Filtered ANN as a Phase Transition: When Selectivity-Estimation Error Causes Plan Regret
Authors: Madhulatha Mandarapu, Sandeep Kunkunuru
Organizations: VaidhyaMegha Private Limited, India
Abstract
A filtered approximate-nearest-neighbor (ANN) query returns the k nearest vectors among those satisfying an attribute predicate P of selectivity s. The best execution strategy -- pre-filter, post-filter, or in-filter -- changes with s, so a system must estimate s and choose. We model this as an argmax over a landscape with phases (regions where each strategy wins) separated by boundaries, and show that selectivity-estimation error produces plan regret -- recall lost versus the oracle strategy -- only in the critical regions around those boundaries. The regret is a wedge of log-width equal to the multiplicative estimation error epsilon and height equal to the local cliff |V'(s*)| epsilon; the flip-margin 1/|V'(s*)| is the condition number of a sibling cardinality-estimation study reappearing as the local boundary theory. The two phase boundaries follow from independent mathematics: order statistics place the post-filter cliff at s ~ k/K, and site percolation places the in-filter cliff at s_c ~ 0.83/M for graph degree M (corpus-size independent). Criticality exists only under a constrained budget B < sqrt(k n). Under pre-registered decision rules we confirm, on synthetic sweeps and real SIFT1M, that regret concentrates ~290x at the boundary and that the regret curves obey a finite-size scaling collapse onto one universal wedge across two decades of corpus size. A real approximate index does not mis-locate the boundary, but a biased cost model opens a persistent miscalibration band that estimation-error robustness cannot fix. The contribution is a characterization, not a new index. Code and the full pre-registration are public.
Cardinality-estimation (CE) research ranks estimators by q-error, yet it is well known that q-error is an imperfect proxy for query-plan quality. We give a measurement-driven account of when it is a good proxy and when it is not, and why. Modeling plan selection as an argmin over a piecewise-linear cost landscape, we find that plan regret (the cost of the chosen plan relative to the optimal, under true cardinalities) is governed by plan-cost geometry in a regime-dependent way. (i) For small errors, a true-point condition number kappa predicts regret and out-predicts q-error; its predictive power decays to zero as error grows, as a local linearization must. (ii) For large errors -- where deployed learned estimators operate -- an estimator-independent average-case sub-optimality measure ACS-infinity predicts which queries are regret-prone (Spearman rho ~ 0.54 on STATS-CEB), while q-error is nearly uninformative at the query level (rho ~ 0.05). (iii) The worst case is Haritsa's maximum sub-optimality (MSO). The three are one cost-ratio spectrum under three weightings. We prove a limit law ACS-infinity = sum_k r_k pi_k with cardinality-independent combinatorial weights, and validate every claim on STATS-CEB and JOB-light with four released estimators under pre-registered decision rules, and confirm on real PostgreSQL runtime that ACS-infinity predicts regret where q-error does not. The contribution is conceptual and empirical -- an average-case companion to worst-case robust query optimization, and a characterization of when an accuracy metric tracks plan quality -- rather than a new estimator. Code and the full pre-registration are public.
Approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search has become a core primitive in information retrieval and modern machine learning tasks, from classification to retrieval-augmented generation. The community evaluates and tunes ANN algorithms primarily on their throughput at a given Recall@k, the fraction of true exact neighbors retrieved. We argue that what really matters in ANN search is the quality of the retrieved results and not their overlap with the true kNN set. We show that using Recall@k to assess retrieval quality forces unnecessary computational overhead and investigate replacing it by 1/Ratio@k, the inverse approximation ratio. 1/Ratio@k evaluates the differences between the distances of the retrieved and true neighbors. It is judge-free, hyperparameter-free, and computable from standard ANN benchmark inputs alone. We benchmark state-of-the-art ANN algorithms across diverse datasets spanning a wide range of intrinsic dimensionalities, evaluating the two metrics comprehensively across efficiency, downstream classification, and retrieval-augmented generation. On the efficiency axis, optimizing for 1/Ratio@k reaches operational quality thresholds at a substantially lower computational cost than Recall@k. In downstream tasks, performance indicators (label precision, semantic similarity, BERTScore, and LLM-graded quality) remain highly stable even when Recall@k drops significantly. The inverse approximation ratio, on the other hand, closely mirrors this stability, tracking true utility much better than Recall@k. Ultimately, while Recall@k overstates the true cost of approximation, 1/Ratio@k offers a more accurate, deployable proxy for actual ANN quality.
Learning-based approaches for selectivity estimation in databases have gained significant traction in recent years. However, theoretical studies of these learning-based approaches are essentially limited to fixed query distributions on static databases. In practice, both the underlying database and the query workload can dynamically change over time. In this work, we propose an algorithmic framework for learning selectivity of queries in this more general dynamic setup. Inspired by online learning, we measure the performance of the learning algorithm in this setting by its regret, which compares the cumulative loss incurred by the learning algorithm to that of the best fixed strategy. We establish upper and lower bounds on regret for histogram-based linear queries, such as point, range, and subset selection queries, under standard loss functions, in both static and dynamic database settings.