HNSW with Accuracy Guarantees Using Graph Spanners -- A Technical Report

Minghao Li, Raghav Mittal, Sanjivni Rana, Suraj Shetiya, Gautam Das, Nick Koudas · Jul 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Hierarchical Navigable Small World (HNSW) graphs serve as the industry standard due to their logarithmic complexity and strong empirical performance. However, HNSW relies on greedy graph traversal, a heuristic that provides no theoretical guarantees of correctness. In this paper, we propose a novel "Certify-then-Rectify" framework that bridges the gap between the speed of heuristic search and the rigor of exact retrieval. Rather than discarding HNSW, our approach first employs a distribution-free statistical certifier to dynamically evaluate the quality of a standard HNSW search with minimal overhead. If certification indicates that the retrieved neighbors are of low quality, the framework safely escalates to a rigorous exact recovery algorithm. To make this exact recovery computationally feasible, we reinterpret the HNSW graph as a geometric spanner and utilize Extreme Value Theory to stochastically estimate its maximum empirical stretch factor. This allows us to mathematically bound the maximum distance of true nearest neighbors. Extensive evaluations on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our tiered framework delivers the average-case speed of HNSW while ensuring the worst-case correctness of exact search and outperforming other applicable approaches.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.