MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411403538 · doi:10.1145/3725325

MIRAGE-ANNS: Mixed Approach Graph-based Indexing for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search

2025· article· en· W4411403538 on OpenAlexafffund
Sairaj Voruganti, M. TAMER ÖZSU

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSearch engine indexingComputer scienceGraphNearest neighbor searchk-nearest neighbors algorithmData miningSearch engineContext (archaeology)Search algorithmTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximate nearest neighbor search (ANNS) on high dimensional vectors is important for numerous applications, such as search engines, recommendation systems, and more recently, large language models (LLMs), where Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is used to add context to an LLM query. Graph-based indexes built on these vectors have been shown to perform best but have challenges. These indexes can either employ refinement-based construction strategies such as K-Graph and NSG, or increment-based strategies such as HNSW. Refinement-based approaches have fast construction times, but worse search performance and do not allow for incremental inserts, requiring a full reconstruction each time new vectors are added to the index. Increment-based approaches have good search performance and allow for incremental inserts, but suffer from slow construction. This work presents MIRAGE-ANNS ( M ixed I ncremental R efinement A pproach G raph-based E xploration for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search) that constructs the index as fast as refinement-based approaches while retaining search performance comparable or better than increment-based ones. It also allows incremental inserts. We show that MIRAGE achieves state of the art construction and query performance, outperforming existing methods by up to 2x query throughput on real-world datasets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Management of DataSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207