Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 167 references

Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Incremental insertion and neighborhood diversification drive billion-scale graph vector search; ELPIS is fastest.

desk verdict Solid benchmark with a genuinely useful taxonomy, but the 1B speed claim for ELPIS is partly a multi-threading effect that the paper never isolates. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05575 v2 pith:ESEHJJPN submitted 2025-02-08 cs.IR cs.PF

Ilias Azizi , Karima Echihabi , Themis Palpanas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.PF
keywords vectorsearchapproximatenearestneighborgraph-basedindexingincrementalinsertionneighborhooddiversificationseedselectionbillion-scaledatasetsexperimentalevaluation
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 an experimental study of twelve graph-based approximate nearest-neighbor methods on real datasets up to one billion vectors. It argues that the methods differ along five design paradigms and that two of them, incremental insertion and neighborhood diversification, explain most of the variation in query speed and scalability. The headline quantitative result is that ELPIS, which combines divide-and-conquer with incremental insertion and diversification, is up to an order of magnitude faster than HNSW and Vamana at 0.95 recall on Deep1B. The study also isolates the effect of seed selection and diversification strategies by layering each variant on a common incremental-insertion graph, which allows it to attribute performance differences to design choices rather than implementation details. A skeptical reader should care because the paper replaces contradictory benchmarks with a small set of design principles that predict which methods will scale to 100GB and beyond.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a taxonomy of five design paradigms: seed selection, incremental insertion, neighborhood propagation, neighborhood diversification, and divide-and-conquer. The taxonomy classifies twelve methods and is tested by isolating each strategy on a common incremental-insertion graph, then measuring distance calculations, wall-clock time, accuracy, and memory at scales from 1M to 1B vectors. The shared query algorithm is a beam search, so differences in performance are attributed to graph construction and seed choice. The diversification definitions (relative neighborhood diversification, relaxed relative neighborhood diversification, and maximum-oriented neighborhood diversification) provide the geometric pruning rules that the paper shows are responsible for different graph sizes and search speeds.

What would settle it

Run the same Deep1B benchmark with one million real or adversarially sampled queries instead of extrapolating from 100 queries; if the larger workload includes hard regions that the 100-query set missed, the ordering, and especially ELPIS's order-of-magnitude lead, could change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On datasets up to one billion vectors, the paper finds that methods built on incremental insertion and neighborhood diversification scale best and answer queries fastest. HNSW, Vamana, and especially ELPIS are the only methods that build indexes on 100GB and 1B collections within the 48-hour budget, and ELPIS is up to an order of magnitude faster than HNSW and Vamana at 0.95 recall on Deep1B. Neighborhood diversification always improves search, with relative neighborhood diversification (RND) and maximum-oriented diversification (MOND) outperforming the relaxed variant (RRND) and no diversification performing worst. Seed selection affects both querying and indexing: stacked-NSW and k-sampled random seeds are the most efficient, while fixed or medoid seeds are poor. Methods that depend on an expensive base graph such as EFANNA (NSG, SSG) or on neighborhood propagation alone (KGraph, DPG) fail to scale beyond 25GB or 100GB due to memory and build-time constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings rest on the assumption that a 100-query workload represents the full distribution of queries a system would see in practice; if the 100 queries under-sample hard regions or adversarial cases, the reported ordering of methods could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners should prefer methods that combine incremental insertion with neighborhood diversification (HNSW, Vamana, ELPIS) for large in-memory collections, because these are the only ones that scale past 100GB within the 48-hour build budget.
  • At 1B scale, ELPIS achieves 0.95 recall up to an order of magnitude faster than HNSW and Vamana, so divide-and-conquer plus parallel per-partition incremental-insertion graphs is currently the fastest recipe.
  • Among diversification strategies, RND and MOND should be preferred over RRND; using no diversification is worst, and the gap widens as dataset size grows.
  • Seed selection is not a minor detail: stacked-NSW and k-sampled random seeds are the most efficient, while fixed or medoid seeds are poor, and stacked-NSW wins at billion scale.
  • Methods relying on expensive base graphs (NSG, SSG, DPG, EFANNA) are limited to 25GB to 100GB, so a scalable base-graph construction would be needed to make those paradigms viable at larger sizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The billion-scale rankings are extrapolated from 100-query workloads, so a million-query workload that includes harder or adversarial queries could change the ordering, particularly the size of ELPIS's lead.
  • The failure of NSG and SSG appears tied to the EFANNA base graph; replacing that base graph with a scalable incremental-insertion or inverted-index-plus-product-quantization construction could make neighborhood-diversification methods competitive at 100GB and beyond.
  • The seed-selection experiments suggest that a lightweight data-adaptive seed structure could improve both indexing and query time, especially for out-of-distribution queries where fixed trees degrade.
  • The five-paradigm taxonomy could be turned into a decision rule mapping dataset size, local intrinsic dimensionality, and recall target to the best paradigm mix; the paper's data provide the ingredients for such a rule.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper surveys in-memory graph-based approximate vector search, proposes a taxonomy of five design paradigms (seed selection, neighborhood propagation, incremental insertion, neighborhood diversification, and divide-and-conquer), and experimentally evaluates twelve methods on seven real datasets with sizes up to one billion vectors. The main claims are that incremental insertion and neighborhood diversification are the most effective design paradigms, that the choice of the base graph can hurt scalability, and that ELPIS is up to an order of magnitude faster than HNSW and Vamana at 0.95 recall on Deep1B. The paper also isolates the effects of seed selection and neighborhood diversification using custom baselines, and concludes with research directions.

