Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 minor 58 references

CLIP: Lightweight Cosine-Law-Based Inverted-List Pruning for IVF-Based Vector Search

T0 review · 0 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read CLIP prunes IVF clusters in constant time using monotonic cosine-law bounds.

desk verdict CLIP adds a cosine-law monotonicity pruning method to IVF indexes that claims O(1) cluster drops and log-time vector filtering with a guarantee, plus an LSM variant for dynamic cases, with reported speedups up to 69%. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.29968 v1 pith:OO5FRTV5 submitted 2026-06-29 cs.DB

Yitong Song , Shuhang Lu , Xuanhe Zhou , Pengcheng Zhang , Jianliang Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DB
keywords vectorsearchinvertedfileindexpruningcosinesimilaritydynamicindexingqueryoptimizationLSMtree
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 presents CLIP as a pruning method for inverted-file vector search that rests on the monotonicity of cosine-law-based lower bounds. These bounds allow an entire unwanted cluster to be discarded after a single constant-time check and let batches of vectors inside a cluster be skipped after logarithmic work in the list length. The technique adds almost no extra metadata or maintenance cost while carrying an analytical guarantee against false negatives. Variants integrate the pruning into flat indexes, hierarchical indexes, and an LSM-style dynamic index that defers updates. A reader would care because vector search now powers multimodal retrieval and any reduction in scanned clusters or vectors directly lowers latency.

What carries the argument

Monotonicity of cosine-law-based lower bounds, which produces safe early rejection decisions for clusters and for vectors inside clusters.

What would settle it

A concrete query and vector collection in which the lower-bound test discards a cluster that actually contains the nearest neighbor to the query.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CLIP exploits the monotonicity of cosine-law-based lower bounds, enabling eliminating an undesirable cluster in O(1) time and filtering batches of irrelevant vectors in logarithmic time in the list size, with a tight analytical guarantee. This supports both inter-cluster and intra-cluster pruning inside IVF indexes while preserving correctness.

Load-bearing premise

The cosine-law lower bounds stay monotonic and sufficiently tight on the vector distributions that arise in practice, so that no relevant result is ever pruned.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IVF-CLIP applies the same bounds inside ordinary flat inverted files.
  • HIVF-CLIP adds a hierarchy so that pruning can occur at multiple granularities.
  • LSM-IVF defers index maintenance to background compaction while still using CLIP during queries.
  • The methods report up to 78 percent pruning and 69 percent efficiency gain over static baselines and 141 percent throughput gain over dynamic baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same monotonic-bound idea could be tested on distance measures other than cosine.
  • Because pruning decisions are cheap, the technique might allow larger probe lists without increasing latency.
  • The LSM variant suggests that background compaction could be combined with other pruning rules that also avoid per-level searches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CLIP, a lightweight cosine-law-based pruning technique for IVF vector search that exploits monotonicity of lower bounds to eliminate undesirable clusters in O(1) time and filter batches of vectors in logarithmic time in the list size, backed by a tight analytical guarantee with no false negatives. It develops IVF-CLIP (integrated with IVFFlat) and HIVF-CLIP (with hierarchical sub-cluster probing), plus LSM-IVF for dynamic workloads using LSM-inspired deferred compaction and CLIP optimizations to avoid level-by-level searches. Experiments report up to 78% pruning, 69% higher efficiency over static IVF baselines, and up to 141% throughput improvement for LSM-IVF over dynamic baselines.

Significance. If the monotonicity-based bounds and analytical guarantee hold across the tested distributions without introducing false negatives, CLIP would provide a practical, low-overhead improvement to IVF indexes by enabling both inter- and intra-cluster pruning while preserving update efficiency. This addresses a core scalability bottleneck in multimodal retrieval. The parameter-free character of the bounds (no data-fitted quantities) and the LSM extension for dynamic settings are notable strengths that could influence production vector database designs.

minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the reported 'up to 78% pruning' and '69% higher efficiency' figures would be more informative if accompanied by average or per-dataset values rather than peak numbers alone.
  2. The description of the cosine-law lower bound monotonicity (central to the O(1) and log-time claims) would benefit from an explicit early definition or small illustrative example to make the pruning logic immediately accessible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary and recommendation of minor revision. The provided summary accurately captures the core ideas, guarantees, and experimental results of CLIP, including the monotonicity-based O(1) cluster pruning, logarithmic vector filtering, parameter-free bounds, HIVF-CLIP hierarchy, and LSM-IVF dynamic design. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's derivation relies on the stated mathematical monotonicity and tightness of cosine-law-based lower bounds for O(1) cluster elimination and logarithmic vector filtering, presented as analytical properties independent of target data fits. No self-definitional reductions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described claims. The approach is self-contained against external mathematical benchmarks rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction.

