This page contains the experiments results of the Model2Vec project. The results are presented in the following sections:
Model2Vec is evaluated on MTEB, as well as two additional tasks: PEARL (a phrase representation task) and WordSim (a collection of word similarity tasks). The results are shown in the table below.
Note: The potion
and M2V
models are our static models.
Model | Avg (All) | Avg (MTEB) | Class | Clust | PairClass | Rank | Ret | STS | Sum | Pearl | WordSim |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
all-MiniLM-L6-v2 | 56.08 | 56.09 | 62.62 | 41.94 | 82.37 | 58.04 | 41.95 | 78.90 | 30.81 | 60.83 | 49.91 |
potion-base-8M | 50.54 | 50.03 | 64.44 | 32.93 | 76.62 | 49.73 | 31.71 | 73.24 | 29.28 | 53.54 | 50.75 |
M2V_base_glove_subword | 49.06 | 46.69 | 61.27 | 30.03 | 74.71 | 49.15 | 27.16 | 69.09 | 30.08 | 56.82 | 57.99 |
potion-base-4M | 48.87 | 48.23 | 62.19 | 31.47 | 75.37 | 48.75 | 29.11 | 72.19 | 28.89 | 52.55 | 49.21 |
M2V_base_glove | 48.58 | 47.6 | 61.35 | 30.52 | 75.34 | 48.5 | 29.26 | 70.31 | 31.5 | 50.28 | 54.29 |
M2V_base_output | 46.79 | 45.34 | 61.25 | 25.58 | 74.9 | 47.63 | 26.14 | 68.58 | 29.2 | 54.02 | 49.18 |
potion-base-2M | 45.52 | 44.77 | 58.45 | 27.5 | 73.72 | 46.82 | 24.13 | 70.14 | 31.51 | 50.82 | 44.72 |
GloVe_300d | 42.84 | 42.36 | 57.31 | 27.66 | 72.48 | 43.3 | 22.78 | 61.9 | 28.81 | 45.65 | 43.05 |
BPEmb_50k_300d | 39.34 | 37.78 | 55.76 | 23.35 | 57.86 | 43.21 | 17.5 | 55.1 | 29.74 | 47.56 | 41.28 |
Task Abbreviations
For readability, the MTEB task names are abbreviated as follows:
- Class: Classification
- Clust: Clustering
- PairClass: PairClassification
- Rank: Reranking
- Ret: Retrieval
- STS: Semantic Textual Similarity
- Sum: Summarization
The figure below shows the relationship between the number of sentences per second and the average MTEB score. The circle sizes correspond to the number of parameters in the models (larger = more parameters). This plot shows that the potion and M2V models are much faster than the other models, while still being competitive in terms of performance with the all-MiniLM-L6-v2 model.
Figure: The average MTEB score plotted against sentences per second. The circle size indicates model size. |
To better understand the factors contributing to the performance of Model2Vec, we conducted a comprehensive set of ablation studies, covering various aspects of the model's architecture and preprocessing methods. In these studies, we examined the impact of key elements such as PCA, Zipf weighting, and the use of Sentence Transformers versus regular transformer models. We also compared the performance of input embeddings versus output embeddings, since it would seem plausible that these should also work well. The results are shown in the table below.
Model | Avg (All) | Avg (MTEB) | Class | Clust | PairClass | Rank | Ret | STS | Sum | Pearl | WordSim |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M2V_base_output | 46.79 | 45.34 | 61.25 | 25.58 | 74.9 | 47.63 | 26.14 | 68.58 | 29.2 | 54.02 | 49.18 |
M2V_base_output_nopca | 44.04 | 42.31 | 61.42 | 20.15 | 68.21 | 44.67 | 25.25 | 61.87 | 29.85 | 51.02 | 48.96 |
M2V_base_output_nozipf | 43.61 | 41.52 | 60.44 | 21.62 | 72.15 | 45.57 | 20.35 | 62.71 | 30.66 | 52.28 | 49.17 |
M2V_base_input_nozipf_nopca | 40.97 | 39.55 | 54.16 | 18.62 | 68.3 | 43.65 | 23.63 | 59.38 | 32.04 | 50.19 | 40.52 |
M2V_base_output_nozipf_nopca | 40.8 | 38.44 | 59.78 | 19.31 | 62.39 | 42.26 | 19.01 | 55.16 | 30 | 49.09 | 48.97 |
M2V_base_input | 40.74 | 39.93 | 60.35 | 22.66 | 59.63 | 43.02 | 25.47 | 50.05 | 29.35 | 50.61 | 34.47 |
M2V_bert_output_nozipf_nopca | 35.54 | 34.82 | 55.69 | 15.42 | 58.68 | 39.87 | 12.92 | 55.24 | 30.15 | 46.9 | 26.72 |
There's four main findings in these results:
- Non-Sentence Transformers do not work well. This can be seen by comparing
M2V_bert_output_nozipf_nopca
(which uses BERT, a non-Sentence Transformer) andM2V_base_output_nozipf_nopca
(which uses BGE-base, a Sentence Transformer). Using a Sentence Transformer gives a ~5.2% increase in performance. - PCA is crucial for performance. This can be seen by comparing
M2V_base_output_nozipf_nopca
andM2V_base_output_nozipf
which gives a ~2.8% increase in performance. Furthermore, PCA improves performance on all tasks. - Zipf weighting is crucial for performance. This can be seen by comparing
M2V_base_output_nozipf_nopca
andM2V_base_output_nopca
which gives a ~3.1% increase in performance. - Output embeddings outperform input embeddings. This can be seen by comparing
M2V_base_input
andM2V_base_output
which gives a ~6.1% increase in performance. Note that input embeddings do work well for some tasks. We hypothesize that this is because input embeddings are inherently normalized.