Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 cited by

AgenticDB turns database tuning into a live diagnose–apply–recover loop over DBMS and OS settings, beating prior tuners by 118% on average.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-15 10:40 UTC pith:DGS4IME6

load-bearing objection Solid systems paper on safer cross-layer DB reconfiguration; the 118% headline overstates method quality because baselines never get the OS space. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.20318 v3 pith:DGS4IME6 submitted 2026-06-18 cs.DB

AgenticDB: Self-Evolving Reconfiguration Framework for Database Workloads

Xinyue Yang , Chaozheng Wang , Chen Zheng , Heng Zhang , Yanjun Wu This is my paper
classification cs.DB
keywords automatic database tuningDBMS configurationOS-level reconfigurationlarge language modelsagentic harnesscross-layer reconfigurationbottleneck diagnosisexecution recovery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Database performance depends on hundreds of knobs, yet automatic tuners usually search a narrow DBMS-only space through costly workload replays, with little diagnosis of why a setting helped or failed and little help applying restart-sensitive or OS-level changes safely. AgenticDB reframes tuning as closed-loop reconfiguration on the live server: an LLM planner grounded in workload fingerprints, runtime metrics, and past experience proposes DBMS and OS actions; a validator and recovery path apply them under safety checks and restore a last-good state on failure; an auditor decides whether to continue, switch layers, or stop. On MySQL and PostgreSQL with YCSB, Sysbench, and TPC-H, it reports the best observed result on every workload, about 118% better than the strongest baseline on average, and reaches those peaks with 22.6% less total time-to-best. The authors argue the gains come from broader safe search, bottleneck-driven proposals rather than score-only search, and memory that reuses both within-run and cross-task experience. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a practical path from offline knob search toward self-refining reconfiguration that can use OS levers and survive bad restarts without manual repair.

Core claim

AgenticDB claims that treating database tuning as a context-grounded, execution-aware agentic loop—diagnosing bottlenecks from workload and runtime evidence, acting over a safe cross-layer DBMS/OS space, validating and recovering failed changes, and evolving context with session and experience memory—yields stronger final configurations and faster time-to-best than prior DBMS-knob search methods across the evaluated MySQL and PostgreSQL workloads.

What carries the argument

The context-grounded harness: an Initializer that builds a workload fingerprint and safe DBMS/OS action space; an LLM DBA Planner that forms bottleneck hypotheses and patches; Validator/Executor/Recovery for apply-verify-rollback; an Auditor for loop control and best-stable restore; and a Memory Book for session and cross-task experience.

Load-bearing premise

The large reported gains fairly credit the agentic loop even though only AgenticDB searches a validated OS-level space while the named baselines stay inside DBMS knobs, and short 60-second OLTP runs with middle-of-three-run selection are treated as stable comparable optima.

What would settle it

Re-run the same MySQL/PostgreSQL YCSB, Sysbench, and TPC-H suites under equal budgets with every baseline given the same safe OS action space and lifecycle, and check whether AgenticDB still wins by a large margin on final objective and aggregate time-to-best.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AgenticDB, an LLM-driven closed-loop harness for database workload reconfiguration on a live server. Rather than treating tuning as black-box search over a reduced DBMS knob space, it couples context-grounded bottleneck diagnosis (workload fingerprint, runtime states, deployment context) with a safe cross-layer DBMS+OS action space, Validator/Executor/Recovery lifecycle for apply/verify/rollback (including restart-sensitive knobs), Auditor-controlled continue/switch/terminate decisions, and session plus cross-task experience memory. On MySQL and PostgreSQL with YCSB, Sysbench, and TPC-H, it reports best observed performance on every workload, +118.1% average improvement over the strongest baseline and 22.6% lower aggregate time-to-best, with ablations for OS-stage gains, safeguards, LLM backends, and memory.

