Improving Web search efficiency via a locality based static pruning method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unarguably fast, and continuous, growth of the volume of indexed (and indexable) documents on the Web poses a great challenge for search engines. This is true regarding not only search effectiveness but also time and space efficiency. In this paper we present an index pruning technique targeted for search engines that addresses the latter issue without disconsidering the former. To this effect, we adopt a new pruning strategy capable of greatly reducing the size of search engine indices. Experiments using a real search engine show that our technique can reduce the indices' storage costs by up to 60% over traditional lossless compression methods, while keeping the loss in retrieval precision to a minimum. When compared to the indices size with no compression at all, the compression rate is higher than 88%, i.e., less than one eighth of the original size. More importantly, our results indicate that, due to the reduction in storage overhead, query processing time can be reduced to nearly 65% of the original time, with no loss in average precision. The new method yields significative improvements when compared against the best known static pruning method for search engine indices. In addition, since our technique is orthogonal to the underlying search algorithms, it can be adopted by virtually any search engine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".