TF-IDF and BM25 Are Exact KL Divergences

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

TF-IDF and BM25 are two of the most widely used methods for scoring query-document relevance, yet neither has a standard probabilistic derivation that justifies it as a statistical method within a unified framework. We address this gap by showing that both scoring methods admit an exact interpretation as Kullback-Leibler divergences between two probability models. We treat the BM25 variant that includes the plus 1 correction in the IDF term, which is the one used in practice, and also discuss the original BM25 formulation without that correction. The resulting framework provides a common theoretical basis for TF-IDF and BM25, clarifies what they measure, and allows them to be compared theoretically with other information retrieval methods rather than only experimentally.