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

Review based on abstract only; full paper may introduce additional parameters or assumptions not visible here.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Monotonicity of cosine-law-based lower bounds for pruning
    Invoked to enable O(1) cluster elimination and log-time vector filtering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CLIP: Lightweight Cosine-Law-Based Inverted-List Pruning for IVF-Based Vector Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OO5FRTV5

@misc{pith2026260629968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CLIP: Lightweight Cosine-Law-Based Inverted-List Pruning for IVF-Based Vector Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OO5FRTV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.29968}
}
read the original abstract

Vector search has become a core component of modern multimodal retrieval systems. Among existing methods, inverted file (IVF)-based methods are widely adopted due to their scalability, efficient updates, and hardware friendliness. However, they are fundamentally limited by coarse-grained execution: each query typically probes many clusters and exhaustively scans all vectors within them, resulting in high query latency. Prior works mitigate this using pruning strategies, but they often incur substantial extra pruning overhead, lack cluster-level pruning, and compromise update efficiency due to heavy maintenance of pruning metadata. This paper proposes CLIP, a lightweight cosine-law-based pruning technique that supports both inter- and intra-cluster pruning, substantially reducing unnecessary cluster and vector accesses with negligible overhead. First, CLIP exploits the monotonicity of cosine-law-based lower bounds, enabling eliminating an undesirable cluster in O(1) time and filtering batches of irrelevant vectors in logarithmic time in the list size, with a tight analytical guarantee. Second, building on this, we develop two IVF variants: IVF-CLIP, which integrates CLIP into IVFFlat, and HIVF-CLIP, which extends it with a hierarchical structure for adaptive sub-cluster probing. Third, for dynamic workloads, we present LSM-IVF, an LSM-inspired design that supports fast updates by deferring index maintenance to background compaction, and enables efficient queries via CLIP-based optimizations that eliminate costly level-by-level searches. Extensive experiments show that CLIP variants achieve up to 78% pruning and 69% higher efficiency over static IVF baselines, while LSM-IVF improves throughput by up to 141% over dynamic IVF baselines with comparable update efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Core pruning mechanism of CLIP. cluster centroids with the query vector. The vectors within these clusters are then scanned to compute exact distances and yield the top-𝑘 most similar results. The parameter 𝑛𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑒 controls the query efficiency and accuracy trade-off: larger values generally improve accuracy but reduce efficiency. Owing to their practical scalability, update friendliness, highly parallelizable struct… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Query frequency where the accessed cluster count [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Empirical𝑄𝛽 (Θ𝑐 ) values and their theoretical bound 𝑄 𝛽,𝑐 as a function of Φ = Γ(𝑞−𝑐), illustrating that (i) the bound consistently dominates the empirical values (Theorem 3), and (ii) it varies with Φ, explicitly capturing the distance dependence (Theorem 4). where 𝑢 = 𝑞−𝑐 ∥𝑞−𝑐 ∥ is the query direction, Σ𝑐 depends only on 𝑐, and 𝐵𝛽 (𝑐) depends on 𝛽 and 𝑐 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The inter- and intra-cluster pruning in HIVF-CLIP. a leaf cluster, it is inserted into S with its exact distance as the first key (Line 18); otherwise, it is inserted with 𝑙𝑏min as the first key (Line 21). This design ensures that a non-leaf cluster with 𝑙𝑏min smaller …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The architecture of LSM-IVF. where the number of clusters grows accordingly, making multi￾layer IVF structures more efficient at higher levels. We then detail how LSM-IVF efficiently supports updates and queries. Update Processing. As in conventional LSM designs, newly…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overall query performance under static workloads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of distance computation count. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of accessed cluster count. Number of Accessed Clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Construction time, index size and peak memory. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance under varying dynamic workloads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ablation study, where the relative pruning ratio is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Update efficiency. Update Efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Evaluating the effect of 𝑝 and 𝛽. Parameter Sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evaluation in the disk-resident setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effect of hierarchy height in HIVF-CLIP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evaluating the scalability. Scalability Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Beat Gfeller, Ruiqi Guo, Kevin Kilgour, Sanjiv Kumar, James Lyon, Julian Odell, Marvin Ritter, Dominik Roblek, Matthew Sharifi, and Mihajlo Velimirović. 2017. Now Playing: Continuous low-power music recogni- tion.NeurIPS(2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Meta AI. 2017. FAISS. https://ai.facebook.com/tools/faiss

