Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software toolkits play an essential role in information retrieval research. Most open-source toolkits developed by academics are designed to facilitate the evaluation of retrieval models over standard test collections. Efforts are generally directed toward better ranking and less attention is usually given to scalability and other operational considerations. On the other hand, Lucene has become the de facto platform in industry for building search applications (outside a small number of companies that deploy custom infrastructure). Compared to academic IR toolkits, Lucene can handle heterogeneous web collections at scale, but lacks systematic support for evaluation over standard test collections. This paper introduces Anserini, a new information retrieval toolkit that aims to provide the best of both worlds, to better align information retrieval practice and research. Anserini provides wrappers and extensions on top of core Lucene libraries that allow researchers to use more intuitive APIs to accomplish common research tasks. Our initial efforts have focused on three functionalities: scalable, multi-threaded inverted indexing to handle modern web-scale collections, streamlined IR evaluation for ad hoc retrieval on standard test collections, and an extensible architecture for multi-stage ranking. Anserini ships with support for many TREC test collections, providing a convenient way to replicate competitive baselines right out of the box. Experiments verify that our system is both efficient and effective, providing a solid foundation to support future research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.200 | 0.228 |
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".