LARC: Towards Human-level Constrained Retrosynthesis Planning through an Agentic Framework

Botao Yu; Daniel Adu-Ampratwum; Frazier N. Baker; Huan Sun; Reza Averly; Xia Ning

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

LARC: Towards Human-level Constrained Retrosynthesis Planning through an Agentic Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LARC, the first LLM-based agentic framework for constrained retrosynthesis planning, claims a 72.9% success rate on 48 curated tasks across three constraint types, beating LLM baselines and approaching human experts.

desk verdict Plausible and potentially important abstract claim, but the supplied full text is a different paper—the 72.9% result is unverified and needs external validation of the Agent-as-a-Judge. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11860 v1 pith:HPR2MFN4 submitted 2025-08-16 cs.AI cs.CL

Frazier N. Baker , Daniel Adu-Ampratwum , Reza Averly , Botao Yu , Huan Sun , Xia Ning This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.CL

keywords constrainedretrosynthesisplanningLLMagentsAgent-as-a-Judgetool-basedreasoningsynthesisconstraintslargelanguagemodels

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Retrosynthesis planning asks: given a target molecule and a set of allowed starting materials, find a sequence of reactions that makes the target while respecting practical constraints such as reagent availability or cost. The paper argues that this constrained version of the problem can be solved at near-expert level by a large-language-model agent, rather than by a dedicated search engine or hand-coded rule system. The proposed framework, LARC, is described as the first LLM-based agentic retrosynthesis planner under constraints; its distinctive move is an Agent-as-a-Judge that uses external tools to evaluate candidate routes against the constraints and feeds that evaluation back into route generation. Reported on 48 curated tasks spanning three constraint types, LARC achieves a 72.9% success rate, which the authors say vastly outperforms LLM baselines and approaches human-expert success in substantially less time. A sympathetic reading is that tool-grounded self-evaluation is the key mechanism that lets an LLM plan within real-world constraints.

What carries the argument

Agent-as-a-Judge: an LLM-based evaluator that uses external tools to check candidate routes against constraints, producing feedback that is fed back into the route generator to guide subsequent search. It carries the argument because the paper's claim is that tool-grounded, agentic evaluation — not more training data or a bigger search — is what unlocks near-expert constrained planning.

What would settle it

Run LARC on the same 48 tasks but have a panel of expert synthesis chemists independently label each generated route as valid or invalid under the declared constraints, without seeing LARC's judge labels. If expert agreement with the judge is low, or if the judge marks routes valid that experts reject for a specific constraint type, the 72.9% success rate is a self-evaluation artifact rather than evidence of expert-level competence. A second, cheaper check: release the exact human-expert protocol and compare LARC's per-task success against the human per-task success, not a single aggregate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that practical, constraint-aware retrosynthesis can be recast as an LLM-agent planning problem and solved with a self-correcting loop. LARC generates candidate synthetic routes, then invokes an Agent-as-a-Judge that makes tool-based calls to check each route against the required constraints (for example, the availability of reagents or the allowed reaction conditions), and the resulting feedback is used to revise or choose among routes. The authors report that on their curated benchmark of 48 constrained tasks across three constraint types, LARC reaches a 72.9% success rate, outperforming the LLM baselines they compare against and approaching the success of human experts

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Agent-as-a-Judge's tool-based constraint checks reflect genuine chemical and practical validity, and that the 48 curated tasks and the unreported human-expert protocol fairly represent real constrained-retrosynthesis difficulty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Constrained retrosynthesis, currently often handled by rule-based or search-based tools with hard-coded constraint handling, can be tackled by LLM agents whose constraint checking is delegated to tools.
Because the judge is agentic and tool-grounded, new constraint types can be added by supplying the judge with an appropriate tool rather than re-engineering the planner.
At near-expert success rates, such a framework could be used as a first-pass route generator whose output a human chemist checks, reducing the time spent exploring infeasible routes.
The same Agent-as-a-Judge feedback loop can be extended beyond the three tested constraint types to cost, safety, sustainability, or other practical constraints, since the evaluation is separated from route generation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 72.9% number is only comparable to 'human expert' if the judge's notion of validity matches what expert chemists would call valid; a natural test is to measure judge–expert agreement on the same 48 tasks, which the abstract does not report.
Because the judge is likely from the same LLM family as the generator, part of the reported success could be self-consistency rather than chemical competence; using an independently trained judge or human labels would isolate this.
If the judge is reliable, the framework transfers to other planning domains where constraints are checkable by tools, such as materials synthesis or reaction-condition optimization, though the paper does not claim this.
The abstract reports no human-baseline number, so 'approaching expert level' cannot yet be quantified; recovering the full evaluation protocol (task curation, expert panel, agreement metric) is needed to interpret the 72.9%.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take, with a caveat up front: the full text attached to this submission is not LARC. It is LSM-OPD, a cs.DB paper about LSM-tree storage. I am reviewing LARC from its abstract alone. You should treat every claim about methods as unverified until the actual manuscript is in hand.

