Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work tackles the perennial problem of reproducible baselines in information retrieval research, focusing on bag-of-words ranking models. Although academic information retrieval researchers have a long history of building and sharing systems, they are primarily designed to facilitate the publication of research papers. As such, these systems are often incomplete, inflexible, poorly documented, difficult to use, and slow, particularly in the context of modern web-scale collections. Furthermore, the growing complexity of modern software ecosystems and the resource constraints most academic research groups operate under make maintaining open-source systems a constant struggle. However, except for a small number of companies (mostly commercial web search engines) that deploy custom infrastructure, Lucene has become the de facto platform in industry for building search applications. Lucene has an active developer base, a large audience of users, and diverse capabilities to work with heterogeneous collections at scale. However, it lacks systematic support for ad hoc experimentation using standard test collections. We describe Anserini, an information retrieval toolkit built on Lucene that fills this gap. Our goal is to simplify ad hoc experimentation and allow researchers to easily reproduce results with modern bag-of-words ranking models on diverse test collections. With Anserini, we demonstrate that Lucene provides a suitable framework for supporting information retrieval research. Experiments show that our system efficiently indexes large web collections, provides modern ranking models that are on par with research implementations in terms of effectiveness, and supports low-latency query evaluation to facilitate rapid experimentation
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.139 | 0.153 |
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".