MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Influence of Synthetic Data for Text Embedders

2025· article· en· W4412887723 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jacob M. Springer, Vaibhav Adlakha, Siva Reddy, Aditi Raghunathan, Marius Mosbach

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchSamsungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent progress in developing general purpose text embedders has been driven by training on ever-growing corpora of synthetic LLMgenerated data.Nonetheless, no publicly available synthetic dataset exists, posing a barrier to studying its role for generalization.To address this issue, we first reproduce and publicly release the synthetic data proposed by Wang et al. ( 2024) (Mistral-E5).Our synthetic data is high quality and leads to consistent improvements in performance.Next, we critically examine where exactly synthetic data improves model generalization.Our analysis reveals that benefits from synthetic data are sparse and highly localized to individual datasets.Moreover, we observe trade-offs between the performance on different categories and data that benefits one task, degrades performance on another.Our findings highlight the limitations of current synthetic data approaches for building generalpurpose embedders and challenge the notion that training on synthetic data leads to more robust embedding models across tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207