Significance. If the results hold under fairer isolation of design factors, this is a substantial systems contribution: it reframes automatic DB tuning as executable, recoverable reconfiguration rather than offline knob recommendation, and demonstrates practical handling of restart-sensitive and OS-level parameters that most published tuners exclude. Strengths include a clear component architecture (§4), dual-DBMS multi-workload evaluation with progression curves (Fig. 2, Table 3), concrete Validator/Recovery failure cases and timing (Tables 5–6), and a memory protocol that excludes target-run leakage (§5.2). The work is timely for agentic systems research in databases and would influence how future tuners define action spaces and execution safety.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and §6.1/Table 3 attribute the +118.1% average gain primarily to the agentic harness (diagnosis, Auditor loop, memory). §3/Table 1 and RQ2/Table 4 simultaneously give AgenticDB a broader validated DBMS+OS space while all named baselines (GPTuner, DB-BERT, AgentTune, CDBTune) are DBMS-knob systems. The largest headline gaps (MS Sysbench write +337.7%, PG write +201.8%, PG readwrite +148.3%) coincide with workloads where OS-stage gains are reported (up to +24.0%). The paper never reports a full-budget DBMS-only AgenticDB (same harness, OS disabled for the entire budget) against the same baselines, nor baselines with an equalized OS space. RQ2’s “best before OS switch” numbers are not that ablation. Without this isolation, the central effectiveness claim conflates search-space expansion with the agentic design being marketed.
  2. §5.2 evaluation protocol: OLTP trials are 60 seconds; each method is run three times and only the middle final objective is reported, with no variance, confidence intervals, or full-run distributions. Under equal budgets this selection rule can favor methods with higher run-to-run variance and weakens the claim that AgenticDB “consistently” dominates (Table 3, Fig. 2). At minimum, report all three runs or error bars for the headline metrics, and justify that 60s captures stable configuration ranking for write-heavy Sysbench cases that drive the average.
  3. §5.2 testbed is a single small CPU-only server (12 vCPUs, 64 GB, 120 GB SSD). Cross-layer OS claims (dirty-page writeback, I/O scheduler, AIO limits, CPU scheduling; Table 4) are hardware- and storage-sensitive. The paper should either add a second hardware/storage setting or clearly bound external validity so that the dual-DBMS, multi-workload superiority claim is not over-generalized from one deployment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: headline gains are external benchmark measurements, not identities forced by fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

AgenticDB is an empirical systems paper. Its central claims (best observed performance on all workloads, +118.1% average over strongest baseline, 22.6% aggregate time-to-best reduction) are measured by external benchmarks (YCSB/Sysbench TPS/P95, TPC-H execution time) under a stated protocol, not derived from equations that redefine those metrics. Memory protocol explicitly excludes target-run leakage. Self-citations are ordinary related-work positioning (e.g., AgentTune comparison), not uniqueness theorems that force the result. Attribution concerns about OS search-space expansion vs. agentic design are experimental confounding risks, not circularity: no step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or definitional identity. Score 0 is the correct honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

