Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 120 references

Subspace Collision: An Efficient and Accurate Framework for High-dimensional Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that approximate nearest-neighbor search can be reframed as counting collisions across random subspaces, and that this collision count—called SC-score—both tracks Euclidean closeness and supports formal probability…

desk verdict Solid empirical ANN paper whose advertised theoretical guarantees do not survive contact with its own definitions; treat the theory as unproven and the method as a heuristic. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14754 v2 pith:AYMSYMOK submitted 2024-11-22 cs.DB

Jiuqi Wei , Xiaodong Lee , Zhenyu Liao , Themis Palpanas , Botao Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DB
keywords approximatenearestneighborsearchsubspacecollisionSC-scoreinvertedmulti-indexhigh-dimensionalEuclideanspaceParetoprincipletheoreticalguaranteeDynamicActivation
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

The paper is trying to establish that a new similarity metric, SC-score, captures Euclidean closeness well enough to power approximate nearest-neighbor search, and that an ANN method built on it can carry rigorous quality guarantees while staying fast and light. The central claim is that the 20% of points nearest to a query have distinctly high SC-scores, while the rest are indistinguishable, so ranking by SC-score and re-ranking a small candidate pool recovers the true neighbors. If correct, this would close a gap: no existing in-memory ANN method simultaneously gives strong indexing and query performance and formal guarantees. The paper further claims its SuCo index realizes the framework with 1–2 orders of magnitude faster query answering than prior guaranteed methods and roughly one-tenth the index memory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SC-score and the counting procedure behind it: after dividing the $d$ dimensions into $N_s$ subspaces, a point collides with the query in a subspace when it is among the closest $\alpha n$ points in that subspace, and its SC-score is the number of such collisions across subspaces. The argument uses the Paley–Zygmund inequality to show that colliding subvectors have small squared norm and Chebyshev's inequality to show that non-colliding subvector norms stay near their common mean, so higher SC-score implies smaller total distance with controlled probability. On the engineering side, SuCo builds the collision counts with a lightweight index: K-means clustering inside an inverted multi-index per subspace, plus a new Dynamic Activation query algorithm that replaces the priority-queue-based Multi-sequence retrieval and returns the same clusters with up to 40% less query time.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 (or SuCo with the same parameters) on a dataset with strongly correlated subvector norms—for example, artificially duplicating or permuting coordinate blocks so that subvector squared norms become dependent—and measure the empirical success rate over many queries. If, with $N_s=8$, $\alpha=0.05$, and $\beta=0.005$, the fraction of queries returning the true 50 nearest neighbors falls below $1/2$, or if the measured correlation among subvector norm squares already contradicts the proof's independence assumption on a standard dataset, the central guarantee is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center is the SC-score. Given a query $q$, the dimensions are split into $N_s$ subspaces; in each subspace, the $\alpha n$ points closest to $q$ are counted as "colliding"; a point's SC-score is the number of subspaces in which it collides. The paper's Theorem 1 states that if one random point has a higher SC-score than another, it is closer to $q$ with probability at least $1/2 - 1/e^2$, under suitable parameters. Theorem 2 states that the full algorithm answers a $k$-ANN query with probability at least $1/2$. The proofs couple the Paley–Zygmund anti-concentration inequality, which bounds the squared norm of a colliding subvector, with Chebyshev's inequality, which keeps non-colliding subvector norms near their mean. The paper presents experiments showing the SC-score follows a Pareto-like "L-shape" on standard datasets and that SuCo outperforms guaranteed baselines and matches or beats non-guaranteed methods on hard datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the squared Euclidean norms of the subvectors, across all points and subspaces, behave like independent random variables with one common mean and variance; if real data violates this independence, the probability bounds in Theorems 1 and 2 no longer follow from the proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ANN can be solved by counting coarse subspace collisions rather than summing per-dimension distances, so the index only needs to localize the roughly 3–5% of points that collide.
  • The index construction runs in $O(n(\sqrt{K}dt+N_s))$ time and uses $O(\sqrt{K}d+nN_s)$ memory, which the paper shows scales to 100M-point datasets.
  • Compared with LSH-based methods that carry theoretical guarantees, SuCo answers queries 1–2 orders of magnitude faster and needs as little as one-tenth of the index memory.
  • Against methods without guarantees, SuCo is best on hard datasets and competitive with HNSW on easy ones.
  • Dynamic Activation returns exactly the clusters of Multi-sequence but without priority-queue overhead, giving a free query-speed improvement on the same index.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The independence premise is unlikely to hold for real embeddings, so a quantitative version of the guarantee that depends on measured subvector-norm correlations would clarify how much dependence the proof tolerates.
  • The Pareto-style turning point near $0.2n$ suggests that the collision ratio $\alpha$ could be chosen adaptively per query or per dataset, potentially lowering cost without losing recall.
  • The collision-counting view may transfer to other similarity measures and to learned indexes, since the index only needs coarse locality rather than exact distances.