    2017

  3. [3]

    Fabien André, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, and Nicolas Le Scouarnec. 2016. Cache locality is not enough: High-performance nearest neighbor search with product quantization fast scan.VLDB9, 4 (2016), 12

    2016

  4. [4]

    Artem Babenko and Victor Lempitsky. 2014. Additive quantization for extreme vector compression.CVPR(2014), 931–938

    2014

  5. [5]

    Artem Babenko and Victor Lempitsky. 2014. The inverted multi-index.IEEE TPAMI37, 6 (2014), 1247–1260

    2014

  6. [6]

    Jon Louis Bentley. 1975. Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching.ACM Communications18, 9 (1975), 509–517

    1975

  7. [7]

    Alina Beygelzimer, Sham Kakade, and John Langford. 2006. Cover trees for nearest neighbor.ICML(2006), 97–104

    2006

  8. [8]

    Hsieh, Deborah A

    Fay Chang, Jeffrey Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Wilson C. Hsieh, Deborah A. Wal- lach, Mike Burrows, Tushar Chandra, Andrew Fikes, and Robert E. Gruber. 2006. Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data.OSDI(2006), 205– 218

    2006

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Patrick Chen, Wei-Cheng Chang, Jyun-Yu Jiang, Hsiang-Fu Yu, Inderjit Dhillon, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2023. Finger: Fast inference for graph-based approximate nearest neighbor search. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3225– 3235

    2023

  2. [10]

    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.NeurIPS34, 5199–5212

    2021

  3. [11]

    Paolo Ciaccia, Marco Patella, and Pavel Zezula. 1997. M-tree: An efficient access method for similarity search in metric spaces.VLDB97 (1997), 426–435

    1997

  4. [12]

    SPTAG Contributors. 2021. SPTAG-Library. https://github.com/microsoft/ SPTAG

    2021

  5. [13]

    H. S. M. Coxeter. 1969.Introduction to Geometry(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons

    1969

  6. [14]

    Sanjoy Dasgupta and Yoav Freund. 2008. Random projection trees and low dimensional manifolds.STOC(2008), 537–546

    2008

  7. [15]

    Liwei Deng, Penghao Chen, Ximu Zeng, Tianfu Wang, Yan Zhao, and Kai Zheng. 2024. Efficient Data-aware Distance Comparison Operations for High-Dimensional Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17229(2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Cong Fu, Changxu Wang, and Deng Cai. 2021. High dimensional similarity search with satellite system graph: Efficiency, scalability, and unindexed query compatibility.IEEE TPAMI44, 8 (2021), 4139–4150

    2021

  9. [17]

    Cong Fu, Chao Xiang, Changxu Wang, and Deng Cai. 2019. Fast approximate nearest neighbor search with the navigating spreading-out graph. InPVLDB, Vol. 12. VLDB Endowment, 416–474

    2019

  10. [18]

    Jianyang Gao and Cheng Long. 2023. High-dimensional approximate nearest neighbor search: with reliable and efficient distance comparison operations.ACM SIGMOD1, 2 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  11. [19]

    Jianyang Gao and Cheng Long. 2024. RaBitQ: Quantizing High-Dimensional Vectors with a Theoretical Error Bound for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search.ACM SIGMOD2, 3 (2024), 1–27

    2024

  12. [20]

    Pengfei Gao, Zhao Tian, Xiangxin Meng, Xinchen Wang, Ruida Hu, Yuanan Xiao, Yizhou Liu, Zhao Zhang, Junjie Chen, Cuiyun Gao, et al. 2025. Trae agent: An llm-based agent for software engineering with test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23370(2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Tiezheng Ge, Kaiming He, Qifa Ke, and Jian Sun. 2013. Optimized product quantization for approximate nearest neighbor search.IEEE TPAMI(2013), 2946– 2953