Significance. If the findings hold, this would be a valuable benchmark for practitioners and a useful update to the prior survey [142], with datasets at larger scale, a more detailed taxonomy, and a companion repository with parametrizations. The paper deserves credit for tuning twelve implementations, clearing caches, trimming repeated runs, documenting code modifications, and making artifacts available. The central claim, however, hinges on the ELPIS 1B result, which is currently confounded by parallel hardware utilization and by an unvalidated 100-query-to-1M-query extrapolation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.5, Figure 16] The claim that ELPIS is up to an order of magnitude faster than HNSW and Vamana at 0.95 recall on Deep1B is not a controlled test of algorithmic design. The text attributes the advantage to 'multi-threading for single query answering,' but the paper does not report a per-method thread budget or core-allocation control. On the 4-socket, 112-core Xeon, ELPIS can consume many cores to answer one query while the default HNSW/Vamana implementations may be effectively single-threaded. Figure 17 compares with ParlayANN's optimized variants, but again no thread-count control is stated. Please provide a controlled comparison (all methods with one thread, and all methods with the same thread budget) or explicitly scope the claim to the default implementations.
  2. [Section 4.1, Queries] The text states 'Results with 1 million queries are extrapolated from 100 query sets.' The paper provides no evidence that 100 queries are representative of a 1M-query workload or that distance calculations and timings extrapolate linearly. Figures 6, 16, and 17 present these extrapolated values; under a workload with a different hardness distribution, the reported method ordering, including the ELPIS lead, could change. Please validate the extrapolation on a medium-size workload (e.g., 10K queries) for the main methods or report per-query distributions with confidence intervals.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'We consider the baseline method SF which has not been used in the literature before.' appears twice verbatim; the duplicate should be removed.
  2. [Section 2.1, Summary paragraph] The word 'acccuracy' should be 'accuracy'.
  3. [Table 3] SPTAG appears in two rows with different ratings; clarify which variant (SPTAG-BKT versus SPTAG-KDT) each row refers to and reconcile the inconsistency.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Figures 6, 16, 17] Figures presenting the extrapolated 1M-query values should label the y-axis as estimated values rather than measured values.
  5. [Figure 11 and Section 4.5] The capitalization of 'Elpis' is inconsistent; use 'ELPIS' throughout.
  6. [Section 4.2] The values alpha=1.3 and theta=60 are tuned on the same datasets used for the evaluation; state whether this is a held-out tuning set or report sensitivity to these parameters.
  7. [Section 4.1, Procedure] Despite six repeated runs, the paper reports only trimmed means without any variance measure; for the 100-query workloads, a confidence interval or a spread statistic would help assess the stability of the rankings.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Benchmark evaluation is largely self-contained; one ancillary ND-subsumption proof is deferred to the authors' own repository.

  1. other [Section 3.4 (Neighborhood Diversification), final sentence; reference [3] in the bibliography.]
    "Note that any nodes pruned by RRND and MOND will eventually be pruned by RND, but not vice versa. Refer to [3] for a detailed proof."

    The subsumption claim about RND, RRND, and MOND is justified only by a citation to the authors' own GitHub repository [3] (zeraph6/GASS_Repo), which is also the artifact link for this paper. No proof appears in the text, and a repository proof is not independently verified in the manuscript. This is a minor self-citation rather than a load-bearing circular step: the claim is not used to derive the main benchmark conclusions, and the paper's own Table 1 independently measures the pruning ratios that support the RND versus MOND versus RRND ordering.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: incremental insertion and neighborhood diversification lead to the best search/indexing trade-offs, seed selection matters, and ELPIS leads at billion scale. These conclusions are measured against public datasets (Deep, Sift, SALD, Seismic, Text-to-Image, GIST, ImageNet) and external baselines (HNSW, NSG, Vamana, SSG, SPTAG, and others) using public code bases, so they do not reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs or fitted parameters. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the target conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the proposed taxonomy reorganizes existing methods and is not used to force the measured rankings. The only self-referential element that needs flagging is Section 3.4's statement that RND subsumes RRND and MOND, with the proof deferred to the authors' own repository [3]; this is peripheral to the benchmark findings, which are supported by the measured pruning ratios in Table 1 and by the query-time comparisons. Experimental-validity concerns such as extrapolation from 100 to 1M queries and the lack of a per-method thread-count control for the multi-threaded ELPIS affect how strongly the headline 1B claim should be read, but they are confounds or measurement limitations, not circular reasoning. Accordingly, the circularity score is 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The evaluation rests on several unverified premises: 100-query workloads are extrapolated to 1M, public implementations represent each method faithfully, the taxonomy is complete, and ND parameters (alpha=1.3, theta=60) were chosen for best performance on the same data used to draw the conclusions. The pruning property is the only derivation-like assertion, and its proof is deferred to the authors' own repository. No physical entities are introduced; the taxonomy and the new ImageNet1M dataset are the only invented constructs.

free parameters (5)
  • RRND relaxation factor alpha = 1.3
    Section 4.2: alpha was swept in [1,2] and 1.3 'leads to the best performance'; used for the ND comparison.
  • MOND angle threshold theta = 60 degrees
    Section 4.2: theta was swept in [50,80] and 60 degrees 'leads to the best performance'; used for the ND comparison.
  • II baseline max out-degree R = 60
    Section 4.2: the insertion-based graph uses maximum out-degree R=60; this hand-chosen density affects all ND and SS experiments.
  • II baseline beam width L = 800
    Section 4.2: the insertion-based graph uses beam width L=800; this affects candidate neighbor lists and final graph quality.
  • Query workload extrapolation factor = x10,000 (100 to 1,000,000 queries)
    Section 4.1: 'Results with 1 million queries are extrapolated from 100 query sets.' This factor converts measured values into reported billion-scale figures.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Euclidean distance is the dissimilarity measure for all evaluated methods.
    Section 2 defines the problem with Euclidean distance; graph construction and query workloads all use this metric, so the ranking may not transfer to other metrics such as inner product.
  • domain assumption The 100-query workload is representative and linear extrapolation to 1M queries is valid.
    Section 4.1: 'Results with 1 million queries are extrapolated from 100 query sets.' This is load-bearing for all stated distance-calculation totals.
  • domain assumption The publicly available implementations, after the authors' documented edits, fairly represent each method.
    Section 4.1 describes using C/C++ implementations, inspecting code, disabling cache pre-warming and L2-normalized distances, and changing HNSW/ELPIS priority queues; the comparison depends on these choices being neutral.
  • domain assumption The five-paradigm taxonomy (SS, NP, II, ND, DC) is a valid and complete decomposition of graph-based vector search methods.
    Sections 3.2 to 3.5 define and apply the taxonomy; the paper's insights are framed in its categories, but completeness is assumed rather than proven.
  • ad hoc to paper The pruning property stated in Section 3.4 holds for the intended reading of 'RRND and MOND'.
    The statement 'any nodes pruned by RRND and MOND will eventually be pruned by RND' is asserted and its proof is deferred to the authors' repository [3]; the text is ambiguous for MOND relative to Figure 2c.
  • domain assumption LID and LRC measured on a 1M-point sample with k=100 are representative of full-dataset complexity.
    Section 4.1: dataset-complexity figures are produced from a random 1M subset; the 'hard dataset' insights rely on this sample.
invented entities (2)
  • Five-paradigm taxonomy (seed selection, neighborhood propagation, incremental insertion, neighborhood diversification, divide-and-conquer)
    purpose: Classify graph-based ANN methods and structure the experimental analysis.
    Introduced in Sections 3.2 to 3.5 as a new conceptual framework; it is applied to 12 known methods but makes no falsifiable prediction beyond the paper's own classification choices.
  • ImageNet1M dataset independent evidence
    purpose: A new benchmark collection of ResNet50 embeddings (PCA-reduced to 256 dimensions) for evaluating vector search methods.
    Section 4.1: 'ImageNet1M, a new dataset that we generated from the original ImageNet.' It is reproducible from public inputs, giving an external handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ESEHJJPN

