Revisiting Bag of Words Document Representations for Efficient Ranking with Transformers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern transformer-based information retrieval models achieve state-of-the-art performance across various benchmarks. The self-attention of the transformer models is a powerful mechanism to contextualize terms over the whole input but quickly becomes prohibitively expensive for long input as required in document retrieval. Instead of focusing on the model itself to improve efficiency, this paper explores different bag of words document representations that encode full documents by only a fraction of their characteristic terms, allowing us to control and reduce the input length. We experiment with various models for document retrieval on MS MARCO data, as well as zero-shot document retrieval on Robust04, and show large gains in efficiency while retaining reasonable effectiveness. Inference time efficiency gains are both lowering the time and memory complexity in a controllable way, allowing for further trading off memory footprint and query latency. More generally, this line of research connects traditional IR models with neural “NLP” models and offers novel ways to explore the space between (efficient, but less effective) traditional rankers and (effective, but less efficient) neural rankers elegantly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".