Load-bearing content is mostly engineering design plus empirical protocol choices, not free physical constants. The central performance claim rests on domain assumptions about observability and OS influence, hand-designed safety/action filters, LLM planning quality, and an evaluation protocol (middle-of-3, 60s runs, DBMS-only baselines) rather than on fitted scientific parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Auditor continue/switch/terminate thresholds and plateau criteria
    Loop control that decides when to stop or move to OS layer is policy-defined; not derived from first principles and directly affects time-to-best and final configs (§4.7, §6.2).
  • Safe global action-space filters (allowed DBMS/OS knobs, ranges, restart policies)
    Which parameters remain tunable is rule/metadata-filtered by design; this defines the optimization ceiling relative to baselines (§4.1, §4.4).
  • Benchmark trial length and selection rule (60s OLTP; middle of 3 runs)
    Protocol choices that determine reported “best” without variance; can change ranking under noise (§5.2).
  • LLM backend and planning hyperparameters (default GPT-5.5)
    RQ4 shows large quality/cost sensitivity across models; default backend choice is a free experimental lever for the main tables (§6.4).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Runtime DBMS/OS metrics and logs are sufficient diagnostic evidence to localize bottlenecks and choose productive reconfiguration directions.
    Core of context-grounded diagnosis vs scalar-score search (C4; §2, §4.3).
  • domain assumption Selected OS parameters (swappiness/dirty writeback/I/O scheduler/CPU scheduling, etc.) can improve database workload performance beyond DBMS knobs under safety constraints.
    Motivation C3 and RQ2; gains are workload-dependent in the paper’s own data.
  • domain assumption Validator rules preserve benchmark semantics (e.g., fixed isolation) while still allowing meaningful performance tuning.
    §4.4 and RQ3 isolation example; defines what counts as a valid trial.
  • ad hoc to paper Workload fingerprints are adequate retrieval keys for useful cross-task experience without target leakage.
    Memory design and protocol in §4.1–4.2 and §5.2 Memory Protocol.
  • ad hoc to paper Comparing against published DBMS-only tuners under a shared replay/time budget is a fair overall effectiveness test for a DBMS+OS agent.
    Implicit in RQ1 protocol (§5.2, §6.1); contested by the paper’s own OS-gain analysis.
invented entities (3)
  • AgenticDB Harness (Initializer, Memory Book, LLM DBA Planner, Validator, Executor, Recovery, Auditor) no independent evidence
    purpose: Operationalize closed-loop, safe, memory-enhanced cross-layer reconfiguration on a live server.
    Primary system contribution; components are engineering constructs evaluated empirically, not independently measured natural entities.
  • Workload fingerprint schema (Table 2 fields) no independent evidence
    purpose: Structure context for planning and experience retrieval.
    Paper-defined feature schema; usefulness shown only inside AgenticDB runs.
  • Session memory + experience memory consolidation indexed by fingerprint no independent evidence
    purpose: Within-run continuity and cross-task reuse to cut low-value replays.
    Agent-memory design choice; RQ4 compares with/without experience memory on selected workloads.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25873 in / 3687 out tokens · 41043 ms · 2026-07-15T10:40:46.899542+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Database configuration tuning is critical for workload performance, but remains difficult on real deployments. Existing tuners may leave important regions of the configuration space unexplored, require costly workload replays, and provide limited support for safely applying and recovering configuration changes. To address these limitations, we propose AgenticDB, a self-evolving agentic framework for database workload reconfiguration. Specifically, AgenticDB implements a context-grounded harness over a broad yet safe cross-layer action space spanning DBMS and OS parameters. The harness operates through two coupled technical routes. Context-grounded bottleneck diagnosis interprets workload characteristics, deployment context, and runtime-state evidence to identify likely execution bottlenecks and prescribe targeted DBMS/OS actions. Closed-loop context evolution consolidates execution feedback and reusable experience to update subsequent diagnoses, reconfiguration focus, and loop decisions, reducing low-value exploration and unnecessary workload replays. These routes are supported by an execution-aware lifecycle that validates, applies, and verifies configuration changes and restores the last safe DBMS/OS state when failures occur. We evaluate AgenticDB on MySQL and PostgreSQL using YCSB, Sysbench, and TPC-H workloads. AgenticDB achieves the strongest observed performance across all evaluated workloads, improving over the strongest baseline by 118.1% on average and reducing aggregate time-to-best by 22.6%. Additional analyses demonstrate the benefits of OS-level reconfiguration, execution safeguards, and cross-task experience reuse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20318 by Chaozheng Wang, Chen Zheng, Heng Zhang, Xinyue Yang, Yanjun Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the AgenticDB framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overall reconfiguration progression of AgenticDB and baseline methods across MySQL and PostgreSQL workloads. For YCSB and Sysbench, each workload reports the objective, TPS, and P95 latency; TPC-H reports execution time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Reconfiguration progression of AgenticDB with different LLM backends on representative MySQL workloads. 6.4 RQ4: Effects of LLM Backends and Memory RQ4 evaluates how two design choices affect AgenticDB’s recon￾figuration behavior: the LLM backend and the memory mecha￾nism. We first compare multiple LLM backends under the same AgenticDB Harness to assess their impact on planning quality, end-to-end interact… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of experience memory on representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative reconfiguration traces showing how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A survey of 1,250 papers organizes AI self-improvement along two axes—what is improved and loop closure—finding that demonstrated self-improvement strength tracks a verification hierarchy from formal verifiers down to...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anthropic. 2026. Introducing Claude Opus 4.7. https://www.anthropic.com/ne ws/claude-opus-4-7

    2026

  2. [2]

    Baoqing Cai, Yu Liu, Ce Zhang, Guangyu Zhang, Ke Zhou, Li Liu, Chunhua Li, Bin Cheng, Jie Yang, and Jiashu Xing. 2022. HUNTER: an online cloud database hybrid tuning system for personalized requirements. InProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data. 646–659

    2022

  3. [3]

    Ben Cane. 2017. Improving Linux System Performance with I/O Scheduler Tuning. https://www.cloudbees.com/blog/linux-io-scheduler-tuning

    2017

  4. [4]

    Brian F Cooper, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Russell Sears. 2010. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSB. InProceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on Cloud computing. 143–154

    2010

  5. [5]

    Biplob K Debnath, David J Lilja, and Mohamed F Mokbel. 2008. SARD: A statistical approach for ranking database tuning parameters. In2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshop. IEEE, 11–18

    2008

  6. [6]

    2026.DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence

    DeepSeek-AI. 2026.DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence. Technical Report. DeepSeek-AI. https://huggingface.co/deepseek- ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro/resolve/main/DeepSeek_V4.pdf

    2026

  7. [7]

    Songyun Duan, Vamsidhar Thummala, and Shivnath Babu. 2009. Tuning database configuration parameters with ituned.Proc. VLDB Endow.2, 1 (2009), 1246–1257