@misc{pith2026250205575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ESEHJJPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05575}
}
read the original abstract

Vector data is prevalent across business and scientific applications, and its popularity is growing with the proliferation of learned embeddings. Vector data collections often reach billions of vectors with thousands of dimensions, thus, increasing the complexity of their analysis. Vector search is the backbone of many critical analytical tasks, and graph-based methods have become the best choice for analytical tasks that do not require guarantees on the quality of the answers. We briefly survey in-memory graph-based vector search, outline the chronology of the different methods and classify them according to five main design paradigms: seed selection, incremental insertion, neighborhood propagation, neighborhood diversification, and divide-and-conquer. We conduct an exhaustive experimental evaluation of twelve state-of-the-art methods on seven real data collections, with sizes up to 1 billion vectors. We share key insights about the strengths and limitations of these methods; e.g., the best approaches are typically based on incremental insertion and neighborhood diversification, and the choice of the base graph can hurt scalability. Finally, we discuss open research directions, such as the importance of devising more sophisticated data-adaptive seed selection and diversification strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image retrieval using different vector search methods. Each row shows the bsf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Neighborhood diversification approaches Definition 4 (RRND). For a relaxation factor 𝛼 ≥ 1, the node 𝑋𝑗 is added to 𝑅𝑞 if and only if the following condition holds: ∀𝑋𝑖 ∈ 𝑅𝑞, dist 𝑋𝑞, 𝑋𝑗  < 𝛼 · dist 𝑋𝑖 , 𝑋𝑗  (Eq. 3) Definition 5 (MOND). For an angle 𝜃 ≥ 60◦ , the node 𝑋𝑗 is added to 𝑅𝑞 if and only if the following condition holds: ∀𝑋𝑖 ∈ 𝑅𝑞, ∠ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graph-based ANN indexing paradigms or offer the flexibility to use different strategies (e.g., SPTAG can use either KD or KM). Note that a method can exploit one or more paradigms; e.g., HNSW uses incremental node insertion and prunes each node’s neighbors using the RND approach, thereby being classified as both II and ND. KGraph [35] was the first to use NP to approximate the exact k-NN graph (k-NNG) (with quadrati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dataset Complexity Queries. Query sets include 100 vectors processed sequentially, not in batches, mimicking a real￾world scenario where queries are unpredictable [58, 59, 109]. Results with 1 million queries are extrapolated from 100 query sets. For Deep, Sift, GIST, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ND methods performance on real-world datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The impact of SS Methods on query answering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Indexing Memory Footprint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Query performance on 1M vectors (a) Deep (b) SALD (c) Seismic (d) Sift (e) RandPow0 (f) RandPow50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: 100GB datasets (a) 1% noise (b) 10% noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Optimized Implementations (Deep1B) ✓ Good ∼ Medium × Bad Method Query Answering Index Building Efficiency Accuracy Tuning Efficiency Footprint Tuning HNSW ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ELPIS ✓ ✓ ∼ ✓ ✓ ∼ VAMANA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ∼ NSG ✓ ✓ ✓ ∼ ∼ ∼ SSG ✓ ✓ ✓ ∼ ∼ ∼ EFANNA × ∼ × × × × KGRAPH × × × …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Recommendations (Indexing + 10K queries) Optimized Libraries. Our experiments with the parlayNN library [98] ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

167 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [142]

    Mengzhao Wang, Xiaoliang Xu, Qiang Yue, and Yuxiang Wang. 2021. A Comprehensive Survey and Experimental Comparison of Graph-Based Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search.Proc. VLDB Endow.14, 11 (jul 2021), 1964–1978. doi:10.14778/3476249.3476255

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Hnswlib - fast approximate nearest neighbor search

    2019. Hnswlib - fast approximate nearest neighbor search. https://github.com/nmslib/hnswlib

    2019

  3. [2]

    ELPIS Archive

    2022. ELPIS Archive. https://github.com/scalablesimilaritysearch/ELPIS

    2022

  4. [3]

    Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art (Archive)

    2024. Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art (Archive). https://github.com/ zeraph6/GASS_Repo

    2024

  5. [4]

    Uri Alon, Meital Zilberstein, Omer Levy, and Eran Yahav. 2019. Code2vec: Learning Distributed Representations of Code. 3, POPL (2019). , Vol. 3, No. 1 (SIGMOD), Article 43. Publication date: February 2025. Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art 43:25

    2019

  6. [5]

    Laurent Amsaleg, Oussama Chelly, Teddy Furon, Stéphane Girard, Michael E Houle, Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, and Michael Nett. 2015. Estimating local intrinsic dimensionality. InProceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 29–38

    2015

  7. [6]

    Akhil Arora, Sakshi Sinha, Piyush Kumar, and Arnab Bhattacharya. 2018. HD-index: Pushing the Scalability-accuracy Boundary for Approximate kNN Search in High-dimensional Spaces.PVLDB11, 8 (2018), 906–919

    2018

  8. [7]

    Martin Aumüller, Erik Bernhardsson, and Alexander Faithfull. 2017. ANN-Benchmarks: A Benchmarking Tool for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Algorithms. InSISAP

    2017

Show all 167 references
  1. [8]

