Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.03651

MRVQ: One Resident Index for Dimension- and Rate-Elastic Vector Search

Abstract

Dense-retrieval services must switch among embedding-prefix dimensions and index bit rates as latency, quality, and memory budgets change. Tuning a quantizer separately for each rate gives the best quality, but the retrieval tier then holds several code streams and quantizer states at once. We introduce Matryoshka Residual Vector Quantization (MRVQ), a post-hoc residual quantizer for frozen embeddings. Its maximum-rate code can be truncated two ways: dropping residual stages lowers the rate, and dropping embedding coordinates lowers the dimension. One resident artifact therefore serves every (dimension, rate) pair we evaluate. Across FiQA and NFCorpus, four embedding families, and {4, 8, 16}-byte codes, MRVQ is the lowest-RAM design we evaluate. It uses 17.8-22.0x less memory than three separately trained QINCo2 indices, and 1.89-2.02x less than a lean shared-model steelman. The saving is not free: per-rate QINCo2 is 0.026-0.107 nDCG@10 better on FiQA. But MRVQ beats PQ, OPQ, and AdANNS-OPQ at matched code size. We also evaluate a low-build-cost PCA-scalar design that attains quality comparable to RaBitQ and its extension while fitting 420x faster at the median. Finally, we report two negative results: QINCo2 collapses when trained at high rates, and a ranking-bound hypothesis misses its pre-specified acceptance criteria. MRVQ is therefore a low-memory operating point for elastic retrieval, not a universal quality winner.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sean Culatana, Shang-En Huang, Kang Li. 2026-10-02. MRVQ: One Resident Index for Dimension- and Rate-Elastic Vector Search. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03651

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AstroAgentBench: Evaluating Agentic Planning on Space Mission Planning Tasks

Recent LLM-for-Space systems address mission planning, scheduling, operations support, simulator control, and autonomy, but their evaluations use different task contracts, control settings, simulators, and success criteria. We introduce AstroAgentBench, a seven-family benchmark for executable space mission planning in the domains of scheduling, observation planning, constellation design, and relay support. For each case, an agent submits a planning artifact that is checked by an external verifier for schema, timing, geometry, resources, and mission value. Results report validity and normalized scores, with comparisons to task-specific solver references. Across five LLM agent systems and 35 held-out cases, the strongest systems approach or exceed solver-reference scores on several families, while weaker systems often fail to produce high-value valid plans and even strong systems lose quality on geometric, product-level, or design-heavy tasks. Trace analyses separate two failure points: task-contract misformulation and weak solution construction. Successful runs instead calibrate agent-written implementations against verifier feedback and adapt search to case-specific structure. Ablations show that procedure injection and memory accumulation help selectively, when they supply the missing formulation, calibration, or search support.

cs.AI↗

LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarios

Computer-use agents (CUAs) execute multi-stage tasks through tools, where an early unsafe decision can propagate to consequential actions. Evaluating only final outcomes can miss such decisions, while constructing executable environments for new tasks can make benchmark expansion costly. We present LPS-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon planning safety in MCP-style tool workflows under benign requests and adversarial steering. A template-guided multi-agent pipeline generates user instructions, simulated toolkits, and case-specific safety criteria, followed by human review. This design supports scalable case expansion without building a separate application environment for every test case. LPS-Bench comprises 570 cases derived from 65 scenarios across 7 task domains and 9 planning-risk types, with representative cases additionally adapted to reusable skills. An LLM-based evaluator applies case-specific criteria to complete interaction records, examining tool choices, arguments, and responses to environmental feedback throughout execution. Evaluations of 13 LLM agents reveal persistent failures in both benign and adversarial settings. Prompt-based interventions yield model-dependent gains, but substantial safety failures remain.

cs.AI↗

On the Tip of the Tongue: Why LLMs Hallucinate Answers They Can Decode

A language model can give the wrong answer even when the correct answer is decodable from its intermediate states. To study this gap between decodability and selection, we distinguish \textit{read} from \textit{write} at the first answer token. Read asks whether the gold token can be decoded from intermediate residual states under same-relation decoy controls. Write asks whether the final readout ranks that token first among content tokens. Under three different readers, with a randomized-label control, a substantial fraction of failures remain readable while another content token is selected. We explain this through the selection margin at the final readout, the difference between the answer logit and the logit of its strongest alternative, which is answer support minus alternative support, and can also be split into a context-averaged baseline linked to token frequency and an item-specific term. Setting the answer support to the level typical of successful generations is sufficient to recover first-token selection for the majority of failures in most of the models we study; the original alternative remains ahead in most remaining failures under this edit, and this outcome follows directly from the readout geometry. Removing the frequency direction alone shifts selection but rarely recovers the answer. Prompt variants of the same fact that succeed supply support that transfers to failing variants through the residual stream and through late MLP outputs, with less consistent effects through late attention. First-token recovery leaves most full answers wrong, which limits the recovery achieved by these edits and separates three things that are easily conflated, decodability, recoverability, and generation.

cs.AI↗