MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135290016 · doi:10.1145/1183614.1183644

A document-centric approach to static index pruning in text retrieval systems

2006· article· en· W2135290016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePruningIndex (typography)Information retrievalDivergence (linguistics)Document retrievalTerm (time)Language modelArtificial intelligenceInverted indexNatural language processingSearch engine indexingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a static index pruning method, to be used in ad-hoc document retrieval tasks, that follows a document-centric approach to decide whether a posting for a given term should remain in the index or not. The decision is made based on the term's contribution to the document's Kullback-Leibler divergence from the text collection's global language model. Our technique can be used to decrease the size of the index by over 90%, at only a minor decrease in retrieval effectiveness. It thus allows us to make the index small enough to fit entirely into the main memory of a single PC, even for large text collections containing millions of documents. This results in great efficiency gains, superior to those of earlier pruning methods, and an average response time around 20 ms on the GOV2 document collection.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207