Cited by 23Advanced Database Systems and QueriesTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Semantic Operators and Their Optimization: Enabling LLM-Based Data Processing with Accuracy Guarantees in LOTUS

Patel, Liana, Jha, Siddharth, Pan, Melissa, Gupta, Harshit, Asawa, Parth, Guestrin, Carlos, Zaharia, Matei·2025·Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

Abstract

The semantic capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have the potential to enable rich analytics and reasoning over vast knowledge corpora. Unfortunately, existing systems either empirically optimize expensive LLM-powered operations with no performance guarantees , or limit their support to simple batched-inference primitives. We introduce semantic operators , the first formalism with statistical accuracy guarantees for general-purpose AI-based operations with natural language parameters (e.g., filtering, sorting, joining or aggregating records using natural language criteria). Each operator can be implemented by multiple AI algorithms , which compose individual model invocations to orchestrate the model over the data. Our programming model specifies the expected behavior of each operator with a high-quality reference algorithm , and we develop an optimization framework that reduces cost, while providing accuracy guarantees for individual operators. Using this approach, we propose several novel optimizations to accelerate semantic filtering, joining, group-by and top-k operations by up to 1, 000×. We implement semantic operators in the LOTUS system and demonstrate LOTUS' effectiveness on real, bulk-semantic processing applications, including fact-checking, biomedical multi-label classification, search, and topic analysis. We show that the semantic operator model is expressive, capturing state-of-the-art AI pipelines in a few operator calls, and making it easy to express…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14778/3749646.3749685

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adversarial writes corrupt later retrievals once the store keeps no defensible record of what it overwrote.

    “Adversarial writes corrupt later retrievals [57] once the store keeps no defensible record of what it overwrote.”

    From TOKI: A Bitemporal Operator Algebra for Contradiction Resolution in LLM-Agent Persistent Memory (2026) · cites this paper as [57]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Patel, L., Jha, S., Pan, M., Gupta, H., Asawa, P., Guestrin, C., & Zaharia, M.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
Published
2025-07
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
4171-4184
ISSN
2150-8097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413979874
Cited by
23
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 23
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
semantic operators, large language models, guaranteed accuracy, operator optimization, lotus, natural language queries, semantic filtering, join optimization, fact-checking, topic analysis, AI pipelines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review