On the abstract: LARC is an LLM-agent framework for constrained retrosynthesis planning, with an 'Agent-as-a-Judge' that evaluates routes through tool-based reasoning and feeds that judgment back into route generation. The headline result is 72.9% success on 48 curated tasks across three constraint types, far above LLM baselines and near human-expert speed. If accurate, this is a real contribution: constraint-aware route planning at human-comparable quality and much faster would be directly useful in drug discovery. The framework is described as the first of its kind, and that is plausible.

Now the soft spots. The central number is a single aggregate over 48 tasks, and nothing about the benchmark, baselines, or the human-expert protocol is inspectable here. My main concern is the same one the stress test raises: the judge is part of the system it evaluates. If the same LLM family generates routes and judges their constraint satisfaction, and if there is no independent oracle—RDKit validation, purchasability checks, human chemists labeling a held-out set—then 'success' can partly be self-consistency rather than chemical validity. Tool grounding mitigates this but does not eliminate it. The expert-level comparison is also unanchored without a described protocol. These are verification gaps, not observed errors. It would be unfair to call the paper fraudulent or sloppy; there is simply not enough evidence here to accept the headline claim.

Who should read this? People building LLM agents for chemistry, and anyone working on automatic evaluation of generative models. The idea of an internal judge that is tool-grounded is worth discussing even before the empirical question is settled.

My recommendation: this deserves peer review, but only after the editor confirms the actual LARC manuscript is available. Do not desk-reject on the abstract alone, and do not accept the 72.9% claim on the abstract alone. Ask reviewers to focus on external validation of the judge: independent route checks, error analysis, and a clear human-expert protocol.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission, identified as arXiv:2508.11860, announces LARC, an LLM-based agentic framework for constrained retrosynthesis planning. The abstract reports a 72.9% success rate on 48 curated tasks across three constraint types, claims that LARC vastly outperforms LLM baselines, and states that it approaches human expert-level success in less time. The core mechanism described is an Agent-as-a-Judge, whose tool-grounded feedback is used both to guide route generation and to evaluate constraint satisfaction. However, the full text supplied with the submission is arXiv:2508.11862 (LSM-OPD), a database systems paper on LSM-Tree compression and scan optimization. No methods, implementation details, benchmark construction, baseline identification, human-expert protocol, route validation, or experimental results for LARC are present anywhere in the provided manuscript.

Significance. If the reported 72.9% success rate and the speed comparison with human experts were substantiated, LARC would represent a meaningful advance: an LLM agent that can plan constrained retrosyntheses while evaluating its own outputs through tool-based reasoning could be a useful co-scientist for chemists. The paper would also be among the first to integrate constraint evaluation directly into the planning loop. However, the manuscript as provided contains none of the evidence needed to assess these claims. The success figure is unverifiable, the benchmark and human-expert baseline are unspecified, and the Agent-as-a-Judge design raises a real risk that the evaluation metric is measuring the preferences of the same LLM family that generated the routes. At present the contribution cannot be evaluated, and the reported numbers cannot be distinguished from self-consistency scores.

major comments (3)