  • If SC-score is as distribution-insensitive as the paper suggests, it could serve as a cheap pre-filter before a graph-based search, reducing the number of expensive distance evaluations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Subspace Collision (SC), a framework for high-dimensional approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search based on counting collisions in randomly sampled subspaces, and SuCo, an efficient implementation using inverted multi-indexes. The paper claims that SC-score acts as a proxy for Euclidean distance, that the framework provides rigorous theoretical guarantees (Theorems 1 and 2), and that SuCo outperforms state-of-the-art ANN methods in both indexing and query performance. The empirical section compares SuCo against LSH-, VQ-, tree-, and graph-based baselines on several standard datasets, reporting large improvements in indexing time and memory footprint with competitive or superior recall.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantees were valid, this would be a notable contribution: an ANN method combining lightweight indexing, fast querying, and formal quality guarantees. The empirical work has independent value: SC-Linear's high recall is a legitimate and interesting observation, SuCo's index is lightweight, and the Dynamic Activation query algorithm offers a measurable speedup over the standard Multi-sequence method. The code is publicly available, and the experiments use standard datasets and careful parameter tuning. However, the paper's central advertised contribution—the 'rigorous theoretical guarantees' of Section 3.4—is not supported. The proofs contain a misapplication of Paley-Zygmund, conflate rank-based collision with a threshold-based event, and rely on an unverified independence assumption. These are load-bearing errors, not presentation issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (2) and Eq. (9)] The inequality in Eq. (2), Pr(Z_j^i ≤ sqrt((1−α)(σ^2+m^2))) ≤ α, is not a consequence of the Paley-Zygmund inequality as claimed. Paley-Zygmund states Pr(Z ≥ θE[Z]) ≥ (1−θ)^2 E[Z]^2/E[Z^2] for θ∈[0,1], which yields an upper bound on the lower tail only after complementation and only for θ≤1. For the choice θ = sqrt((1−α)(σ^2+m^2))/m, θ can exceed 1; e.g., with m=σ=1 and α=0.1, θ≈1.34, and the inequality fails for standard distributions (if Z~N(1,1), Pr(Z≤1.34)≈0.63>0.1). Since Eq. (2) and its counterpart Eq. (9) are the starting points of both theorem proofs, the claimed probability bounds in Theorems 1 and 2 do not follow.
  2. [Section 3.4, proof of Theorem 2] The statement 'without loss of generality, we only discuss here the case where the re-rank ratio β is chosen so that C=N_s' is not a genuine WLOG reduction. C is the number of subspaces in which a given data point collides; it is random and depends on the query and the data. The theorem's conclusion requires that appropriate N_s, α, β exist for the actual queries, but no argument shows that one can force C=N_s for the true neighbor, and the sentence 'Other scenarios with C<N_s can be similarly studied by increasing β accordingly' is not a proof. In addition, the proof introduces a normality assumption on squared distances without justification, and the final Chebyshev step only asserts that the success probability is at least 1/2 without verifying that the chosen t simultaneously satisfies t > N_s m sqrt((1−α)(1+σ^2/m^2)) − E_{k,n} and 1 − V_{k,n}/t^2 ≥ 1/2.
  3. [Section 3.4, proofs of Theorems 1 and 2] The proofs model 'collision' as the event {Z_j^i ≤ sqrt((1−α)(σ^2+m^2))}, where Z_j^i is the squared subvector norm. However, Definition 1 and Definition 2 define collision as membership in the α·n nearest points in a subspace, a rank-based event over the empirical distribution of all n distances. These two events are not equivalent, and neither is implied by the other in general: a point can be among the α·n nearest while its own norm exceeds the threshold (if all other points are even farther), and it can fail to be among the α·n nearest while its norm is below the threshold (if many other points are closer). No lemma connects the rank event to the threshold event, so the derived bounds concern a different procedure from Algorithm 1 and from the SC-score actually computed. This is an internal inconsistency in the theoretical claim.
  4. [Section 3.4, assumptions before Eq. (1) and Eq. (8)] Both theorem proofs assume that the squared subvector norms Z_j^i are independent random variables across all data points i and all subspaces j, with common mean m and variance σ^2. This is a strong i.i.d.-style assumption that is not verified on the real datasets used in Section 5, and it is structurally questionable for fixed data points: the subvector norms of a single vector are generally correlated (for normalized data they even sum to a constant). Because the independence assumption drives the variance computations in Eq. (8) and the subsequent Chebyshev bounds, the claimed guarantees may not apply to the very datasets on which the method is evaluated. The paper should either justify this assumption empirically or explicitly restrict the theoretical claims to distributions satisfying it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Definition 3 vs. Algorithm 1] Definition 3 describes subspaces formed by uniform random sampling without replacement, while Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 use fixed contiguous blocks of dimensions; the paper calls the latter a 'special case,' but the theoretical analysis does not address whether random sampling is required for the guarantees, so the connection between the definition, the implementation, and the theory should be clarified.
  2. [Section 3.4, proof of Theorem 1] The proof's scenario analysis does not explicitly condition on the theorem's hypothesis that SC-score(o1) > SC-score(o2); the roles of the Δ subspaces and the choice of c1 and c2 are sketched rather than derived, making it difficult to follow how the final probability bound 1/2 − 1/e^2 is obtained.
  3. [Section 5, experimental setup] There is a typo in 'useing OpenMP' near the end of Section 5; it should read 'using OpenMP.'
  4. [Section 3.3.1, Figure 2] The claim that SC-score follows the 'Pareto principle' is supported only by a visual inspection of L-shaped scatter plots; a quantitative measure (e.g., the fraction of SC-score mass concentrated in the closest 20% of points) would make the claim more precise and testable.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theoretical guarantee proofs equate collision with a norm threshold and assume the favorable C=N_s case, so the claimed guarantee reduces to its own assumptions.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4, proof of Theorem 1, Eq. (2); Definition 1 (Section 3.1)]
    "For scenario (i), it follows from the Paley–Zygmund anti-concentration inequality that, Pr(Z_j^i ≤ sqrt((1−α)(σ^2+m^2))) ≤ α ... We thus have, on the index set S_C (of cardinality C) on which collision occurs, that 0 ≤ Σ_{j∈S_C} Z_j^i ≤ C sqrt((1−α)(σ^2+m^2))."

