Narrowing the Gap between Supervised and Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning with Large Language Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sentence Representation Learning (SRL) is a fundamental task in Natural Language Processing (NLP), with the Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddings (CSE) being the mainstream technique due to its superior performance. An intriguing phenomenon in CSE is the significant performance gap between supervised and unsupervised methods, with their only difference lying in the training data. Previous works attribute this performance gap to differences in two representation properties (alignment and uniformity). However, since alignment and uniformity only measure the results, they fail to answer "What aspects of the training data contribute to the performance gap?" and "How can the performance gap be narrowed?", In this paper, we conduct empirical experiments to answer these "What" and "How" questions. We first answer the "What" question by thoroughly comparing the behavior of supervised and unsupervised CSE during their respective training processes. From the comparison, we identify the similarity pattern as a key factor to the performance gap, and introduce a metric, called Relative Fitting Difficulty (RFD), to measure the complexity of the similarity pattern. Then, based on the insights gained from the "What" question, we tackle the "How" question by increasing the pattern complexity of the training data. We achieve this by leveraging the In-Context Learning (ICL) capability of the Large Language Model (LLM) to generate data that simulates complex patterns. By utilizing the hierarchical patterns in the LLM-generated data, we effectively narrow the gap between supervised and unsupervised CSE. We release our codes and appendix at https://github.com/BDBC-KG-NLP/NGCSE.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".