Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a provably linearizable and lock-free relaxed AVL tree called the non-blocking ravl tree. At any time, the height of a non-blocking ravl tree is upper bounded by log_d (2m) + c, where d is the golden ratio, m is the total number of successful INSERT operations performed so far and c is the number of active concurrent processes that have inserted new keys and are still rebalancing the tree at this time. The most significant feature of the non-blocking ravl tree is that it does not rebalance itself after DELETE operations. Instead, it performs rebalancing only after INSERT operations. Thus, the non-blocking ravl tree is much simpler to implement than other self-balancing concurrent binary search trees (BSTs) which typically introduce a large number of rebalancing cases after DELETE operations, while still providing a provable non-trivial bound on its height. We further conduct experimental studies to compare our solution with other state-of-the-art concurrent BSTs using randomly generated data sequences under uniform distributions, and find that our solution achieves the best performance among concurrent self-balancing BSTs. As the keys in access sequences are likely to be partially sorted in system software, we also conduct experiments using data sequences with various degrees of presortedness to better simulate applications in practice. Our experimental results show that, when there are enough degrees of presortedness, our solution achieves the best performance among all the concurrent BSTs used in our studies, including those that perform self-balancing operations and those that do not, and thus is potentially the best candidate for many real-world applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".