[Full Text (arXiv:2508.11862)] The supplied full text is an unrelated paper titled 'LSM-OPD: Boosting Scans in LSM-Trees by Enabling Direct Computing on Compressed Data.' It contains no description of LARC, no definitions of the 48 tasks or three constraint types, no experimental setup, no baseline names, no human-expert protocol, and no route validation. The central claim of the abstract—a 72.9% success rate approaching human expert level—therefore has no supporting methods or results in the submitted manuscript. This is a load-bearing absence: the expert-level claim cannot be checked or reproduced from anything provided.
[Abstract] The Agent-as-a-Judge is described as using 'agentic feedback grounded in tool-based reasoning to guide and constrain route generation' and as being used to 'rigorously evaluate' LARC. Because the same LLM-based machinery both proposes routes and judges whether they satisfy constraints, the reported success rate may partly reflect internal consistency of the evaluator rather than chemically valid, purchasable, and constraint-satisfying routes. The abstract does not state that any external oracle—e.g., RDKit/SMILES validity checks, reaction database validation, purchasability lookups, or independent human review—labels the outputs. Without such external grounding, a necessary condition for interpreting 72.9% as a measure of real-world success is missing.
[Abstract] The 48-task benchmark and the human-expert comparison are not specified. The abstract says the tasks are 'carefully curated' across three constraint types, but gives no curation criteria, no task list, no difficulty measure, no distribution of constraint types, and no exclusion rules. The claim of 'approaching human expert-level success' requires a defined protocol for selecting experts, a defined set of tasks, a controlled timing protocol, and a defined notion of success per route. None of these are present. The baseline claim is similarly uninterpretable because the LLM baselines are unnamed. These omissions are load-bearing for the headline quantitative claim.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract does not provide a reference, link, or identifier for the benchmark, code, model versions, or human-expert study. Even if the correct full text were available, reproducibility would require these artifacts.
[General] The manuscript text and the abstract are inconsistent to the point of describing different papers. At minimum, the submission needs to be re-uploaded with the matching full text before any content-level review can proceed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity demonstrable from the available text; the supplied full text is an unrelated paper, leaving only the abstract, which exhibits no reduction of the claimed result to its inputs.

full rationale

The only in-scope text is the LARC abstract; the supplied full text is arXiv:2508.11862 (LSM-OPD), a different paper about LSM-Trees. From the abstract alone, LARC's central claim is an empirical success rate of 72.9% on 48 curated constrained retrosynthesis tasks, 'vastly outperforming LLM baselines and approaching human expert-level success.' Nothing in the abstract defines success as the Agent-as-a-Judge's own verdict, nor states that the judge and generator share the same LLM, nor supplies equations or a fitting procedure that would make the prediction equivalent to its inputs. The Agent-as-a-Judge is described as 'grounded in tool-based reasoning,' which could involve external oracles, but the abstract does not specify. The concern that the judge may be self-consistent rather than externally valid is a verification/validity threat, not a demonstrated circularity: there is no quoted reduction of the reported success rate to the judge's preferences, and no self-citation chain is invoked. Because hard rules require quoting specific evidence of a step reducing to its own inputs, and no such evidence exists in the provided material, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Only the abstract was assessable because the pasted full text is arXiv:2508.11862 (LSM-OPD), a different paper. No fitted numeric parameters are visible in the abstract; the 72.9% is a reported outcome, not a fitted constant. The three listed axioms are the unstated premises that convert the measured success rate into the expert-level claim. The Agent-as-a-Judge is the single introduced component, and its reliability is the main unverified assumption.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Tool-grounded LLM judgment of constraint satisfaction is reliable enough to guide and validate route search
The Agent-as-a-Judge is described in the abstract as providing 'agentic feedback grounded in tool-based reasoning'; the correctness of the 72.9% headline depends on this judge being genuinely valid, not just self-consistent.
domain assumption The 48 curated tasks across 3 constraint types represent real-world constrained retrosynthesis difficulty
The abstract reports success on a 'carefully curated set of 48' tasks; external validity of the headline rate depends on curation not being easier than real tasks. Selection criteria are not given.
domain assumption The human expert comparison uses the same tasks and a fair protocol
The claim of 'approaching human expert-level success in substantially less time' presupposes a matched, unbiased human baseline; no protocol is described in the abstract.

invented entities (1)

Agent-as-a-Judge
purpose: LLM-based evaluator that grounds constraint checks in tools and feeds judgments back into the route planner
This component is the paper's main design contribution, but it is also the arbiter of the headline success metric. No external validation (e.g., against a chemistry execution engine or a human panel) is visible in the abstract, so its judgments have no independent falsifiable handle here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LARC: Towards Human-level Constrained Retrosynthesis Planning through an Agentic Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPR2MFN4