    Martin Aumüller, Erik Bernhardsson, and Alexander Faithfull. 2017. ANN-benchmarks: A benchmarking tool for approximate nearest neighbor algorithms. InInternational Conference on Similarity Search and Applications. Springer, 34–49

    2017

  2. [9]

    Martin Aumüller and Matteo Ceccarello. 2021. The role of local dimensionality measures in benchmarking nearest neighbor search.Inf. Syst.101 (2021), 101807. doi:10.1016/J.IS.2021.101807

    2021

  3. [10]

    2013.Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay triangulations

    Franz Aurenhammer, Rolf Klein, and Der-Tsai Lee. 2013.Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay triangulations. World Scientific Publishing Company

    2013

  4. [11]

    Ilias Azizi, Karima Echihabi, and Themis Palpanas. 2023. Elpis: Graph-Based Similarity Search for Scalable Data Science.PVLDB16, 6 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Babenko and V

    A. Babenko and V. Lempitsky. 2015. The Inverted Multi-Index.TPAMI37, 6 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Dmitry Baranchuk and Artem Babenko. 2021. Text-to-Image dataset for billion-scale similarity search. https: //research.yandex.com/datasets/text-to-image-dataset-for-billion-scale-similarity-search

    2021

  7. [14]

    Olivier Beaumont, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Loris Marchal, and Étienne Rivière. 2007. VoroNet: A scalable object network based on Voronoi tessellations. In2007 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. IEEE, 1–10

    2007

  8. [15]

    Olivier Beaumont, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, and Étienne Rivière. 2007. Peer to peer multidimensional overlays: Approximating complex structures. InInternational Conference On Principles Of Distributed Systems. Springer, 315– 328

    2007

  9. [16]

    Norbert Beckmann, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Ralf Schneider, and Bernhard Seeger. 1990. The R*-tree: an efficient and robust access method for points and rectangles. InINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT OF DATA. ACM, 322–331

    1990

  10. [17]

    Jeffrey S Beis and David G Lowe. 1997. Shape indexing using approximate nearest-neighbour search in high- dimensional spaces. InProceedings of IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, 1000–1006

    1997

  11. [18]

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Kaan Oktay, Jonas Müller, and Björn Ommer. 2022. Retrieval-augmented diffusion models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Paul Boniol, Michele Linardi, Federico Roncallo, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Automated Anomaly Detection in Large Sequences. InICDE

    2020

  13. [20]

    Paul Boniol and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Series2Graph: Graph-based Subsequence Anomaly Detection for Time Series. PVLDB(2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    Sébastien Bubeck and Ulrike von Luxburg. 2009. Nearest Neighbor Clustering: A Baseline Method for Consistent Clustering with Arbitrary Objective Functions.JMLR10 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Simon Byers and Adrian E. Raftery. 1998. Nearest-Neighbor Clutter Removal for Estimating Features in Spatial Point Processes.JASA93, 442 (1998)

    1998

  16. [23]

    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 With𝑖SAX2+.Knowledge and information systems39, 1 (2014), 123–151

    2014

  17. [24]

    Kaushik Chakrabarti, Eamonn Keogh, Sharad Mehrotra, and Michael Pazzani. 2002. Locally Adaptive Dimensionality Reduction for Indexing Large Time Series Databases.ACM Trans. Database Syst.27, 2 (June 2002), 188–228. doi:10. 1145/568518.568520

    2002

  18. [25]

    Manos Chatzakis, Panagiota Fatourou, Eleftherios Kosmas, Themis Palpanas, and Botao Peng. 2023. Odyssey: A Journey in the Land of Distributed Data Series Similarity Search.Proc. VLDB Endow.(2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    Georgios Chatzigeorgakidis, Dimitrios Skoutas, Kostas Patroumpas, Themis Palpanas, Spiros Athanasiou, and Spiros Skiadopoulos. 2019. Local Pair and Bundle Discovery over Co-Evolving Time Series. InProceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Spatial and Temporal Database...

    2019

  20. [27]

    Georgios Chatzigeorgakidis, Dimitrios Skoutas, Kostas Patroumpas, Themis Palpanas, Spiros Athanasiou, and Spiros Skiadopoulos. 2019. Local Similarity Search on Geolocated Time Series Using Hybrid Indexing. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Ad...

    2019

  21. [28]

    Georgios Chatzigeorgakidis, Dimitrios Skoutas, Kostas Patroumpas, Themis Palpanas, Spiros Athanasiou, and Spiros Skiadopoulos. 2023. Efficient Range and kNN Twin Subsequence Search in Time Series.IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35, 6 (2023), 5794–5807. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2022.3167257

    2023

  22. [29]

    2018.SPTAG: A library for fast approximate nearest neighbor search

    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. https://github.com/Microsoft/ SPTAG

    2018

  23. [30]

    Paolo Ciaccia and Marco Patella. 2000. PAC Nearest Neighbor Queries: Approximate and Controlled Search in High-Dimensional and Metric Spaces. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Data Engineering, San Diego, California, USA, February 28 - March 3, 2000, David ...

    2000

  24. [31]

    Daniel Croft, Manish Gupta, Vlad Josifovski, Parikshit Narayanan, Weitian Wu, and Yan Xue. 2021. DiskANN: Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search on Disk. GitHub repository. https://github.com/microsoft/DiskANN Accessed: 2024-10-25

    2021

  25. [32]

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

    2008

  26. [33]

    DBAIWangGroup. 2023. NNS Benchmark: Evaluating Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search Algorithms in High Dimensional Euclidean Space - DPG Algorithm. https://github.com/DBAIWangGroup/nns_benchmark/tree/master/ algorithms/DPG. GitHub repository

    2023

  27. [34]

    David P Dobkin, Steven J Friedman, and Kenneth J Supowit. 1990. Delaunay graphs are almost as good as complete graphs.Discrete & Computational Geometry5, 4 (1990), 399–407

    1990

  28. [35]

    W. Dong. 2022. Kgraph, an open source library for k-nn graph construction and nearest neighbor search. www. kgraph.org

    2022

  29. [36]

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

    2011

  30. [37]

    2011.Data Mining and Machine Learning in Cybersecurity(1st ed.)

