When is an Embedding Model More Promising than Another?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07640v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:13:46 GMT
• Title: When is an Embedding Model More Promising than Another?
• Authors: Maxime Darrin, Philippe Formont, Ismail Ben Ayed, Jackie CK Cheung, Pablo Piantanida,
• Abstract summary: Embedders play a central role in machine learning, projecting any object into numerical representations that can be leveraged to perform various downstream tasks. The evaluation of embedding models typically depends on domain-specific empirical approaches. We present a unified approach to evaluate embedders, drawing upon the concepts of sufficiency and informativeness.
• Score: 33.540506562970776
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Embedders play a central role in machine learning, projecting any object into numerical representations that can, in turn, be leveraged to perform various downstream tasks. The evaluation of embedding models typically depends on domain-specific empirical approaches utilizing downstream tasks, primarily because of the lack of a standardized framework for comparison. However, acquiring adequately large and representative datasets for conducting these assessments is not always viable and can prove to be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. In this paper, we present a unified approach to evaluate embedders. First, we establish theoretical foundations for comparing embedding models, drawing upon the concepts of sufficiency and informativeness. We then leverage these concepts to devise a tractable comparison criterion (information sufficiency), leading to a task-agnostic and self-supervised ranking procedure. We demonstrate experimentally that our approach aligns closely with the capability of embedding models to facilitate various downstream tasks in both natural language processing and molecular biology. This effectively offers practitioners a valuable tool for prioritizing model trials.

Related papers

• Analyzing Generative Models by Manifold Entropic Metrics [8.477943884416023]
  We introduce a novel set of tractable information-theoretic evaluation metrics. We compare various normalizing flow architectures and $beta$-VAEs on the EMNIST dataset. The most interesting finding of our experiments is a ranking of model architectures and training procedures in terms of their inductive bias to converge to aligned and disentangled representations during training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T09:35:00Z)
• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• Corpus Considerations for Annotator Modeling and Scaling [9.263562546969695]
  We show that the commonly used user token model consistently outperforms more complex models. Our findings shed light on the relationship between corpus statistics and annotator modeling performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T22:27:24Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Comparing Foundation Models using Data Kernels [13.099029073152257]
  We present a methodology for directly comparing the embedding space geometry of foundation models. Our methodology is grounded in random graph theory and enables valid hypothesis testing of embedding similarity. We show how our framework can induce a manifold of models equipped with a distance function that correlates strongly with several downstream metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T02:01:07Z)
• Towards Efficient Task-Driven Model Reprogramming with Foundation Models [52.411508216448716]
  Vision foundation models exhibit impressive power, benefiting from the extremely large model capacity and broad training data. However, in practice, downstream scenarios may only support a small model due to the limited computational resources or efficiency considerations. This brings a critical challenge for the real-world application of foundation models: one has to transfer the knowledge of a foundation model to the downstream task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-05T07:28:33Z)
• Evaluation of Categorical Generative Models -- Bridging the Gap Between Real and Synthetic Data [18.142397311464343]
  We introduce an appropriately scalable evaluation method for generative models. We consider increasingly large probability spaces, which correspond to increasingly difficult modeling tasks. We validate our evaluation procedure with synthetic experiments on both synthetic generative models and current state-of-the-art categorical generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T21:05:25Z)
• HyperImpute: Generalized Iterative Imputation with Automatic Model Selection [77.86861638371926]
  We propose a generalized iterative imputation framework for adaptively and automatically configuring column-wise models. We provide a concrete implementation with out-of-the-box learners, simulators, and interfaces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-15T19:10:35Z)
• Masked prediction tasks: a parameter identifiability view [49.533046139235466]
  We focus on the widely used self-supervised learning method of predicting masked tokens. We show that there is a rich landscape of possibilities, out of which some prediction tasks yield identifiability, while others do not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-18T17:09:32Z)
• Who Explains the Explanation? Quantitatively Assessing Feature Attribution Methods [0.0]
  We propose a novel evaluation metric -- the Focus -- designed to quantify the faithfulness of explanations. We show the robustness of the metric through randomization experiments, and then use Focus to evaluate and compare three popular explainability techniques. Our results find LRP and GradCAM to be consistent and reliable, while the latter remains most competitive even when applied to poorly performing models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-28T07:10:24Z)
• Plausible Counterfactuals: Auditing Deep Learning Classifiers with Realistic Adversarial Examples [84.8370546614042]
  Black-box nature of Deep Learning models has posed unanswered questions about what they learn from data. Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and multi-objectives are used to furnish a plausible attack to the audited model. Its utility is showcased within a human face classification task, unveiling the enormous potential of the proposed framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-25T11:08:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.