    Definition 1 defines collision as a rank event: a point collides if it is among the α·n smallest distances in the subspace, which depends on the empirical distribution of all n points. The proof instead treats collision as the event that the point's own subvector norm Z_j^i is below a fixed threshold. These events are not equivalent, and the proof never connects them. The inequalities therefore bound a threshold-based score, not the SC-score actually computed by Algorithm 1. The claimed theorem about SC-score is thus a statement about a different quantity that the proof defines implicitly, making the derivation circular with respect to the paper's own definition of collision.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4, proof of Theorem 2]
    "In the following, without loss of generality, we only discuss here the case where the re-rank ratio β is chosen so that C = N_s, for which we should have k and β both small, and ||z_i||^2 ≤ N_s sqrt((1−α)(σ^2+m^2)). Other scenarios with C < N_s can be similarly studied by increasing β accordingly."

    Theorem 2 promises that Algorithm 1 answers a k-ANN query with probability at least 1/2. For this to happen, the true neighbor must be among the β·n re-ranked candidates, which requires it to have a high SC-score. The proof restricts 'without loss of generality' to C = N_s, meaning the analyzed point collides in every subspace and has the maximum possible SC-score. This is precisely the favorable event that makes the algorithm succeed; its probability is never bounded, and the remaining cases are dismissed in one sentence. The final 1/2 probability is therefore conditioned on the success event already occurring, so the theorem's conclusion is assumed rather than derived, and the parameter β is effectively chosen to fit the case where the answer is already in the candidate pool.

full rationale

The paper's empirical contributions—SC-Linear recall, SuCo indexing/query performance, and the Pareto-principle plots—are self-contained and do not depend on the flawed proofs; they are also compared against external baselines, so the method has independent grounding. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: citations such as IMI [9] and DET-LSH [104] are used for standard components or baseline comparison, not to justify the central claim. However, the headline claim of 'rigorous theoretical guarantees' rests entirely on Theorems 1 and 2. In both proofs, the rank-based collision event of Definition 1 is replaced by a fixed threshold on the individual subvector norm (Eqs. (2) and (9)), and the two events are not equivalent; the derived bounds therefore concern a different procedure. Additionally, Theorem 2's 'without loss of generality' restriction to C = N_s assumes the best-case event that the true neighbor collides in every subspace, which is essentially the event needed for Algorithm 1 to succeed. The proof does not lower-bound the probability of this event, so the promised unconditional 1/2 guarantee reduces to a conditional statement. These are not mere parameter-fitting concerns but internal reductions: the guarantee is obtained only after assuming the outcome it is supposed to establish. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the empirical core is independent, but the central theoretical claim is forced by its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on unverified statistical assumptions, a misapplied inequality, and a best-case restriction in the proof. The empirical method also requires tuning alpha, beta, N_s, and K per dataset.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (collision ratio) = 0.05 (default; tuned in [0.01, 0.2])
    Controls how many points per subspace count as collisions; chosen by parameter study on each dataset rather than derived from theory.
  • beta (re-rank ratio) = 0.005 (default; tuned in [0.001, 0.05])
    Controls how many top-SC-score candidates are re-ranked; fitted to datasets.
  • N_s (number of subspaces) = 8 (default; range [6, 16])
    Determines subspace dimension d/N_s; tuned per dataset.
  • K (number of K-means clusters per half-subspace) = 2500 (K=50^2)
    Controls granularity of IMI; tuned in [2^8, 2^16].
  • m, sigma^2 (mean and variance of subvector squared norms) = unknown; assumed in proofs
    Theorems depend on these data statistics without providing estimates or bounds.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Squared Euclidean norms of subvectors Z_j^i are independent random variables with mean m and variance sigma^2 (Theorem 1 proof).
    This i.i.d.-style assumption is not verified and is unlikely to hold for real embeddings.
  • domain assumption Dataset D consists of n independent random vectors (Theorem 2 statement).
    Real ANN datasets are not independent random vectors; this assumption is standard in theory but not checked.
  • ad hoc to paper Pr(Z_j^i <= sqrt((1-alpha)(sigma^2+m^2))) <= alpha follows from Paley-Zygmund (Eq. 2).
    Paley-Zygmund gives a lower bound on the upper tail, not an upper bound on the lower tail; this inequality is not established.
  • domain assumption For the proof of Theorem 2, squared distances may be treated as normally distributed (order statistics approximation).
    The proof uses Gaussian order statistics and asserts other distributions can be handled similarly without demonstration.
  • ad hoc to paper Without loss of generality, re-rank ratio beta is chosen so that C=N_s (the true neighbor collides in all subspaces).
    This is the best-case scenario; the proof does not cover realistic cases where collisions are partial.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subspace Collision: An Efficient and Accurate Framework for High-dimensional Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYMSYMOK

@misc{pith2026241114754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subspace Collision: An Efficient and Accurate Framework for High-dimensional Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYMSYMOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14754}
}
read the original abstract

Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) search in high-dimensional Euclidean spaces is a fundamental problem with a wide range of applications. However, there is currently no ANN method that performs well in both indexing and query answering performance, while providing rigorous theoretical guarantees for the quality of the answers. In this paper, we first design SC-score, a metric that we show follows the Pareto principle and can act as a proxy for the Euclidean distance between data points. Inspired by this, we propose a novel ANN search framework called Subspace Collision (SC), which can provide theoretical guarantees on the quality of its results. We further propose SuCo, which achieves efficient and accurate ANN search by designing a clustering-based lightweight index and query strategies for our proposed subspace collision framework. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that both the indexing and query answering performance of SuCo outperform state-of-the-art ANN methods that can provide theoretical guarantees, performing 1-2 orders of magnitude faster query answering with only up to one-tenth of the index memory footprint. Moreover, SuCo achieves top performance (best for hard datasets) even when compared to methods that do not provide theoretical guarantees. This paper was published in SIGMOD 2025.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14754 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of finding nearest neighbors using the idea of subspace and collision. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. “Pareto principle” of SC-score on four datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the SuCo workflow. be chosen (within a range) to achieve an optimal “computation￾accuracy trade-off.” This is consistent with the choice of 𝛼, 𝛽 in the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 above, and with our experimental conclusions in Section 5.3.3. 4 THE SUCO METHOD As analyzed in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3, SC-Linear’s query effi￾ciency is limited because when counting collisions in each subspace, it is neces… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of K-means clustering (𝐾=16) in 2D space using inverted index or inverted multi-index. Therefore, the graph-based and tree-based indexes that are currently popular in ANN search are no longer applicable. (2) The query method for collision counting needs to…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An illustration of the Dynamic Activation algorithm Algorithm 3: Dynamic Activation Input: Collision ratio 𝛼, dataset size 𝑛, number of K-means clusters 𝐾, distances and indices of the first and second subspace 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠1,𝑖𝑑𝑥1, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠2,𝑖𝑑𝑥2, the inverted multi-index 𝐼𝑀𝐼 Out…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of query efficiency between Dynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance of SuCo when varying the number of K-means clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Query performance of SuCo when varying the collision ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Indexing performance comparison between SuCo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Indexing performance comparison between SuCo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Query performance comparison between SuCo and competitors that provide theoretical guarantees. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Query performance comparison between SuCo and competitors that do not provide theoretical guarantees. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cumulative query cost (start with the indexing time); comparison to methods with/without guarantees. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Query performance of SC-based methods with different data preprocessing techniques on Sift10M. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bounds and Approximations for Moments of Order Statistics

    2003. Bounds and Approximations for Moments of Order Statistics. In Order Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 4, 59–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 0471722162.ch4

    2003

  2. [2]

    Expected Values and Moments

    2003. Expected Values and Moments. In Order Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 3, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471722162.ch3

    work page doi:10.1002/0471722162.ch3 2003

  3. [3]

    Alexandr Andoni. 2005. LSH Algorithm and Implementation (E2LSH). https: //web.mit.edu/andoni/www/LSH/index.html

    2005

  4. [4]

    Alexandr Andoni and Ilya Razenshteyn. 2015. Optimal data-dependent hashing for approximate near neighbors. In Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing . 793–801

    2015

  5. [5]

    Martin Aumüller, Erik Bernhardsson, and Alexander Faithfull. 2020. ANN- Benchmarks: A benchmarking tool for approximate nearest neighbor algorithms. Information Systems 87 (2020), 101374

    2020

  6. [6]

    Ilias Azizi, Karima Echihabi, and Themis Palpanas. 2023. ELPIS: Graph-Based Similarity Search for Scalable Data Science. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 16, 6 (2023), 1548–1559

    2023

  7. [7]

    Ilias Azizi, Karima Echihabi, and Themis Palpanas. 2025. Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art. PACMMOD (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Artem Babenko and Victor Lempitsky. 2014. Additive quantization for extreme vector compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 931–938

    2014

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    Artem Babenko and Victor Lempitsky. 2014. The inverted multi-index. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 37, 6 (2014), 1247–1260

    2014

  2. [10]

    Artem Babenko and Victor Lempitsky. 2015. Tree quantization for large-scale similarity search and classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 4240–4248

    2015

  3. [11]

    Artem Babenko and Victor Lempitsky. 2016. Efficient indexing of billion-scale datasets of deep descriptors. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 2055–2063

    2016

  4. [12]

    Jonathan Bac, Evgeny M Mirkes, Alexander N Gorban, Ivan Tyukin, and Andrei Zinovyev. 2021. Scikit-dimension: a python package for intrinsic dimension estimation. Entropy 23, 10 (2021), 1368

    2021

  5. [13]

    Jenny A. Baglivo. 2005. Mathematica Laboratories for Mathematical Statistics . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1137/1. 9780898718416

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Erik Bernhardsson. 2015. Approximate Nearest Neighbors in C++/Python opti- mized for memory usage and loading/saving to disk . https://github.com/spotify/ annoy

    2015

  7. [15]

    Alina Beygelzimer, Sham Kakade, and John Langford. 2006. Cover trees for nearest neighbor. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning. 97–104. SIGMOD ’25, June 22–27, 2025, Berlin, Germany Jiuqi Wei, Xiaodong Lee, Zhenyu Liao, Themis Palpanas, and ...

