A Length Enhanced B<sup>+</sup>-Tree Based Index for Efficient Set Similarity Query
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Set Similarity Query (SSQ) is widely applied in various fields. The existing B+-tree-based SSQ approaches fail to fully exploit length filtering and require calculating similarity bounds in a node-wise manner, leading to low efficiency. To address these issues, we propose LeB, a novel length-enhanced B+-tree index, whose keys integrate set lengths and bucket mapping, enabling the direct pruning of sets that do not meet the length requirements. Building upon LeB, we present an efficient algorithm, LeBQ, which leverages length filtering and symmetric difference allocation to determine the key bounds for a query, enabling the key bounds computation only once for each query$Q$and avoiding costly similarity bounds computation in a node-wise manner. Efficient key filtering strategies are proposed to prune sets that cannot be similar, significantly reducing the number of candidates. Based on LeBQ, LeBQ+ further reduces the number of candidates by introducing length-independent key bounds. Experimental results on four real datasets demonstrate that LeBQ+ has a higher node access efficiency and accesses only 3.08% to 27.47% nodes compared to the existing B+-tree-based SSQ algorithm. LeBQ+is up to 99.8 × faster than the state-of-the-art algorithms.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".