processing for linked data fragments

    Heling L, Acosta M. Robust query processing for linked data fragments. Semantic Web. 2022;13(4):623-

    work page 2022

  6. [1]

    An overview of query optimization in relational systems

    Chaudhuri S. An overview of query optimization in relational systems. In: Proceedings of the sev- enteenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems; 1998. p. 34-43

    work page 1998

  7. [2]

    On the optimal nesting order for computing n-relational joins

    Ibaraki T, Kameda T. On the optimal nesting order for computing n-relational joins. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS). 1984;9(3):482-502

    work page 1984

  8. [3]

    Adaptive query processing

    Deshpande A, Ives Z, Raman V , et al. Adaptive query processing. Foundations and Trends® in Databases. 2007;1(1):1-140

    work page 2007

Show all 44 references
  1. [4]

    ANAPSID: an adaptive query processing engine for SPARQL endpoints

    Acosta M, Vidal ME, Lampo T, Castillo J, Ruckhaus E. ANAPSID: an adaptive query processing engine for SPARQL endpoints. In: The Semantic Web–ISWC 2011: 10th International Semantic Web Conference, Bonn, Germany, October 23-27, 2011, Proceedings, Part I 10. Springer; 2011. p. 18-34

    2011

  2. [5]

    Networks of linked data eddies: An adaptive web query processing engine for RDF data

    Acosta M, Vidal ME. Networks of linked data eddies: An adaptive web query processing engine for RDF data. In: The Semantic Web-ISWC 2015: 14th International Semantic Web Conference, Bethlehem, PA, USA, October 11-15, 2015, Proceedings, Part I 14. Springer; 2015. p. 111-27

    2015

  3. [6]

    Using EXPLAIN; 2024

    Documentation P. Using EXPLAIN; 2024. Accessed: 2024-08-12. Available from: https://www. postgresql.org/docs/current/using-explain.html

    2024

  4. [7]

    Query optimization

    Ioannidis YE. Query optimization. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 1996;28(1):121-3

    1996

  5. [8]

    Learned cardinality estimation: a design space exploration and a comparative evaluation

    Sun J, Zhang J, Sun Z, Li G, Tang N. Learned cardinality estimation: a design space exploration and a comparative evaluation. Proc VLDB Endow. 2021 sep;15(1):85–97. Available from: https://doi. org/10.14778/3485450.3485459

    2021

  6. [9]

    Learned Query Optimizer: What is New and What is Next

    Zhu R, Weng L, Ding B, Zhou J. Learned Query Optimizer: What is New and What is Next. In: Companion of the 2024 International Conference on Management of Data; 2024. p. 561-9

    2024

  7. [10]

    An end-to-end learning-based cost estimator

    Sun J, Li G. An end-to-end learning-based cost estimator. arXiv preprint arXiv:190602560. 2019

    2019

  8. [11]

    Selectivity estimation for range predicates using lightweight models

    Dutt A, Wang C, Nazi A, Kandula S, Narasayya V , Chaudhuri S. Selectivity estimation for range predicates using lightweight models. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2019;12(9):1044-57

    2019

  9. [12]

    Learned cardinalities: Estimating correlated joins with deep learning

    Kipf A, Kipf T, Radke B, Leis V , Boncz P, Kemper A. Learned cardinalities: Estimating correlated joins with deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:180900677. 2018

    2018

  10. [13]

    An empirical analysis of deep learning for cardinality estimation

    Ortiz J, Balazinska M, Gehrke J, Keerthi SS. An empirical analysis of deep learning for cardinality estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:190506425. 2019

    2019

  11. [14]

    Learned cardinality estimation: An in-depth study

    Kim K, Jung J, Seo I, Han WS, Choi K, Chong J. Learned cardinality estimation: An in-depth study. In: Proceedings of the 2022 international conference on management of data; 2022. p. 1214-27

    2022

  12. [15]

    Deepdb: Learn from data, not from queries! arXiv preprint arXiv:190900607

    Hilprecht B, Schmidt A, Kulessa M, Molina A, Kersting K, Binnig C. Deepdb: Learn from data, not from queries! arXiv preprint arXiv:190900607. 2019

    2019

  13. [16]

    Deep unsupervised cardinality estimation

    Yang Z, Liang E, Kamsetty A, Wu C, Duan Y , Chen X, et al. Deep unsupervised cardinality estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:190504278. 2019

    2019

  14. [17]

    Deep learning models for selectivity estimation of multi-attribute queries

    Hasan S, Thirumuruganathan S, Augustine J, Koudas N, Das G. Deep learning models for selectivity estimation of multi-attribute queries. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Confer- ence on Management of Data; 2020. p. 1035-50. July 2024

    2020

  15. [18]

    Are we ready for learned cardinality estimation? arXiv preprint arXiv:201206743

    Wang X, Qu C, Wu W, Wang J, Zhou Q. Are we ready for learned cardinality estimation? arXiv preprint arXiv:201206743. 2020

    2020

  16. [19]

    A neural networks approach for query cost evaluation

    Boulos J, Viemont Y , Ono K. A neural networks approach for query cost evaluation. Transaction of Information Processing Society of Japan. 1997;38(12):2566-75