    2006

  8. [16]

    Gunnar Blom. 1958. Statistical Estimates and Transformed Beta-variables. Wiley

    1958

  9. [17]

    Christian Böhm. 2000. A cost model for query processing in high dimensional data spaces. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 25, 2 (2000), 129– 178

    2000

  10. [18]

    Allan Borodin, Rafail Ostrovsky, and Yuval Rabani. 1999. Lower bounds for high dimensional nearest neighbor search and related problems. In Proceedings of the thirty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing . 312–321

    1999

  11. [19]

    Leonid Boytsov and Bilegsaikhan Naidan. 2013. Learning to prune in metric and non-metric spaces. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Alessandro Camerra, Jin Shieh, Themis Palpanas, Thanawin Rakthanmanon, and Eamonn Keogh. 2014. Beyond one billion time series: indexing and mining very large time series collections with iSAX2+. Knowledge and information systems 39, 1 (2014), 123–151

    2014

  13. [21]

    Lawrence Cayton. 2008. Fast nearest neighbor retrieval for bregman divergences. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning . 112–119

    2008

  14. [22]

    Manos Chatzakis, Panagiota Fatourou, Eleftherios Kosmas, Themis Palpanas, and Botao Peng. 2023. Odyssey: A Journey in the Land of Distributed Data Series Similarity Search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 16, 5 (2023), 1140–1153

    2023

  15. [23]

    Qi Chen, Haidong Wang, Mingqin Li, Gang Ren, Scarlett Li, Jeffery Zhu, Jason Li, Chuanjie Liu, Lintao Zhang, and Jingdong Wang. 2018. SPTAG: A library for fast approximate nearest neighbor search

    2018

  16. [24]

    Qi Chen, Bing Zhao, Haidong Wang, Mingqin Li, Chuanjie Liu, Zengzhong Li, Mao Yang, and Jingdong Wang. 2021. Spann: Highly-efficient billion-scale approximate nearest neighborhood search. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 5199–5212

    2021

  17. [25]

    Romain Couillet and Zhenyu Liao. 2022. Random Matrix Methods for Machine Learning. Cambridge University Press

    2022

  18. [26]

    Sanjoy Dasgupta and Yoav Freund. 2008. Random projection trees and low dimensional manifolds. In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 537–546

    2008

  19. [27]

    Mayur Datar, Nicole Immorlica, Piotr Indyk, and Vahab S Mirrokni. 2004. Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on p-stable distributions. InProceedings of the twentieth annual symposium on Computational geometry . 253–262

    2004

  20. [28]

    Wei Dong, Charikar Moses, and Kai Li. 2011. Efficient k-nearest neighbor graph construction for generic similarity measures. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web . 577–586

    2011

  21. [29]

    Karima Echihabi, Panagiota Fatourou, Kostas Zoumpatianos, Themis Palpanas, and Houda Benbrahim. 2022. Hercules against data series similarity search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 15, 10 (2022), 2005–2018

    2022

  22. [30]

    Karima Echihabi, Kostas Zoumpatianos, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Scalable Machine Learning on High-Dimensional Vectors: From Data Series to Deep Network Embeddings. In International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics WIMS. 1–6

    2020

  23. [31]

    Karima Echihabi, Kostas Zoumpatianos, Themis Palpanas, and Houda Ben- brahim. 2019. Return of the Lernaean Hydra: Experimental Evaluation of Data Series Approximate Similarity Search. Proc. VLDB Endow. 13, 3 (2019), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.14778/3368289.3368303

    2019

  24. [32]

    Panagiota Fatourou, Eleftherios Kosmas, Themis Palpanas, and George Paterakis

  25. [33]

    Cong Fu, Changxu Wang, and Deng Cai. 2021. High dimensional similarity search with satellite system graph: Efficiency, scalability, and unindexed query compatibility. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44, 8 (2021), 4139–4150

    2021

  26. [34]

    Cong Fu, Chao Xiang, Changxu Wang, and Deng Cai. 2019. Fast approximate nearest neighbor search with the navigating spreading-out graph. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 12, 5 (2019), 461–474

    2019

  27. [35]

    Narendra

    Keinosuke Fukunaga and Patrenahalli M. Narendra. 1975. A branch and bound algorithm for computing k-nearest neighbors. IEEE transactions on computers 100, 7 (1975), 750–753

    1975

  28. [36]

    Junhao Gan, Jianlin Feng, Qiong Fang, and Wilfred Ng. 2012. Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on dynamic collision counting. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data . 541–552

    2012

  29. [37]

    Jianyang Gao and Cheng Long. 2023. High-dimensional approximate nearest neighbor search: with reliable and efficient distance comparison operations. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 1, 2 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  30. [38]

    Tiezheng Ge, Kaiming He, Qifa Ke, and Jian Sun. 2013. Optimized product quantization. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 36, 4 (2013), 744–755

    2013

  31. [39]

    Aristides Gionis, Piotr Indyk, Rajeev Motwani, et al. 1999. Similarity search in high dimensions via hashing. In Vldb, Vol. 99. 518–529

    1999

  32. [40]

    Robert Gray. 1984. Vector quantization. IEEE Assp Magazine 1, 2 (1984), 4–29

    1984

  33. [41]

    Gray and David L

    Robert M. Gray and David L. Neuhoff. 1998. Quantization. IEEE transactions on information theory 44, 6 (1998), 2325–2383

    1998

  34. [42]

    Alexander Hinneburg, Charu C Aggarwal, and Daniel A Keim. 2000. What is the nearest neighbor in high dimensional spaces?. In 26th Internat. Conference on Very Large Databases. 506–515