    Sumeet Dua and Xian Du. 2011.Data Mining and Machine Learning in Cybersecurity(1st ed.). Auerbach Publications, USA

    2011

  31. [38]

    Muhammad Ebraheem, Saravanan Thirumuruganathan, Shafiq Joty, Mourad Ouzzani, and Nan Tang. 2018. Distributed Representations of Tuples for Entity Resolution.VLDBJ11, 11 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    Karima Echihabi. 2019. Truly Scalable Data Series Similarity Search. InProceedings of the VLDB 2019 PhD Workshop (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 2399). CEUR-WS.org

    2019

  33. [40]

    Karima Echihabi. 2020. High-Dimensional Similarity Search: From Time Series to Deep Network Embeddings. In SIGMOD

    2020

  34. [41]

    Karima Echihabi, Panagiota Fatourou, Kostas Zoumpatianos, Themis Palpanas, and Houda Benbrahim. 2022. Hercules Against Data Series Similarity Search.PVLDB15, 10 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    Karima Echihabi, Kostas Zoumpatianos, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Scalable Machine Learning on High-Dimensional Vectors: From Data Series to Deep Network Embeddings. InWIMS 2020: The 10th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics. ACM, 1–6

    2020

  36. [43]

    Karima Echihabi, Kostas Zoumpatianos, and Themis Palpanas. 2021. High-Dimensional Similarity Search for Scalable Data Science(ICDE)

    2021

  37. [44]

    Karima Echihabi, Kostas Zoumpatianos, Themis Palpanas, and Houda Benbrahim. 2018. The Lernaean Hydra of Data Series Similarity Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State of the Art.PVLDB12, 2 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    Karima Echihabi, Kostas Zoumpatianos, Themis Palpanas, and Houda Benbrahim. 2019. Return of the Lernaean Hydra: Experimental Evaluation of Data Series Approximate Similarity Search.PVLDB(2019)

    2019

  39. [46]

    2012.Algorithms in Combinatorial Geometry(1st ed.)

    Herbert Edelsbrunner. 2012.Algorithms in Combinatorial Geometry(1st ed.). Springer Publishing Company, Incorpo- rated

    2012

  40. [47]

    Andreas Engel, Rémi Monasson, and Alexander K Hartmann. 2004. On large deviation properties of erdös–rényi random graphs.Journal of Statistical Physics117, 3 (2004), 387–426

    2004

  41. [48]

    Panagiota Fatourou, Eleftherios Kosmas, Themis Palpanas, and George Paterakis. 2023. FreSh: A Lock-Free Data Series Index. InSRDS

    2023

  42. [49]

    Hakan Ferhatosmanoglu, Ertem Tuncel, Divyakant Agrawal, and Amr El Abbadi. 2000. Vector approximation based indexing for non-uniform high dimensional data sets. InProceedings of the ninth international conference on Information and knowledge management. 202–209

    2000

  43. [50]

    Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology with Artificial Intelligence. 2018. Seismic Data Access. http: //ds.iris.edu/data/access/

    2018

  44. [51]

    Steven Fortune. 1995. Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay triangulations.Computing in Euclidean geometry(1995), 225–265. , Vol. 3, No. 1 (SIGMOD), Article 43. Publication date: February 2025. Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art 43:27

    1995

  45. [52]

    Cong Fu and Deng Cai. 2016. Efanna: An extremely fast approximate nearest neighbor search algorithm based on knn graph.arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07228(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  46. [53]

    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(2021)

    2021

  47. [54]

    Cong Fu, Chao Xiang, Changxu Wang, and Deng Cai. 2019. Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search With The Navigating Spreading-out Graph.Proc. VLDB Endow.12, 5 (2019), 461–474

    2019

  48. [55]

    Miao Fu, Huizhong Cai, Zhiwei Fu, Jie Tang, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2019. Efficient and Effective Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. GitHub repository. https://github.com/Yotta-Chen/NSG Accessed: 2024-10-25

    2019

  49. [56]

    K Ruben Gabriel and Robert R Sokal. 1969. A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis.Systematic zoology18, 3 (1969), 259–278

    1969

  50. [57]

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

    1999

  51. [58]

    Anna Gogolou, Theophanis Tsandilas, Karima Echihabi, Themis Palpanas, and Anastasia Bezerianos. 2020. Data Series Progressive Similarity Search with Probabilistic Quality Guarantees. InSIGMOD

    2020

  52. [59]

    Anna Gogolou, Theophanis Tsandilas, Themis Palpanas, and Anastasia Bezerianos. 2019. Progressive Similarity Search on Time Series Data. InProceedings of the Workshops of the EDBT/ICDT 2019 Joint Conference

    2019

  53. [60]

    R. M. Gray and D. L. Neuhoff. 2006. Quantization.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor.44, 6 (Sept. 2006), 2325–2383. doi:10.1109/18. 720541

    2006 doi

  54. [61]

    Michael Günther, Maik Thiele, and Wolfgang Lehner. 2019. RETRO: Relation Retrofitting For In-Database Machine Learning on Textual Data.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12674(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Antonin Guttman. 1984. R-Trees: A Dynamic Index Structure for Spatial Searching. InSIGMOD

    1984

  56. [63]

    Ben Harwood and Tom Drummond. 2016. Fanng: Fast approximate nearest neighbour graphs. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 5713–5722

    2016

  57. [64]

    Junfeng He, Sanjiv Kumar, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2012. On the difficulty of nearest neighbor search.arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6411(2012)

    2012 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 770–778

    2016

  59. [66]

    Qiang Huang, Jianlin Feng, Yikai Zhang, Qiong Fang, and Wilfred Ng. 2015. Query-aware Locality-sensitive Hashing for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search.PVLDB9, 1 (2015), 1–12

    2015

  60. [67]

    Piotr Indyk and Rajeev Motwani. 1998. Approximate Nearest Neighbors: Towards Removing the Curse of Dimension- ality(STOC)

    1998

  61. [68]

    Masajiro Iwasaki. 2016. Pruned bi-directed k-nearest neighbor graph for proximity search. InInternational Conference on Similarity Search and Applications. Springer, 20–33

    2016

  62. [69]

    Omid Jafari, Preeti Maurya, Parth Nagarkar, Khandker Mushfiqul Islam, and Chidambaram Crushev. 2021. A survey on locality sensitive hashing algorithms and their applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08942(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Hervé Jégou, Matthijs Douze, and Cordelia Schmid. 2011. Product quantization for nearest neighbor search. InIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 33. IEEE, 117–128