@misc{pith2026250811860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LARC: Towards Human-level Constrained Retrosynthesis Planning through an Agentic Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPR2MFN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11860}
}

read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agent evaluators leverage specialized tools to ground the rational decision-making of LLMs, making them well-suited to aid in scientific discoveries, such as constrained retrosynthesis planning. Constrained retrosynthesis planning is an essential, yet challenging, process within chemistry for identifying synthetic routes from commercially available starting materials to desired target molecules, subject to practical constraints. Here, we present LARC, the first LLM-based Agentic framework for Retrosynthesis planning under Constraints. LARC incorporates agentic constraint evaluation, through an Agent-as-a-Judge, directly into the retrosynthesis planning process, using agentic feedback grounded in tool-based reasoning to guide and constrain route generation. We rigorously evaluate LARC on a carefully curated set of 48 constrained retrosynthesis planning tasks across 3 constraint types. LARC achieves a 72.9% success rate on these tasks, vastly outperforming LLM baselines and approaching human expert-level success in substantially less time. The LARC framework is extensible, and serves as a first step towards an effective agentic tool or a co-scientist to human experts for constrained retrosynthesis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Strategy-first synthesis planning for complex natural products
cs.MA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

SynthEx, an LLM agent that writes template-free atom-level graph edits, returns complete routes for 63.9% of 1,098 synthesis-free natural products (vs 13.8% for a near-exhaustive template planner), and blinded experts...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Rocksdb, 2024

Facebook. Rocksdb, 2024. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb

work page 2024
[2]

Leveldb, 2024

Google. Leveldb, 2024. https://github.com/google/leveldb/

work page 2024
[3]

Cassandra, 2024

Apache. Cassandra, 2024. http://cassandra.apache.org

work page 2024
[4]

Hbase, 2024

Apache. Hbase, 2024. http://hbase.apache.org/

work page 2024
[5]

Dostoevsky: Better space-time trade-offs for lsm-tree based key-value stores via adaptive removal of superfluous merging

Niv Dayan and Stratos Idreos. Dostoevsky: Better space-time trade-offs for lsm-tree based key-value stores via adaptive removal of superfluous merging. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data, pages 505–520, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Lethe: A tunable delete-aware lsm engine

Subhadeep Sarkar, Tarikul Islam Papon, Dimitris Staratzis, and Manos Athanas- soulis. Lethe: A tunable delete-aware lsm engine. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 893–908, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Real-time lsm- trees for htap workloads

Hemant Saxena, Lukasz Golab, Stratos Idreos, and Ihab F Ilyas. Real-time lsm- trees for htap workloads. In2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1208–1220. IEEE, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

Ourrocks: offloading disk scan directly to gpu in write-optimized database system.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 70(11):1831–1844, 2020

Won Gi Choi, Doyoung Kim, Hongchan Roh, and Sanghyun Park. Ourrocks: offloading disk scan directly to gpu in write-optimized database system.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 70(11):1831–1844, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 35 references

[9]

Constructing and analyzing the lsm compaction design space.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 14(11), 2021

Subhadeep Sarkar, Dimitris Staratzis, Ziehen Zhu, and Manos Athanassoulis. Constructing and analyzing the lsm compaction design space.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 14(11), 2021

2021
[10]

An empirical evaluation of columnar storage formats.Pro- ceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(2):148–161, 2023

Xinyu Zeng, Yulong Hui, Jiahong Shen, Andrew Pavlo, Wes McKinney, and Huanchen Zhang. An empirical evaluation of columnar storage formats.Pro- ceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(2):148–161, 2023

2023
[11]

Blobdb, 2024

Facebook. Blobdb, 2024. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki/BlobDB

2024
[12]

Wisckey: Separating keys from values in ssd-conscious storage.ACM Transactions On Storage (TOS), 13(1):1–28, 2017

Lanyue Lu, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Hariharan Gopalakrishnan, Andrea C Arpaci-Dusseau, and Remzi H Arpaci-Dusseau. Wisckey: Separating keys from values in ssd-conscious storage.ACM Transactions On Storage (TOS), 13(1):1–28, 2017

2017
[13]