    2000

  35. [43]

    Qiang Huang, Jianlin Feng, Yikai Zhang, Qiong Fang, and Wilfred Ng. 2015. Query-aware locality-sensitive hashing for approximate nearest neighbor search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 9, 1 (2015), 1–12

    2015

  36. [44]

    Suhas Jayaram Subramanya, Fnu Devvrit, Harsha Vardhan Simhadri, Ravis- hankar Krishnawamy, and Rohan Kadekodi. 2019. Diskann: Fast accurate billion-point nearest neighbor search on a single node. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Herve Jegou, Matthijs Douze, and Cordelia Schmid. 2010. Product quantization for nearest neighbor search. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 33, 1 (2010), 117–128

    2010

  38. [46]

    Hervé Jégou, Romain Tavenard, Matthijs Douze, and Laurent Amsaleg. 2011. Searching in one billion vectors: re-rank with source coding. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 861–864

    2011

  39. [47]

    Kerstin Johnsson, Charlotte Soneson, and Magnus Fontes. 2014. Low bias local intrinsic dimension estimation from expected simplex skewness. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 37, 1 (2014), 196–202

    2014

  40. [48]

    Yannis Kalantidis and Yannis Avrithis. 2014. Locally optimized product quan- tization for approximate nearest neighbor search. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 2321–2328

    2014

  41. [49]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oğuz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open- domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04906 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Haridimos Kondylakis, Niv Dayan, Kostas Zoumpatianos, and Themis Palpanas

  43. [52]

    Yifan Lei, Qiang Huang, Mohan Kankanhalli, and Anthony KH Tung. 2020. Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on longest circular co-substring. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 2589–2599

    2020

  44. [53]

    Mingjie Li, Ying Zhang, Yifang Sun, Wei Wang, Ivor W Tsang, and Xuemin Lin. 2020. I/O efficient approximate nearest neighbour search based on learned functions. In 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 289–300

    2020

  45. [54]

    Wen Li, Ying Zhang, Yifang Sun, Wei Wang, Mingjie Li, Wenjie Zhang, and Xuemin Lin. 2019. Approximate nearest neighbor search on high dimensional data—experiments, analyses, and improvement. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 32, 8 (2019), 1475–1488

    2019

  46. [55]

    Ying Li, Jiuqi Wei, Ziyu Fei, Yufan Fu, and Xiaodong Lee. 2024. DiSAuth: A DNS-based secure authorization framework for protecting data decoupled from applications. Computer Networks 254 (2024), 110774

    2024

  47. [56]

    Zhenyu Liao, Romain Couillet, and Michael W. Mahoney. 2020. A Random Matrix Analysis of Random Fourier Features: Beyond the Gaussian Kernel, a Precise Phase Transition, and the Corresponding Double Descent. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33. Curran ...

    2020

  48. [57]

    Michele Linardi and Themis Palpanas. 2018. Scalable, variable-length similarity search in data series: The ULISSE approach.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 11, 13 (2018), 2236–2248

    2018

  49. [58]

    Michele Linardi and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Scalable data series subsequence matching with ULISSE. VLDB J. 29, 6 (2020), 1449–1474

    2020

  50. [59]

    Wanqi Liu, Hanchen Wang, Ying Zhang, Wei Wang, Lu Qin, and Xuemin Lin. 2021. EI-LSH: An early-termination driven I/O efficient incremental c- approximate nearest neighbor search. The VLDB Journal 30 (2021), 215–235

    2021

  51. [60]

    Yingfan Liu, Hong Cheng, and Jiangtao Cui. 2017. PQBF: i/o-efficient approx- imate nearest neighbor search by product quantization. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 667–676

    2017

  52. [61]

    Yingfan Liu, Jiangtao Cui, Zi Huang, Hui Li, and Heng Tao Shen. 2014. SK-LSH: an efficient index structure for approximate nearest neighbor search.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 7, 9 (2014), 745–756

    2014

  53. [62]

    Cosme Louart, Zhenyu Liao, and Romain Couillet. 2018. A Random Matrix Approach to Neural Networks. Annals of Applied Probability 28, 2 (2018), 1190–

    2018

  54. [63]

    Kejing Lu and Mineichi Kudo. 2020. R2LSH: A nearest neighbor search scheme based on two-dimensional projected spaces. In 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 1045–1056

    2020

  55. [64]

    Kejing Lu, Mineichi Kudo, Chuan Xiao, and Yoshiharu Ishikawa. 2021. HVS: hierarchical graph structure based on voronoi diagrams for solving approximate nearest neighbor search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 15, 2 (2021), 246–258

    2021

  56. [65]

    Kejing Lu, Hongya Wang, Wei Wang, and Mineichi Kudo. 2020. VHP: approxi- mate nearest neighbor search via virtual hypersphere partitioning. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 9 (2020), 1443–1455. Subspace Collision: An Efficient and Accurate Framework for High-dimensional A...