    2011

  64. [71]

    Jegou, R

    H. Jegou, R. Tavenard, M. Douze, and L. Amsaleg. 2011. Searching in one billion vectors: Re-rank with source coding. In2011 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 861–864. doi:10.1109/ ICASSP.2011.5946540

    2011

  65. [72]

    Zhongming Jin, Debing Zhang, Yao Hu, Shiding Lin, Deng Cai, and Xiaofei He. 2014. Fast and accurate hashing via iterative nearest neighbors expansion.IEEE transactions on cybernetics44, 11 (2014), 2167–2177

    2014

  66. [73]

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs.IEEE Transactions on Big Data7, 3 (2019), 535–547

    2019

  67. [74]

    William Johnson and Joram Lindenstrauss. 1984. Extensions of Lipschitz mappings into a Hilbert space. InConference in modern analysis and probability (New Haven, Conn., 1982). Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 26. American Mathematical Society, 189–206

    1984

  68. [75]

    1947.Ueber lineare Methoden in der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung

    Kari Karhunen. 1947.Ueber lineare Methoden in der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Soumalainen Tiedeakatemia

    1947

  69. [76]

    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

  70. [77]

    Eamonn Keogh, Kaushik Chakrabarti, Michael Pazzani, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2001. Dimensionality Reduction for Fast Similarity Search in Large Time Series Databases.Knowledge and Information Systems3, 3 (2001), 263–286. doi:10.1007/PL00011669

    2001 doi

  71. [78]

    Eamonn Keogh, Jessica Lin, and Ada Fu. 2005. HOT SAX: Efficiently Finding the Most Unusual Time Series Subsequence. InICDM. , Vol. 3, No. 1 (SIGMOD), Article 43. Publication date: February 2025. 43:28 Ilias Azizi, Karima Echihabi & Themis Palpanas

    2005

  72. [79]

    Jon Kleinberg et al. 2002. Small-world phenomena and the dynamics of information.Advances in neural information processing systems1 (2002), 431–438

    2002

  73. [80]

    Jon M Kleinberg. 2000. Navigation in a small world.Nature406, 6798 (2000), 845–845

    2000

  74. [81]

    Haridimos Kondylakis, Niv Dayan, Kostas Zoumpatianos, and Themis Palpanas. 2018. Coconut: A Scalable Bottom-Up Approach for Building Data Series Indexes.Proc. VLDB Endow.11, 6 (2018), 677–690. doi:10.14778/3184470.3184472

    2018

  75. [82]

    Haridimos Kondylakis, Niv Dayan, Kostas Zoumpatianos, and Themis Palpanas. 2019. Coconut: Sortable Summariza- tions for Scalable Indexes over Static and Streaming Data Series.VLDBJ28, 6 (2019)

    2019

  76. [83]

    Mike Lewis, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Gargi Ghosh, Armen Aghajanyan, Sida Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Pre-training via paraphrasing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33 (2020), 18470–18481

    2020

  77. [84]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sy...

    2020

  78. [85]

    W. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, W. Wang, M. Li, W. Zhang, and X. Lin. 2019. Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search on High Dimensional Data - Experiments, Analyses, and Improvement.TKDE(2019)

    2019

  79. [86]

    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 Engineering32, 8 (2019), 1475–1488

    2019

  80. [87]

    Keogh, Stefano Lonardi, and Bill Yuan-chi Chiu

    Jessica Lin, Eamonn J. Keogh, Stefano Lonardi, and Bill Yuan-chi Chiu. 2003. A symbolic representation of time series, with implications for streaming algorithms. InProceedings of the 8th ACM SIGMOD workshop on Research issues in data mining and knowledge discovery, DMKD, San ...

    2003

  81. [88]

    Peng-Cheng Lin and Wan-Lei Zhao. 2019. Graph based nearest neighbor search: Promises and failures.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02077(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Michele Linardi and Themis Palpanas. 2018. Scalable, Variable-Length Similarity Search in Data Series: The ULISSE Approach.Proc. VLDB Endow.11, 13 (2018), 2236–2248. doi:10.14778/3275366.3284968

    2018

  83. [90]

    Michele Linardi and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Scalable Data Series Subsequence Matching with ULISSE.VLDBJ(2020)

    2020

  84. [91]

    Linden, B

    G. Linden, B. Smith, and J. York. 2003. Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering.IEEE Internet Computing7, 1 (2003)

    2003

  85. [92]

    Michel Loeve. 1948. Functions aleatoires du second ordre.Processus stochastique et mouvement Brownien(1948), 366–420

    1948

  86. [93]

    Kejing Lu. 2023. HVS: Hierarchical Graph Structure Based on Voronoi Diagrams for Solving Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. https://github.com/Kejing-Lu/hvs

    2023

  87. [94]

    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 Endowment15, 2 (2021), 246–258

    2021

  88. [95]

    Mikko I Malinen and Pasi Fränti. 2014. Balanced k-means for clustering. InStructural, Syntactic, and Statistical Pattern Recognition: Joint IAPR International Workshop, S+ SSPR 2014, Joensuu, Finland, August 20-22, 2014. Proceedings. Springer, 32–41

    2014

  89. [96]

    Yury Malkov, Alexander Ponomarenko, Andrey Logvinov, and Vladimir Krylov. 2014. Approximate nearest neighbor algorithm based on navigable small world graphs.Information Systems45 (2014), 61–68

    2014

  90. [97]

    Malkov and Dmitry A

    Yury A. Malkov and Dmitry A. Yashunin. 2020. Efficient and Robust Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search Using Hierarchical Navigable Small World Graphs.IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.42, 4 (2020), 824–836

    2020

  91. [98]

    Magdalen Dobson Manohar, Zheqi Shen, Guy Blelloch, Laxman Dhulipala, Yan Gu, Harsha Vardhan Simhadri, and Yihan Sun. 2024. ParlayANN: Scalable and Deterministic Parallel Graph-Based Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search Algorithms. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN Annual Sy...