Rocksdb, 2024

Facebook. Rocksdb, 2024. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki/Leveled- Compaction

2024
[14]

Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb

Brian F Cooper, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Russell Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb. InProceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on Cloud computing, pages 143–154, 2010

2010
[15]

A gpu- accelerated compaction strategy for lsm-based key-value store system

Hao Zhou, Yuanhui Chen, Lixiao Cui, Gang Wang, and Xiaoguang Liu. A gpu- accelerated compaction strategy for lsm-based key-value store system. InThe 38th International Conference on Massive Storage Systems and Technology, pages 1–11, 2024

2024
[16]

Rgkv: A gpgpu- empowered compaction framework for lsm-tree-based kv stores with optimized data transfer and parallel processing.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2025

Hui Sun, Xiangxiang Jiang, Yinliang Yue, and Xiao Qin. Rgkv: A gpgpu- empowered compaction framework for lsm-tree-based kv stores with optimized data transfer and parallel processing.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2025

2025
[17]

glsm: Using gpgpu to accelerate compactions in lsm-tree-based key-value stores.ACM Transactions on Storage, 20(1):1–41, 2024

Hui Sun, Jinfeng Xu, Xiangxiang Jiang, Guanzhong Chen, Yinliang Yue, and Xiao Qin. glsm: Using gpgpu to accelerate compactions in lsm-tree-based key-value stores.ACM Transactions on Storage, 20(1):1–41, 2024

2024
[18]

Luda: Boost lsm key value store compactions with gpus.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03054, 2020

Peng Xu, Jiguang Wan, Ping Huang, Xiaogang Yang, Chenlei Tang, Fei Wu, and Changsheng Xie. Luda: Boost lsm key value store compactions with gpus.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03054, 2020

2004 arXiv
[19]

In18th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 20), pages 225–237, 2020

Teng Zhang, Jianying Wang, Xuntao Cheng, Hao Xu, Nanlong Yu, Gui Huang, Tieying Zhang, Dengcheng He, Feifei Li, Wei Cao, et al.{FPGA-Accelerated} compactions for{LSM-based}{ Key-Value} store. In18th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 20), pages 225–237, 2020

2020
[20]

Fpga-based com- paction engine for accelerating lsm-tree key-value stores

Xuan Sun, Jinghuan Yu, Zimeng Zhou, and Chun Jason Xue. Fpga-based com- paction engine for accelerating lsm-tree key-value stores. In2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1261–1272. IEEE, 2020

2020
[21]

In2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20), pages 173–187, 2020

Junsu Im, Jinwook Bae, Chanwoo Chung, Sungjin Lee, et al.{PinK}: High-speed in-storage key-value store with bounded tails. In2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20), pages 173–187, 2020

2020
[22]

Dcomp: Efficient offload of lsm-tree compaction with data processing units

Chen Ding, Jian Zhou, Jiguang Wan, Yiqin Xiong, Sicen Li, Shuning Chen, Hanyang Liu, Liu Tang, Ling Zhan, Kai Lu, et al. Dcomp: Efficient offload of lsm-tree compaction with data processing units. InProceedings of the 52nd International Conference on Parallel Processing, pages...

2023
[23]

D2comp: Efficient offload of lsm-tree compaction with data processing units on disaggregated storage.ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, 21(3):1–22, 2024

Chen Ding, Jian Zhou, Kai Lu, Sicen Li, Yiqin Xiong, Jiguang Wan, and Ling Zhan. D2comp: Efficient offload of lsm-tree compaction with data processing units on disaggregated storage.ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, 21(3):1–22, 2024

2024
[24]

Prockstore: An ndp-empowered key-value store with asynchronous and multi-threaded compaction scheme for optimized performance.Journal of Systems Architecture, page 103342, 2025

Hui Sun, Chao Zhao, Yinliang Yue, and Xiao Qin. Prockstore: An ndp-empowered key-value store with asynchronous and multi-threaded compaction scheme for optimized performance.Journal of Systems Architecture, page 103342, 2025

2025
[25]

The log-structured merge-bush & the wacky continuum

Niv Dayan and Stratos Idreos. The log-structured merge-bush & the wacky continuum. InProceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, pages 449–466, 2019

2019
[26]