    2020

  57. [66]

    Yury Malkov, Alexander Ponomarenko, Andrey Logvinov, and Vladimir Krylov

  58. [67]

    Yu A Malkov and Dmitry A Yashunin. 2018. Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 42, 4 (2018), 824–836

    2018

  59. [68]

    Yusuke Matsui, Yusuke Uchida, Hervé Jégou, and Shin’ichi Satoh. 2018. A survey of product quantization. ITE Transactions on Media Technology and Applications 6, 1 (2018), 2–10

    2018

  60. [69]

    Yusuke Matsui, Toshihiko Yamasaki, and Kiyoharu Aizawa. 2015. Pqtable: Fast exact asymmetric distance neighbor search for product quantization using hash tables. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision . 1940–1948

    2015

  61. [70]

    Marius Muja and David G Lowe. 2014. Scalable nearest neighbor algorithms for high dimensional data. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 36, 11 (2014), 2227–2240

    2014

  62. [71]

    Javier Vargas Munoz, Marcos A Gonçalves, Zanoni Dias, and Ricardo da S Torres

  63. [72]

    Mahoney, N

    Riley Murray, James Demmel, Michael W. Mahoney, N. Benjamin Erichson, Maksim Melnichenko, Osman Asif Malik, Laura Grigori, Piotr Luszczek, Michał Dereziński, Miles E. Lopes, Tianyu Liang, Hengrui Luo, and Jack Dongarra. 2023. Randomized Numerical Linear Algebra : A Perspective...

    2023 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    Gonzalo Navarro. 2002. Searching in metric spaces by spatial approximation. The VLDB Journal 11 (2002), 28–46

    2002

  65. [74]

    Mohammad Norouzi and David J Fleet. 2013. Cartesian k-means. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 3017–3024

    2013

  66. [75]

    Themis Palpanas. 2015. Data Series Management: The Road to Big Sequence Analytics. SIGMOD Record (2015)

    2015

  67. [76]

    48(3), 2019

    Themis Palpanas and Volker Beckmann. 48(3), 2019. Report on the First and Second Interdisciplinary Time Series Analysis Workshop (ITISA).SIGREC (48(3), 2019)

    2019

  68. [77]

    Pattern Recognition 96 (2019), 106970

    Hierarchical clustering-based graphs for large scale approximate nearest neighbor search. Pattern Recognition 96 (2019), 106970

    2019

  69. [78]

    Marco Patella and Paolo Ciaccia. 2009. Approximate similarity search: A multi- faceted problem. Journal of Discrete Algorithms 7, 1 (2009), 36–48

    2009

  70. [79]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2018. ParIS: The Next Destination for Fast Data Series Indexing and Query Answering. IEEE BigData (2018)

    2018

  71. [80]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Messi: In-memory data series indexing. In 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engi- neering (ICDE). IEEE, 337–348

    2020

  72. [81]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Paris+: Data series indexing on multi-core architectures. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 33, 5 (2020), 2151–2164

    2020

  73. [82]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2021. Fast data series indexing for in-memory data. VLDB J. 30, 6 (2021)

    2021

  74. [83]

    Marco Patella and Paolo Ciaccia. 2008. The many facets of approximate similarity search. In First International Workshop on Similarity Search and Applications (sisap 2008). IEEE, 10–21

    2008

  75. [84]

    Yun Peng, Byron Choi, Tsz Nam Chan, Jianye Yang, and Jianliang Xu. 2023. Efficient Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search in Multi-dimensional Databases. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 1, 1 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  76. [85]

    J Ben Schafer, Dan Frankowski, Jon Herlocker, and Shilad Sen. 2007. Collabora- tive filtering recommender systems. In The adaptive web: methods and strategies of web personalization. Springer, 291–324

    2007

  77. [86]

    Chanop Silpa-Anan and Richard Hartley. 2008. Optimised KD-trees for fast image descriptor matching. In 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 1–8

    2008

  78. [87]

    Yifang Sun, Wei Wang, Jianbin Qin, Ying Zhang, and Xuemin Lin. 2014. SRS: solving c-approximate nearest neighbor queries in high dimensional euclidean space with a tiny index. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (2014)

    2014

  79. [88]

    Yukihiro Tagami. 2017. Annexml: Approximate nearest neighbor search for extreme multi-label classification. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD inter- national conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 455–464

    2017

  80. [89]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2021. SING: Sequence Indexing Using GPUs. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engi- neering (ICDE). IEEE, 1883–1888

    2021

  81. [90]

    Yao Tian, Ziyang Yue, Ruiyuan Zhang, Xi Zhao, Bolong Zheng, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2023. Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search in High Dimensional Vector Databases: Current Research and Future Directions. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 47, 3 (2023)

    2023

  82. [91]

    Yao Tian, Xi Zhao, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2023. DB-LSH 2.0: Locality-Sensitive Hashing With Query-Based Dynamic Bucketing. IEEE Transactions on Knowl- edge and Data Engineering (2023)

    2023

  83. [92]

    Mengzhao Wang, Xiaoliang Xu, Qiang Yue, and Yuxiang Wang. 2021. A com- prehensive survey and experimental comparison of graph-based approximate nearest neighbor search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 14, 11 (2021), 1964–1978

    2021

  84. [93]

    Qitong Wang, Ioana Ileana, and Themis Palpanas. 2025. LeaFi: Data Series Indexes on Steroids with Learned Filters. Proc. ACM Manag. Data (2025)

    2025

  85. [94]

    Qitong Wang and Themis Palpanas. 2021. Deep learning embeddings for data series similarity search. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 1708–1716

    2021

  86. [95]

    Yufei Tao, Ke Yi, Cheng Sheng, and Panos Kalnis. 2009. Quality and efficiency in high dimensional nearest neighbor search. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data . 563–576

    2009

  87. [96]