    2024

  92. [99]

    David W Matula and Robert R Sokal. 1980. Properties of Gabriel graphs relevant to geographic variation research and the clustering of points in the plane.Geographical analysis12, 3 (1980), 205–222

    1980

  93. [100]

    Stanislav Morozov and Artem Babenko. 2018. Non-metric similarity graphs for maximum inner product search. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems31 (2018)

    2018

  94. [101]

    Marius Muja and David G. Lowe. 2009. Fast approximate nearest neighbors with automatic algorithm configuration. InVISAPP International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications. 331–340

    2009

  95. [102]

    Javier Vargas Munoz, Marcos A Gonçalves, Zanoni Dias, and Ricardo da S Torres. 2019. Hierarchical clustering-based graphs for large scale approximate nearest neighbor search.Pattern Recognition96 (2019), 106970

    2019

  96. [103]

    Bilegsaikhan Naidan, Leonid Boytsov, and Eric Nyberg. 2015. Permutation Search Methods Are Efficient, Yet Faster Search is Possible.PVLDB8, 12 (2015), 12 pages. doi:10.14778/2824032.2824059

    2015

  97. [104]

    Mark EJ Newman. 2005. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law.Contemporary physics46, 5 (2005), 323–351. , Vol. 3, No. 1 (SIGMOD), Article 43. Publication date: February 2025. Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art 43:29

    2005

  98. [105]

    Trong Duc Nguyen, Anh Tuan Nguyen, and Tien N. Nguyen. 2016. Mapping API Elements for Code Migration with Vector Representations. InICSE

    2016

  99. [106]

    Aude Oliva and Antonio Torralba. 2001. Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope.International journal of computer vision42 (2001), 145–175

    2001

  100. [107]

    Themis Palpanas. 2015. Data series management: The road to big sequence analytics.ACM SIGMOD Record44, 2 (2015), 47–52

    2015

  101. [108]

    Themis Palpanas. 2020. Evolution of a Data Series Index: the iSAX Family of Data Series Indexes.Communications in Computer and Information Science (CCIS)1197 (2020)

    2020

  102. [109]

    Themis Palpanas and Volker Beckmann. 2019. Report on the First and Second Interdisciplinary Time Series Analysis Workshop (ITISA).ACM SIGMOD Record48, 3 (2019)

    2019

  103. [110]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Messi: In-memory data series indexing. In2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 337–348

    2020

  104. [111]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2021. Fast Data Series Indexing for In-Memory Data.VLDBJ (2021)

    2021

  105. [112]

    Botao Peng, Panagiota Fatourou, and Themis Palpanas. 2021. SING: Sequence Indexing Using GPUs. InICDE

    2021

  106. [113]

    Botao Peng, Themis Palpanas, and Panagiota Fatourou. 2020. ParIS+: Data Series Indexing on Multi-core Architectures. TKDE(2020)

    2020

  107. [114]

    Webb, Ann E

    François Petitjean, Germain Forestier, Geoffrey I. Webb, Ann E. Nicholson, Yanping Chen, and Eamonn J. Keogh. 2014. Dynamic Time Warping Averaging of Time Series Allows Faster and More Accurate Classification. InICDM

    2014

  108. [115]

    Alexander Ponomarenko, Yury Malkov, Andrey Logvinov, and Vladimir Krylov. 2011. Approximate nearest neigh- bor search small world approach. InInternational Conference on Information and Communication Technologies & Applications, Vol. 17

    2011

  109. [116]

    William Pugh. 1990. Skip lists: a probabilistic alternative to balanced trees.Commun. ACM33, 6 (1990), 668–676

    1990

  110. [117]

    Python API. 2022. openmc.stats.PowerLaw. https://docs.openmc.org/en/stable/pythonapi/generated/openmc.stats. PowerLaw.html

    2022

  111. [118]

    Sridhar Ramaswamy, Rajeev Rastogi, and Kyuseok Shim. 2000. Efficient Algorithms for Mining Outliers from Large Data Sets.SIGMOD Rec.29, 2 (2000)

    2000

  112. [119]

    D Raj Reddy et al . 1977. Speech understanding systems: A summary of results of the five-year research effort. Department of Computer Science. Camegie-Mell University, Pittsburgh, PA17 (1977), 138

    1977

  113. [120]

    Microsoft Research. 2018. SPTAG: A Library for Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. GitHub repository. https://github.com/microsoft/SPTAG Accessed: 2024-10-25

    2018

  114. [121]

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision115 (2015), 211–252

    2015

  115. [122]

    Patrick Schäfer and Mikael Högqvist. 2012. SFA: A Symbolic Fourier Approximation and Index for Similarity Search in High Dimensional Datasets. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT ’12)

    2012

  116. [123]

    Roger W Schvaneveldt, Francis T Durso, and Donald W Dearholt. 1989. Network structures in proximity data. In Psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 24. Elsevier, 249–284

    1989

  117. [124]

    Michael Ian Shamos and Dan Hoey. 1975. Closest-point problems. In16th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1975). IEEE, 151–162

    1975

  118. [125]

    Lei Shi. 2013. Trading-off among accuracy, similarity, diversity, and long-tail: a graph-based recommendation approach. InProceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 57–64

    2013

  119. [126]

    Harsha Vardhan Simhadri, George Williams, Martin Aumüller, Matthijs Douze, Artem Babenko, Dmitry Baranchuk, Qi Chen, Lucas Hosseini, Ravishankar Krishnaswamy, Gopal Srinivasa, Suhas Jayaram Subramanya, and Jingdong Wang. 2022. Results of the NeurIPS’21 Challenge on Billion-Sca...

    2022 doi arXiv

  120. [127]

    Skoltech Computer Vision. 2018. Deep billion-scale indexing. http://sites.skoltech.ru/compvision/noimi

    2018

  121. [128]

    Liuyihan Song, Pan Pan, Kang Zhao, Hao Yang, Yiming Chen, Yingya Zhang, Yinghui Xu, and Rong Jin. 2020. Large- scale training system for 100-million classification at alibaba. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2909–2930

    2020

  122. [129]

    Suhas Jayaram Subramanya, Rohan Kadekodi, Ravishankar Krishaswamy, and Harsha Vardhan Simhadri. 2019. Diskann: Fast accurate billion-point nearest neighbor search on a single node. InProceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 13766–13776

    2019

  123. [130]

    Kohei Sugawara, Hayato Kobayashi, and Masajiro Iwasaki. 2016. On approximately searching for similar word embeddings. InProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2265–2275. , Vol. 3, No. 1 (SIGMOD), Article...

