MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400531953 · doi:10.1145/3626772.3657878

C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddings

2024· article· en· W4400531953 on OpenAlexaff
Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Niklas Muennighoff, Defu Lian, Jian‐Yun Nie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPacked bedComputer scienceChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce C-Pack, a package of resources that significantly advances the field of general text embeddings for Chinese. C-Pack includes three critical resources. 1) C-MTP is a massive training dataset for text embedding, which is based on the curation of vast unlabeled corpora and the integration of high-quality labeled corpora. 2) C-MTEB is a comprehensive benchmark for Chinese text embeddings covering 6 tasks and 35 datasets. 3) BGE is a family of embedding models covering multiple sizes. Our models outperform all prior Chinese text embeddings on C-MTEB by more than +10% upon the time of the release. We also integrate and optimize the entire suite of training methods for BGE. Along with our resources on general Chinese embedding, we release our data and models for English text embeddings. The English models also achieve state-of-the-art performance on the MTEB benchmark; meanwhile, our released English data is 2 times larger than the Chinese data. Both Chinese and English datasets are the largest public release of training data for text embeddings. All these resources are made publicly available at https://github.com/FlagOpen/FlagEmbedding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.086

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations269
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207