    Yang Wang, Peng Wang, Jian Pei, Wei Wang, and Sheng Huang. 2013. A data- adaptive and dynamic segmentation index for whole matching on time series. VLDB (2013)

    2013

  88. [97]

    Zeyu Wang, Peng Wang, Themis Palpanas, and Wei Wang. 2023. Graph- and Tree-based Indexes for High-dimensional Vector Similarity Search: Analyses, Comparisons, and Future Directions. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 47, 3 (2023), 3–21

    2023

  89. [98]

    Zeyu Wang, Qitong Wang, Xiaoxing Cheng, Peng Wang, Themis Palpanas, and Wei Wang. 2024. 𝑺𝒕 𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒓-Hardness: A Query Hardness Measure for Graph-Based ANN Indexes. PVLDB (2024)

    2024

  90. [99]

    Zeyu Wang, Qitong Wang, Peng Wang, Themis Palpanas, and Wei Wang. 2023. Dumpy: A Compact and Adaptive Index for Large Data Series Collections. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 1, 1 (2023), 111:1–111:27

    2023

  91. [100]

    Zeyu Wang, Qitong Wang, Peng Wang, Themis Palpanas, and Wei Wang. 2024. DumpyOS: A data-adaptive multi-ary index for scalable data series similarity search. The VLDB Journal (2024), 1–25

    2024

  92. [101]

    Qitong Wang and Themis Palpanas. 2023. SEAnet: A Deep Learning Architecture for Data Series Similarity Search. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35, 12 (2023), 12972–12986

    2023

  93. [102]

    Jiuqi Wei. 2024. Subspace Collision: An Efficient and Accurate Framework for High-dimensional Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. https://github.com/ WeiJiuQi/SuCo

    2024

  94. [103]

    Jiuqi Wei, Ying Li, Yufan Fu, Youyi Zhang, and Xiaodong Li. 2023. Data In- teroperating Architecture (DIA): Decoupling Data and Applications to Give Back Your Data Ownership. In 2023 IEEE 47th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC). IEEE, 438–447

    2023

  95. [104]

    Jiuqi Wei, Botao Peng, Xiaodong Lee, and Themis Palpanas. 2024. DET-LSH: A Locality-Sensitive Hashing Scheme with Dynamic Encoding Tree for Approxi- mate Nearest Neighbor Search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 17, 9 (2024), 2241–2254

    2024

  96. [105]

    Yan Xia, Kaiming He, Fang Wen, and Jian Sun. 2013. Joint inverted indexing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision . 3416–3423

    2013

  97. [107]

    Roger Weber, Hans-Jörg Schek, and Stephen Blott. 1998. A quantitative analy- sis and performance study for similarity-search methods in high-dimensional spaces. In VLDB, Vol. 98. 194–205

    1998

  98. [108]

    Peter N Yianilos. 1993. Data structures and algorithms for nearest neighbor search in general metric spaces. In Soda, Vol. 93. 311–21

    1993

  99. [109]

    Ting Zhang, Chao Du, and Jingdong Wang. 2014. Composite quantization for approximate nearest neighbor search. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 838–846

    2014

  100. [110]

    Xi Zhao, Yao Tian, Kai Huang, Bolong Zheng, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2023. Towards Efficient Index Construction and Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search in High-Dimensional Spaces. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 16, 8 (2023), 1979–1991

    2023

  101. [111]

    Bolong Zheng, Zhao Xi, Lianggui Weng, Nguyen Quoc Viet Hung, Hang Liu, and Christian S Jensen. 2020. PM-LSH: A fast and accurate LSH framework for high-dimensional approximate NN search. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 5 (2020), 643–655

    2020

  102. [112]

    Yuxin Zheng, Qi Guo, Anthony KH Tung, and Sai Wu. 2016. Lazylsh: Approx- imate nearest neighbor search for multiple distance functions with a single index. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data. 2023–2037

    2016

  103. [113]

    Kostas Zoumpatianos, Stratos Idreos, and Themis Palpanas. 2014. Indexing for interactive exploration of big data series. In International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD

    2014

  104. [114]

    Djamel Edine Yagoubi, Reza Akbarinia, Florent Masseglia, and Themis Palpanas

  105. [122]

    Kostas Zoumpatianos, Stratos Idreos, and Themis Palpanas. 2016. ADS: the adaptive data series index. The VLDB Journal 25 (2016), 843–866

    2016

  106. [1248]

    https://doi.org/10.1214/17-aap1328

    doi

  107. [2014]

    Information Systems 45 (2014), 61–68

    Approximate nearest neighbor algorithm based on navigable small world graphs. Information Systems 45 (2014), 61–68

    2014

  108. [2017]

    In IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM

    DPiSAX: Massively Distributed Partitioned iSAX. In IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM . 1135–1140

  109. [2018]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 11, 6 (2018)

    Coconut: A Scalable Bottom-Up Approach for Building Data Series Indexes. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 11, 6 (2018)

    2018

  110. [2019]

    Coconut: sortable summarizations for scalable indexes over static and streaming data series. VLDB J. 28, 6 (2019), 847–869

    2019

  111. [2020]

    IEEE Trans

    Massively Distributed Time Series Indexing and Querying. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 32, 1 (2020), 108–120

    2020

  112. [2023]

    In 42nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, SRDS

    FreSh: A Lock-Free Data Series Index. In 42nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, SRDS . IEEE, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1109/ SRDS60354.2023.00029

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.