    2016

  124. [131]

    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.PVLDB8, 1 (2014)

    2014

  125. [132]

    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

  126. [133]

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

    2009

  127. [134]

    The Parlayann Team. 2023. Parlayann: A deep learning library for parallel computation. https://github.com/parlayann/ parlayann. Accessed: 2024-10-25

    2023

  128. [135]

    TEXMEX Research Team. 2018. Datasets for approximate nearest neighbor search. http://corpus-texmex.irisa.fr/

    2018

  129. [136]

    Godfried T Toussaint. 1980. The relative neighbourhood graph of a finite planar set.Pattern recognition12, 4 (1980), 261–268

    1980

  130. [137]

    Godfried T Toussaint. 2002. Proximity graphs for nearest neighbor decision rules: recent progress.Interface34 (2002)

    2002

  131. [138]

    Southwest University. 2018. Southwest University Adult Lifespan Dataset (SALD). http://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/ indi/retro/sald.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=See20Data&utm_campaign=indi- 1

    2018

  132. [139]

    Jizhe Wang, Pipei Huang, Huan Zhao, Zhibo Zhang, Binqiang Zhao, and Dik Lun Lee. 2018. Billion-Scale Commodity Embedding for E-Commerce Recommendation in Alibaba. InKDD

    2018

  133. [140]

    Jing Wang, Jingdong Wang, Gang Zeng, Zhuowen Tu, Rui Gan, and Shipeng Li. 2012. Scalable k-nn graph construction for visual descriptors. In2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 1106–1113

    2012

  134. [141]

    Jingdong Wang, Naiyan Wang, You Jia, Jian Li, Gang Zeng, Hongbin Zha, and Xian-Sheng Hua. 2013. Trinary- projection trees for approximate nearest neighbor search.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 36, 2 (2013), 388–403

    2013

  135. [143]

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

    2025

  136. [144]

    Qitong Wang and Themis Palpanas. 2021. Deep Learning Embeddings for Data Series Similarity Search. InSIGKDD

    2021

  137. [145]

    Qitong Wang and Themis Palpanas. 2023. SEAnet: A Deep Learning Architecture for Data Series Similarity Search. TKDE(2023)

    2023

  138. [146]

    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.PVLDB6, 10 (2013)

    2013

  139. [147]

    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.46, 3 (2023), 3–21

    2023

  140. [148]

    Zeyu Wang, Qitong Wang, Peng Wang, Themis Palpanas, and Wei Wang. 2023. Dumpy: A Compact and Adaptive Index for Large Data Series Collections. InACM SIGMOD

    2023

  141. [149]

    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

  142. [150]

    Warren Liao

    T. Warren Liao. 2005. Clustering of time series data—a survey.Pattern Recognition38, 11 (2005)

    2005

  143. [151]

    Duncan J Watts and Steven H Strogatz. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks.nature393, 6684 (1998), 440–442

    1998

  144. [152]

    Roger Weber, Hans-Jörg Schek, and Stephen Blott. 1998. A Quantitative Analysis and Performance Study for Similarity-Search Methods in High-Dimensional Spaces. InProc. VLDB. 194–205

    1998

  145. [153]

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

    2024

  146. [154]

    Williams, L

    K. Williams, L. Li, M. Khabsa, J. Wu, P. C. Shih, and C. L. Giles. 2014. A Web Service for Scholarly Big Data Information Extraction. InICWS

    2014

  147. [155]

    Yan Xia, Kaiming He, Fang Wen, and Jian Sun. 2013. Joint Inverted Indexing.ICCV(2013)

    2013

  148. [156]

    D. E. Yagoubi, R. Akbarinia, F. Masseglia, and T. Palpanas. 2017. DPiSAX: Massively Distributed Partitioned iSAX. In ICDM

    2017

  149. [157]

    Djamel-Edine Yagoubi, Reza Akbarinia, Florent Masseglia, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Massively Distributed Time Series Indexing and Querying.TKDE 31(1)(2020)

    2020

  150. [158]

    Yahoo Japan Corporation. 2022. NGT: Neighborhood Graph and Tree for High-dimensional Data. https://github.com/ yahoojapan/NGT. Accessed: 2024-10-20

    2022

  151. [159]

    Dmitry Yarotsky. 2019. Neighborhood Graph and Tree for Indexing High-dimensional Data. GitHub repository. https://github.com/yahoojapan/NGT Accessed: 2024-10-25. , Vol. 3, No. 1 (SIGMOD), Article 43. Publication date: February 2025. Graph-Based Vector Search: An Experimental E...

    2019

  152. [160]

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

    1993

  153. [161]

    Yan-Ming Zhang, Kaizhu Huang, Guanggang Geng, and Cheng-Lin Liu. 2013. Fast kNN graph construction with locality sensitive hashing. InJoint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 660–674

    2013

  154. [162]

    Huan Zhao, Quanming Yao, Jianda Li, Yangqiu Song, and Dik Lun Lee. 2017. Meta-graph based recommendation fusion over heterogeneous information networks. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 635–644

    2017

  155. [163]

    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 Endowment16, 8 (2023), 1979–1991

    2023

  156. [164]

    Erkang Zhu, Fatemeh Nargesian, Ken Q Pu, and Renée J Miller. 2016. LSH ensemble: internet-scale domain search. PVLDB9, 12 (2016), 1185–1196

    2016

  157. [165]

    Yifan Zhu, Miao Fu, Huizhong Cai, Zhiwei Fu, Jie Tang, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2020. Scalable Sparse Graphs for Efficient Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. GitHub repository. https://github.com/ZJULearning/SSG Accessed: 2024-10- 25

    2020

  158. [166]

    Kostas Zoumpatianos, Stratos Idreos, and Themis Palpanas. 2016. ADS: the adaptive data series index.VLDB J.(2016)

    2016

  159. [167]

    Kostas Zoumpatianos, Yin Lou, Ioana Ileana, Themis Palpanas, and Johannes Gehrke. 2018. Generating Data Series Query Workloads.The VLDB Journal27, 6 (Dec. 2018), 823–846. doi:10.1007/s00778-018-0513-x Received July 2024; revised September 2024; accepted November 2024 , Vol. 3,...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.