    2013

  14. [22]

    Long Gong, Huayi Wang, Mitsunori Ogihara, and Jun Xu. 2020. iDEC: indexable distance estimating codes for approximate nearest neighbor search.PVLDB13, 9 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Ruiqi Guo, Philip Sun, Erik Lindgren, Quan Geng, David Simcha, Felix Chern, and Sanjiv Kumar. 2020. Accelerating large-scale inference with anisotropic vector quantization.ICML(2020), 3887–3896

    2020

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Hosagrahar V Jagadish, Beng Chin Ooi, Kian-Lee Tan, Cui Yu, and Rui Zhang

  18. [26]

    iDistance: An adaptive B+-tree based indexing method for nearest neighbor search.ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)30, 2 (2005), 364–397

    2005

  19. [27]

    Herve Jegou, Matthijs Douze, and Cordelia Schmid. 2010. Product quantization for nearest neighbor search.IEEE TPAMI33, 1 (2010), 117–128

    2010

  20. [28]

    K Krishna and M Narasimha Murty. 1999. Genetic K-means algorithm.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics)29, 3 (1999), 433–439

    1999

  21. [29]

    Jinfeng Li, Xiao Yan, Jian Zhang, An Xu, James Cheng, Jie Liu, Kelvin KW Ng, and Ti-chung Cheng. 2018. A general and efficient querying method for learning to hash.ACM SIGMOD(2018), 1333–1347

    2018

  22. [30]

    Kejing Lu, Mineichi Kudo, Chuan Xiao, and Yoshiharu Ishikawa. 2021. HVS: hierarchical graph structure based on voronoi diagrams for solving approximate nearest neighbor search.PVLDB15, 2 (2021), 246–258

    2021

  23. [31]

    Vasilis Mageirakos, Bowen Wu, and Gustavo Alonso. 2025. Cracking Vector Search Indexes.VLDB(2025), 3951–3964

    2025

  24. [32]

    Vasilis Mageirakos, Bowen Wu, and Gustavo Alonso. 2025. crackivf-Library. https://github.com/mageirakos/crack-ivf-vldb

    2025

  25. [33]

    Yu A Malkov and Dmitry A Yashunin. 2018. Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs.IEEE TPAMI42, 4 (2018), 824–836

    2018

  26. [34]

    Jason Mohoney, Anil Pacaci, Shihabur Rahman Chowdhury, Umar Farooq Minhas, Jeffery Pound, Cedric Renggli, Nima Reyhani, Ihab F Ilyas, Theodoros Rekatsinas, and Shivaram Venkataraman. 2024. Incremental IVF Index Maintenance for Streaming Vector Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411....

    2024

  27. [35]

    Jason Mohoney, Devesh Sarda, Mengze Tang, Shihabur Rahman Chowdhury, Anil Pacaci, Ihab F Ilyas, Theodoros Rekatsinas, and Shivaram Venkataraman. 2025. Quake: Adaptive Indexing for Vector Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03437 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Jason Mohoney, Devesh Sarda, Mengze Tang, Shihabur Rahman Chowdhury, Anil Pacaci, Ihab F Ilyas, Theodoros Rekatsinas, and Shivaram Venkataraman

  29. [37]

    https://github.com/marius-team/quake

    Quake-Library. https://github.com/marius-team/quake

  30. [38]

    Marius Muja and David G Lowe. 2014. Scalable nearest neighbor algorithms for high dimensional data.IEEE TPAMI36, 11 (2014), 2227–2240

    2014

  31. [39]

    Zhaojie Niu, Xinhui Tian, Xindong Peng, and Xing Chen. 2025. BlendHouse: A Cloud-Native Vector Database System in ByteHouse.IEEE ICDE(2025), 4332– 4345

    2025

  32. [40]

    Patrick O’Neil, Edward Cheng, Dieter Gawlick, and Elizabeth O’Neil. 1996. The log-structured merge-tree (LSM-tree).Acta informatica33, 4 (1996), 351–385

    1996

  33. [41]

    Yun Peng, Byron Choi, Tsz Nam Chan, Jianye Yang, and Jianliang Xu. 2023. Efficient Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search in Multi-dimensional Databases. ACM SIGMOD1, 1 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  34. [42]

