Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.06858

Trajectools Demo: Towards No-Code Solutions for Movement Data Analytics

Anita Graser·Melitta Dragschnig
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This demo paper presents the conceptual foundations and the first steps towards implementation of a novel no-code solution for movement data analytics based on the open-source Python library MovingPandas and the open-source geographic information system QGIS. The resulting Trajectools plugin is available open-source at https://github.com/movingpandas/qgis-processing-trajectory.

Explore related subjects

cs.DBcs.HCcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anita Graser, Melitta Dragschnig. 2026-06-05. Trajectools Demo: Towards No-Code Solutions for Movement Data Analytics. https://doi.org/10.1109/mdm61037.2024.00048

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Cost-Aware Optimization for Agentic Query Execution

Classical query optimization searches over algebraically equivalent plans that differ only in cost. This assumption breaks once LLM-backed operators enter the picture: their placement, ordering, and granularity jointly determine both cost and answer quality, and the right choice among the alternatives is often revealed only at runtime. We formalize this setting as agentic query execution, a query execution paradigm in which agent-based planning is interleaved with execution, and agent workflow optimization becomes the analogue of classical query optimization. We then present EnumGRPO, a self-improving optimizer for this setting. During a learning stage, EnumGRPO enumerates query plans over decisions such as execution paradigm, operator type, operator placement, selectivity scope, and projection width, then distills quality-cost feedback into reusable planning heuristics via in-context reinforcement learning. On SWAN, EnumGRPO achieves higher execution accuracy than LOTUS, Palimpzest, and Agentic BlendSQL, while cutting LLM-operator cost by up to 317x. Without retraining, the learned experiences transfer to another LLM family, the SemBench workload, and purely relational Spider and BIRD workloads, improving or preserving quality while reducing LLM-operator use.

cs.DB↗
arXiv2026

No Trace, No Claim: Two Contracts for Database Agents

LLM agents can generate database operations and explain their results, but current interfaces often leave a gap between generated plans, execution conditions, and claims presented to users. We argue that agent-facing data systems need two enforceable contracts. A plan contract defines what an agent may execute and reference; an evidence contract records the belief state, completeness, and provenance under which a result supports a claim. We instantiate these contracts in TGMS, a bi-temporal graph system in which an LLM plans over a fixed temporal operator interface. A static verifier checks plans before execution, and a claim verifier checks typed claims against content-addressed traces. Live model runs exposed two failures missed by input-only schemas and value-only grounding: nonexistent result fields and page-local counts reported as complete-result counts. Result-field checking makes the first a repairable rejection. Completeness propagation detects the second in all 15 controlled cases and misses all 15 when disabled. On the frozen CollegeMsg workload, TGMS reaches 0.408 typed-answer accuracy versus 0.064--0.284 for the evaluated baselines. On Bitcoin-OTC, direct SQL over the same bi-temporal store matches TGMS, showing no universal accuracy advantage for the fixed operator interface. On correction probes, TGMS and bi-temporal SQL answer historical-belief questions, while latest-state baselines cannot. Before claim gating, 21 of 220 answers contain an unsupported gated claim; after gating, none of 199 emitted answers does, at the cost of 21 fewer answers. The plan contract makes invalid plans rejectable and execution reproducible under recorded conditions, while the evidence contract makes gated claims faithful to cited evidence. Neither guarantees correct interpretation of user intent.

cs.DB↗
arXiv2026

Indexing Designs and Adaptive Data Distribution Optimization for In-Memory Databases on Hybrid DDR--CXL Memory

CXL memory expands single-node memory capacity for in-memory databases but has higher latency and lower bandwidth than local DDR. Hybrid DDR--CXL databases require joint indexing and data distribution design. Indexing designs differ in access and migration paths and constrain the placement of indexes and tuples, creating trade-offs in runtime performance, DDR memory efficiency, and system integration complexity. Their performance impact is thus difficult to determine. Indexes and tuples may differ in access characteristics: placing them in the same tier may reduce DDR efficiency, while separate management adds tracking and decision overhead. We propose five indexing designs based on two approaches: treating the two tiers as a unified data space or managing them separately. We analyze their trade-offs and underlying causes and develop adaptive data distribution optimization for single-index designs in which the database explicitly manages distribution. The method manages index objects and tuples separately, reduces metadata overhead through hierarchical hotness tracking and an index object residency policy, and extends benefit-aware admission and randomized eviction to determine and adjust their placement according to each type's expected benefits and memory footprints. We implemented the designs in a hybrid DDR--CXL database prototype and evaluated them using YCSB. The single-index design with direct addressing achieves the best performance under most workloads and system configurations. The dual-index design performs better mainly when DDR capacity is limited or accesses are highly concentrated, and has relatively low integration complexity. Adaptive distribution optimization improves DDR memory efficiency and system performance, enabling single-index designs to achieve up to $1.59\times$ the throughput of their counterparts with non-separated management.

cs.DB↗