    2009

  8. [8]

    Victor Giannakouris and Immanuel Trummer. 2025. �-tune: Harnessing large language models for automated database system tuning.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data3, 1 (2025), 1–26

    2025

  9. [9]

    Xinmei Huang, Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Xinxin Zhao, Zhiming Yao, Yiyan Li, Tieying Zhang, Jianjun Chen, Hong Chen, and Cuiping Li. 2024. E2etune: End- to-end knob tuning via fine-tuned generative language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11581(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Frank Hutter, Holger H Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2011. Sequential model- based optimization for general algorithm configuration. InInternational confer- ence on learning and intelligent optimization. Springer, 507–523

    2011

  11. [11]

    Konstantinos Kanellis, Ramnatthan Alagappan, and Shivaram Venkataraman

  12. [12]

    In12th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage 20)

    Too many knobs to tune? towards faster database tuning by pre-selecting important knobs. In12th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage 20)

  13. [13]

    Konstantinos Kanellis, Cong Ding, Brian Kroth, Andreas Müller, Carlo Curino, and Shivaram Venkataraman. 2022. LlamaTune: sample-efficient DBMS configu- ration tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05128(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    2009.SysBench: A Modular, Cross-Platform and Multi-Threaded Benchmark Tool

    Alexey Kopytov. 2009.SysBench: A Modular, Cross-Platform and Multi-Threaded Benchmark Tool. MySQL AB. https://imysql.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ sysbench-manual.pdf

    2009

  15. [15]

    Jiale Lao, Yibo Wang, Yufei Li, Jianping Wang, Yunjia Zhang, Zhiyuan Cheng, Wanghu Chen, Mingjie Tang, and Jianguo Wang. 2025. Gptuner: An llm-based database tuning system.ACM SIGMOD Record54, 1 (2025), 101–110

    2025

  16. [16]

    Guoliang Li, Xuanhe Zhou, Shifu Li, and Bo Gao. 2019. Qtune: A query-aware database tuning system with deep reinforcement learning.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment12, 12 (2019), 2118–2130

    2019

  17. [17]

    Yiyan Li, Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Renata Borovica-Gajic, Shuai Wang, Tieying Zhang, Jianjun Chen, Rui Shi, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2025. AgentTune: An Agent-Based Large Language Model Framework for Database Knob Tuning. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data3, 6 (2025), 1–29

    2025

  18. [18]

    Moonshot AI. 2026. Kimi K2.6 API Guide. https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/guide/ki mi-k2-6-quickstart

    2026

  19. [19]

    OpenAI. 2026. Introducing GPT-5.5. https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt- 5-5/

    2026

  20. [20]

    Oracle. 2020. Oracle Database 2 Day + Performance Tuning Guide, 19c. https: //docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/tdppt/

    2020

  21. [21]

    Oracle. 2022. Oracle Database Performance Tuning Guide, 19c. https://docs.ora cle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/tgdba/

    2022

  22. [22]

    2026.MySQL 8.0 Reference Manual: Configuring InnoDB Buffer Pool Size Online

    Oracle. 2026.MySQL 8.0 Reference Manual: Configuring InnoDB Buffer Pool Size Online. Oracle. https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/innodb-buffer-pool- resize.html

    2026

  23. [23]

    Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir_G Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph_E Gonzalez. 2023. MemGPT: towards LLMs as operating systems. (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology. 1–22

    2023

  25. [25]

    Andrew Pavlo, Gustavo Angulo, Joy Arulraj, Haibin Lin, Jiexi Lin, Lin Ma, Prashanth Menon, Todd C Mowry, Matthew Perron, Ian Quah, et al. 2017. Self- Driving Database Management Systems.. InCIDR, Vol. 4. 1

    2017

  26. [26]

    2026.PostgreSQL 18 Documentation: Monitoring Database Activity

    PostgreSQL Global Development Group. 2026.PostgreSQL 18 Documentation: Monitoring Database Activity. PostgreSQL Global Development Group. https: //www.postgresql.org/docs/18/monitoring.html

    2026

  27. [27]

    2026.PostgreSQL 18 Documentation: Resource Consumption

    PostgreSQL Global Development Group. 2026.PostgreSQL 18 Documentation: Resource Consumption. PostgreSQL Global Development Group. https://www. postgresql.org/docs/18/runtime-config-resource.html

    2026

  28. [28]

    Red Hat. 2020. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Tuning Guide: Tuning Virtual Memory. https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterpris e_linux/6/html/performance_tuning_guide/s-memory-tunables

