Efficient Indexing and Querying over Syntactically Annotated Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural language text corpora are often available as sets of syntactically parsed trees. A wide range of expressive tree queries are possible over such parsed trees that open a new avenue in searching over natural language text. They not only allow for querying roles and relationships within sentences, but also improve search effectiveness compared to flat keyword queries. One major drawback of current systems supporting querying over parsed text is the performance of evaluating queries over large data. In this paper we propose a novel indexing scheme over unique subtrees as index keys. We also propose a novel root-split coding scheme that stores subtree structural information only partially, thus reducing index size and improving querying performance. Our extensive set of experiments show that root-split coding reduces the index size of any interval coding which stores individual node numbers by a factor of 50% to 80%, depending on the sizes of subtrees indexed. Moreover, We show that our index using root-split coding, outperforms previous approaches by at least an order of magnitude in terms of the response time of queries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".