Endure: a robust tuning paradigm for lsm trees under workload uncertainty

Andy Huynh, Harshal A Chaudhari, Evimaria Terzi, and Manos Athanassoulis. Endure: a robust tuning paradigm for lsm trees under workload uncertainty. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 15(8):1605–1618, 2022

2022
[27]

Towards flexibility and robustness of lsm trees.The VLDB Journal, pages 1–24, 2024

Andy Huynh, Harshal A Chaudhari, Evimaria Terzi, and Manos Athanassoulis. Towards flexibility and robustness of lsm trees.The VLDB Journal, pages 1–24, 2024

2024
[28]

Camal: Optimizing lsm-trees via active learning.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 2(4):1–26, 2024

Weiping Yu, Siqiang Luo, Zihao Yu, and Gao Cong. Camal: Optimizing lsm-trees via active learning.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 2(4):1–26, 2024

2024
[29]

Learning to op- timize lsm-trees: Towards a reinforcement learning based key-value store for dynamic workloads.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 1(3):1–25, 2023

Dingheng Mo, Fanchao Chen, Siqiang Luo, and Caihua Shan. Learning to op- timize lsm-trees: Towards a reinforcement learning based key-value store for dynamic workloads.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 1(3):1–25, 2023

2023
[30]

Disco: A compact index for lsm-trees.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 3(1):1–27, 2025

Wenshao Zhong, Chen Chen, Xingbo Wu, and Jakob Eriksson. Disco: A compact index for lsm-trees.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 3(1):1–27, 2025

2025
[31]

Integrating compression and execution in column-oriented database systems

Daniel Abadi, Samuel Madden, and Miguel Ferreira. Integrating compression and execution in column-oriented database systems. InProceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 671–682, 2006

2006
[32]

Column-stores vs

Daniel J Abadi, Samuel R Madden, and Nabil Hachem. Column-stores vs. row- stores: how different are they really? InProceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 967–980, 2008

2008
[33]

Mostly order preserving dictionaries

Chunwei Liu, McKade Umbenhower, Hao Jiang, Pranav Subramaniam, Jihong Ma, and Aaron J Elmore. Mostly order preserving dictionaries. In2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1214–1225. IEEE, 2019

2019
[34]

Everything you always wanted to know about compiled and vectorized queries but were afraid to ask.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 11(13):2209–2222, 2018

Timo Kersten, Viktor Leis, Alfons Kemper, Thomas Neumann, Andrew Pavlo, and Peter Boncz. Everything you always wanted to know about compiled and vectorized queries but were afraid to ask.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 11(13):2209–2222, 2018

2018
[35]

Vip: A simd vectorized analytical query engine.The VLDB Journal, 29(6):1243–1261, 2020

Orestis Polychroniou and Kenneth A Ross. Vip: A simd vectorized analytical query engine.The VLDB Journal, 29(6):1243–1261, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Rocksdb, 2024

Facebook. Rocksdb, 2024. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Leveldb, 2024

Google. Leveldb, 2024. https://github.com/google/leveldb/

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Cassandra, 2024

Apache. Cassandra, 2024. http://cassandra.apache.org

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Hbase, 2024

Apache. Hbase, 2024. http://hbase.apache.org/

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Dostoevsky: Better space-time trade-offs for lsm-tree based key-value stores via adaptive removal of superfluous merging

Niv Dayan and Stratos Idreos. Dostoevsky: Better space-time trade-offs for lsm-tree based key-value stores via adaptive removal of superfluous merging. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data, pages 505–520, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Lethe: A tunable delete-aware lsm engine

Subhadeep Sarkar, Tarikul Islam Papon, Dimitris Staratzis, and Manos Athanas- soulis. Lethe: A tunable delete-aware lsm engine. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 893–908, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Real-time lsm- trees for htap workloads

Hemant Saxena, Lukasz Golab, Stratos Idreos, and Ihab F Ilyas. Real-time lsm- trees for htap workloads. In2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1208–1220. IEEE, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Ourrocks: offloading disk scan directly to gpu in write-optimized database system.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 70(11):1831–1844, 2020

Won Gi Choi, Doyoung Kim, Hongchan Roh, and Sanghyun Park. Ourrocks: offloading disk scan directly to gpu in write-optimized database system.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 70(11):1831–1844, 2020

work page 2020