Unsupervised Sentence Representation via Contrastive Learning with Mixing Negatives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsupervised sentence representation learning is a fundamental problem in natural language processing. Recently, contrastive learning has made great success on this task. Existing constrastive learning based models usually apply random sampling to select negative examples for training. Previous work in computer vision has shown that hard negative examples help contrastive learning to achieve faster convergency and better optimization for representation learning. However, the importance of hard negatives in contrastive learning for sentence representation is yet to be explored. In this study, we prove that hard negatives are essential for maintaining strong gradient signals in the training process while random sampling negative examples is ineffective for sentence representation. Accordingly, we present a contrastive model, MixCSE, that extends the current state-of-the-art SimCSE by continually constructing hard negatives via mixing both positive and negative features. The superior performance of the proposed approach is demonstrated via empirical studies on Semantic Textual Similarity datasets and Transfer task datasets.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it