Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper revisits RaBitQ and TurboQuant, two quantization methods, under a unified framework to compare their methodologies, theoretical guarantees, and empirical performance. The authors find that TurboQuant does not consistently outperform RaBitQ in directly comparable settings, and in many cases performs worse. Furthermore, the study identifies reproducibility issues with runtime and recall results reported in the original TurboQuant paper based on the released implementation.
TurboQuant's claimed advantages over RaBitQ in quantization don't hold up under rigorous, reproducible comparison, raising questions about its practical utility.
This technical note revisits the relationship between RaBitQ and TurboQuant under a unified comparison framework. We compare the two methods in terms of methodology, theoretical guarantees, and empirical performance, using a reproducible, transparent, and symmetric setup. Our results show that, despite the claimed advantage of TurboQuant, TurboQuant does not provide a consistent improvement over RaBitQ in directly comparable settings; in many tested configurations, it performs worse than RaBitQ. We further find that several reported runtime and recall results in the TurboQuant paper could not be reproduced from the released implementation under the stated configuration. Overall, this note clarifies the shared structure and genuine differences between the two lines of work, while documenting reproducibility issues in the experimental results reported by the TurboQuant paper.
ETH
Tsinghua AI