LLM-Powered Proactive Data Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
With the power of LLMs, we now have the ability to query data that was previously impossible to query, including text, images, and video. However, despite this enormous potential, most present-day data systems that leverage LLMs are reactive, reflecting our community's desire to map LLMs to known abstractions. Most data systems treat LLMs as an opaque black box that operates on user inputs and data as is, optimizing them much like any other approximate, expensive UDFs, in conjunction with other relational operators. Such data systems do as they are told, but fail to understand and leverage what the LLM is being asked to do (i.e. the underlying operations, which may be error-prone), the data the LLM is operating on (e.g., long, complex documents), or what the user really needs. They don't take advantage of the characteristics of the operations and/or the data at hand, or ensure correctness of results when there are imprecisions and ambiguities. We argue that data systems instead need to be proactive: they need to be given more agency -- armed with the power of LLMs -- to understand and rework the user inputs and the data and to make decisions on how the operations and the data should be represented and processed. By allowing the data system to parse, rewrite, and decompose user inputs and data, or to interact with the user in ways that go beyond the standard single-shot query-result paradigm, the data system is able to address user needs more efficiently and effectively. These new capabilities lead to a rich design space where the data system takes more initiative: they are empowered to perform optimization based on the transformation operations, data characteristics, and user intent. We discuss various successful examples of how this framework has been and can be applied in real-world tasks, and present future directions for this ambitious research agenda.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2025.
Builds on
19 of 34 references.
References · 19
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
- 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 667
- 2024RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrievalcited by 519
- 2022Can Foundation Models Wrangle Your Data?cited by 173
- 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 142
- 2024CHASE-SQL: Multi-Path Reasoning and Preference Optimized Candidate Selection in Text-to-SQLcited by 132
- 2024The Dawn of Natural Language to SQL: Are We Fully Ready?cited by 78
- 2024DocETL: Agentic Query Rewriting and Evaluation for Complex Document Processingcited by 49
- 2024A Declarative System for Optimizing AI Workloadscited by 35
- 2025Is Long Context All You Need? Leveraging LLM's Extended Context for NL2SQLcited by 30
- 2024The Design of an LLM-powered Unstructured Analytics Systemcited by 20
7 more
- 2023Revisiting Prompt Engineering via Declarative Crowdsourcingcited by 12
- 2024Towards Accurate and Efficient Document Analytics with Large Language Modelscited by 11
- 2024Mind the Data Gap: Bridging LLMs to Enterprise Data Integrationcited by 7
- 2025Visual Template Inference for Data Extraction from Documentscited by 6
- 2024NUDGE: Lightweight Non-Parametric Fine-Tuning of Embeddings for Retrievalcited by 5
- 2024Multi-LLM Text Summarizationcited by 5
- 2023The Fast and the Private: Task-based Dataset Searchcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.