End-to-End Retrieval with Learned Dense and Sparse Representations Using Lucene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bi-encoder architecture provides a framework for understanding machine-learned retrieval models based on dense and sparse vector representations. Although these representations capture parametric realizations of the same underlying conceptual framework, their respective implementations of top-$k$ similarity search require the coordination of different software components (e.g., inverted indexes, HNSW indexes, and toolkits for neural inference), often knitted together in complex architectures. In this work, we ask the following question: What's the simplest design, in terms of requiring the fewest changes to existing infrastructure, that can support end-to-end retrieval with modern dense and sparse representations? The answer appears to be that Lucene is sufficient, as we demonstrate in Anserini, a toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research. That is, effective retrieval with modern single-vector neural models can be efficiently performed directly in Java on the CPU. We examine the implications of this design for information retrieval researchers pushing the state of the art as well as for software engineers building production search systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".