    2020

  29. [29]

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 68539–68551

    2023

  30. [30]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 8634–8652

    2023

  31. [31]

    2022.TPC Benchmark H (TPC- H), Standard Specification, Revision 3.0.1

    Transaction Processing Performance Council. 2022.TPC Benchmark H (TPC- H), Standard Specification, Revision 3.0.1. Transaction Processing Performance Council. https://www.tpc.org/TPC_Documents_Current_Versions/pdf/TPC- H_v3.0.1.pdf

    2022

  32. [32]

    Reads the Manual

    Immanuel Trummer. 2022. DB-BERT: a Database Tuning Tool that" Reads the Manual". InProceedings of the 2022 international conference on management of data. 190–203

    2022

  33. [33]

    Dana Van Aken, Andrew Pavlo, Geoffrey J Gordon, and Bohan Zhang. 2017. Automatic database management system tuning through large-scale machine learning. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on management of data. 1009–1024

    2017

  34. [34]

    Dana Van Aken, Dongsheng Yang, Sebastien Brillard, Ari Fiorino, Bohan Zhang, Christian Bilien, and Andrew Pavlo. 2021. An inquiry into machine learning- based automatic configuration tuning services on real-world database manage- ment systems.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment14, 7 (2021), 1241–1253

    2021

  35. [35]

    Morreale

    Rik van Riel and Peter W. Morreale. 2008. Documentation for /proc/sys/vm. https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/sysctl/vm.html

    2008

  36. [36]

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291(2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. 2024. Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversations. InFirst conference on language modeling

    2024

  38. [38]

    Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. 2025. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey.Science China Information Sciences 68, 2 (2025), 121101

    2025

  39. [39]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Z.AI. 2026. GLM-5.1 Overview. https://docs.z.ai/guides/llm/glm-5.1

    2026

  41. [41]

    Yueyang Zhan, Rui Xi, Jianming Liao, Shuhuan Fan, and Mengshu Hou. 2024. KnobTune: A dynamic database configuration tuning strategy leveraging his- torical workload similarities. InProceedings of the International Conference on Computing, Machine Learning and Data Science. 1–8

    2024

  42. [42]

    Ji Zhang, Yu Liu, Ke Zhou, Guoliang Li, Zhili Xiao, Bin Cheng, Jiashu Xing, Yangtao Wang, Tianheng Cheng, Li Liu, et al. 2019. An end-to-end automatic cloud database tuning system using deep reinforcement learning. InProceedings of the 2019 international conference on management of data. 415–432

    2019

  43. [43]

    Limeng Zhang and M Ali Babar. 2024. Automatic configuration tuning on cloud database: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06043(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Xinyi Zhang, Zhuo Chang, Yang Li, Hong Wu, Jian Tan, Feifei Li, and Bin Cui. 2021. Facilitating database tuning with hyper-parameter optimization: a comprehensive experimental evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12654(2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Xinyi Zhang, Zhuo Chang, Hong Wu, Yang Li, Jia Chen, Jian Tan, Feifei Li, and Bin Cui. 2023. A unified and efficient coordinating framework for autonomous DBMS tuning.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data1, 2 (2023), 1–26

    2023

  46. [46]

    Xinyi Zhang, Hong Wu, Zhuo Chang, Shuowei Jin, Jian Tan, Feifei Li, Tieying Zhang, and Bin Cui. 2021. Restune: Resource oriented tuning boosted by meta- learning for cloud databases. InProceedings of the 2021 international conference on management of data. 2102–2114. SIGMOD/PODS ’27, June, 2027, California, USA Yang et al

    2021

  47. [47]

    Xinyi Zhang, Hong Wu, Yang Li, Jian Tan, Feifei Li, and Bin Cui. 2022. Towards dynamic and safe configuration tuning for cloud databases. InProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data. 631–645

    2022

  48. [48]

    Zeyu Zhang, Quanyu Dai, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2025. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model-based agents.ACM Transactions on Information Systems 43, 6 (2025), 1–47

    2025

  49. [49]

    Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. 2024. Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 19632–19642

    2024

  50. [50]

    Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. 2024. Memo- rybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 38. 19724–19731

    2024

  51. [51]

    Yuqing Zhu, Jianxun Liu, Mengying Guo, Yungang Bao, Wenlong Ma, Zhuoyue Liu, Kunpeng Song, and Yingchun Yang. 2017. Bestconfig: tapping the perfor- mance potential of systems via automatic configuration tuning. InProceedings of the 2017 symposium on cloud computing. 338–350

    2017