    Jeffrey Pound, Floris Chabert, Arjun Bhushan, Ankur Goswami, Anil Pacaci, and Shihabur Rahman Chowdhury. 2025. MicroNN: An On-device Disk-resident Updatable Vector Database. InCompanion of the 2025 International Conference on Management of Data. 608–621

    2025

  35. [43]

    Yong Rui, Thomas S Huang, and Shih-Fu Chang. 1999. Image retrieval: Current techniques, promising directions, and open issues.Journal of visual communica- tion and image representation10, 1 (1999), 39–62

    1999

  36. [44]

    Russell Sears and Raghu Ramakrishnan. 2012. bLSM: a general purpose log structured merge tree.ACM SIGMOD(2012), 217–228

    2012

  37. [45]

    Yitong Song, Pengcheng Zhang, Chao Gao, Bin Yao, Kai Wang, Zongyuan Wu, and Lin Qu. 2025. TRIM: Accelerating High-Dimensional Vector Similarity Search with Enhanced Triangle-Inequality-Based Pruning.ACM SIGMOD(2025), 1–26

    2025

  38. [46]

    Ji Sun, Guoliang Li, James Pan, Jiang Wang, Yongqing Xie, Ruicheng Liu, and Wen Nie. 2025. GaussDB-Vector: A Large-Scale Persistent Real-Time Vector Database for LLM Applications.PVLDB18, 12 (2025), 4951–4963

    2025

  39. [47]

    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.PVLDB(2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Yufei Tao, Ke Yi, Cheng Sheng, and Panos Kalnis. 2010. Efficient and accurate nearest neighbor and closest pair search in high-dimensional space.ACM TODS 35, 3 (2010), 1–46

    2010

  41. [49]

    2018.High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science

    Roman Vershynin. 2018.High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    2018

  42. [50]

    Jianguo Wang, Xiaomeng Yi, Rentong Guo, Hai Jin, Peng Xu, Shengjun Li, Xi- angyu Wang, Xiangzhou Guo, Chengming Li, Xiaohai Xu, et al. 2021. Milvus: A purpose-built vector data management system.ACM SIGMOD(2021), 2614–2627

    2021

  43. [51]

    Mengzhao Wang, Lingwei Lv, Xiaoliang Xu, Yuxiang Wang, Qiang Yue, and Jiongkang Ni. 2022. Navigable Proximity Graph-Driven Native Hybrid Queries with Structured and Unstructured Constraints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13601 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Chuangxian Wei, Bin Wu, Sheng Wang, Renjie Lou, Chaoqun Zhan, Feifei Li, and Yuanzhe Cai. 2020. Analyticdb-v: A hybrid analytical engine towards query fusion for structured and unstructured data.PVLDB13, 12 (2020), 3152–3165

    2020

  45. [53]

    Qian Xu, Juan Yang, Feng Zhang, Junda Pan, Kang Chen, Youren Shen, Amelie Chi Zhou, and Xiaoyong Du. 2025. Tribase: A Vector Data Query Engine for Reliable and Lossless Pruning Compression using Triangle Inequalities.ACM SIGMOD3, 1 (2025), 1–28

    2025

  46. [54]

    Qian Xu, Juan Yang, Feng Zhang, Junda Pan, Kang Chen, Youren Shen, Amelie Chi Zhou, and Xiaoyong Du. 2025. Tribase-Library. https://github. com/xuqianmamba/Tribase

    2025

  47. [55]

    Yuming Xu, Hengyu Liang, Jin Li, Shuotao Xu, Qi Chen, Qianxi Zhang, Cheng Li, Ziyue Yang, Fan Yang, Yuqing Yang, et al. 2023. Spfresh: Incremental in-place update for billion-scale vector search.SOSP(2023), 545–561

    2023

  48. [56]

    Rex Ying, Ruining He, Kaifei Chen, Pong Eksombatchai, William Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. PinnerSage: Multi-Modal User Embedding Framework for Recommendations at Pinterest.ACM SIGKDD(2018). Yitong Song, Shuhang Lu, Xuanhe Zhou, Pengcheng Zhang, and Jianliang Xu

    2018

  49. [57]

    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.PVLDB16, 8 (2023), 1979–1991

    2023

  50. [58]

    Shurui Zhong, Dingheng Mo, and Siqiang Luo. 2025. LSM-VEC: A Large-Scale Disk-Based System for Dynamic Vector Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17152 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.