    1997

  17. [20]

    Neo: A learned query optimizer

    Marcus R, Negi P, Mao H, Zhang C, Alizadeh M, Kraska T, et al. Neo: A learned query optimizer. arXiv preprint arXiv:190403711. 2019

    2019

  18. [21]

    A survey on advancing the dbms query optimizer: Cardinality estimation, cost model, and plan enumeration

    Lan H, Bao Z, Peng Y . A survey on advancing the dbms query optimizer: Cardinality estimation, cost model, and plan enumeration. Data Science and Engineering. 2021;6:86-101

    2021

  19. [22]

    Plan-structured deep neural network models for query performance pre- diction

    Marcus R, Papaemmanouil O. Plan-structured deep neural network models for query performance pre- diction. arXiv preprint arXiv:190200132. 2019

    2019

  20. [23]

    Rethinking Learned Cost Models: Why Start from Scratch? Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data

    Yang J, Wu S, Zhang D, Dai J, Li F, Chen G. Rethinking Learned Cost Models: Why Start from Scratch? Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data. 2023;1(4):1-27

    2023

  21. [24]

    Learning to optimize join queries with deep reinforcement learning

    Krishnan S, Yang Z, Goldberg K, Hellerstein J, Stoica I. Learning to optimize join queries with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:180803196. 2018

    2018

  22. [25]

    RL QOptimizer: A Reinforcement Learning Based Query Optimizer

    Ramadan M, El-Kilany A, Mokhtar HM, Sobh I. RL QOptimizer: A Reinforcement Learning Based Query Optimizer. IEEE Access. 2022;10:70502-15

    2022

  23. [26]

    Join query optimization with deep reinforcement learning algorithms

    Heitz J, Stockinger K. Join query optimization with deep reinforcement learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:191111689. 2019

    2019

  24. [27]

    Deep reinforcement learning for join order enumeration

    Marcus R, Papaemmanouil O. Deep reinforcement learning for join order enumeration. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Exploiting Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Data Manage- ment; 2018. p. 1-4

    2018

  25. [28]

    Reinforcement Learning with Tree-LSTM for Join Order Selection

    Yu X, Li G, Chai C, Tang N. Reinforcement Learning with Tree-LSTM for Join Order Selection. In: 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2020, Dallas, TX, USA, April 20-24, 2020. IEEE; 2020. p. 1297-308. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE48307.2020.00116

    2020

  26. [29]

    Skinnerdb: Regret-bounded query evalu- ation via reinforcement learning

    Trummer I, Wang J, Wei Z, Maram D, Moseley S, Jo S, et al. Skinnerdb: Regret-bounded query evalu- ation via reinforcement learning. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS). 2021;46(3):1-45

    2021

  27. [30]

    A reinforcement learning approach for adaptive query processing

    Tzoumas K, Sellis T, Jensen CS. A reinforcement learning approach for adaptive query processing. History. 2008:1-25

    2008

  28. [31]

    Database meets artificial intelligence: A survey

    Zhou X, Chai C, Li G, Sun J. Database meets artificial intelligence: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2020;34(3):1096-116

    2020

  29. [32]

    Charaterizing RDF graphs through graph-based measures - framework and assessment

    Zloch M, Acosta M, Hienert D, Conrad S, Dietze S. Charaterizing RDF graphs through graph-based measures - framework and assessment. Semantic Web. 2021;12(5):789-812. Available from: https: //doi.org/10.3233/SW-200409

    2021 doi

  30. [35]

    Learned sketch for subgraph counting: a holistic approach

    Zhao K, Yu JX, Li Q, Zhang H, Rong Y . Learned sketch for subgraph counting: a holistic approach. VLDB J. 2023;32(5):937-62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-023-00781-5

    2023 doi

  31. [36]

    Learning-based SPARQL query performance modeling and prediction

    Zhang WE, Sheng QZ, Qin Y , Taylor K, Yao L. Learning-based SPARQL query performance modeling and prediction. World Wide Web. 2018;21(4):1015-35. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11280-017-0498-1

    2018

  32. [37]

    SPARQL query execution time prediction using Deep Learning

    Casals D, Buil-Aranda C, Valle C. SPARQL query execution time prediction using Deep Learning. 2023

    2023

  33. [38]

    ReJOOSp: Reinforcement Learning for Join Order Optimization in SPARQL

    Warnke B, Martens K, Winker T, Groppe S, Groppe J, Adhiyaman P, et al. ReJOOSp: Reinforcement Learning for Join Order Optimization in SPARQL. Big Data and Cognitive Computing. 2024;8(7). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2504-2289/8/7/71

    2024

  34. [40]

    Robust query processing through progressive optimization

    Markl V , Raman V , Simmen D, Lohman G, Pirahesh H, Cilimdzic M. Robust query processing through progressive optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data; 2004. p. 659-70

    2004

  35. [43]

    Eddies: Continuously adaptive query processing

    Avnur R, Hellerstein JM. Eddies: Continuously adaptive query processing. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data; 2000. p. 261-72

    2000

  36. [57]

    Available from: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-212888

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.