In this section, we expand on our observation that similarity between training samples is not binary. Consider the images shown in Figure 6. As a consequence, any similarity between the anchor image and the so-called'negative' examples is completely ignored. Further, all'positive' examples are considered to be The batch size is set to 16000. We train on 4 A100 GPUs.

The learnt models in the latter domain can then be used for a diverse set of tasks in a zero-shot way, similar to "Contrastive Language-Image

In this section, we expand on our observation that similarity between training samples is not binary. Consider the images shown in Figure 6. As a consequence, any similarity between the anchor image and the so-called'negative' examples is completely ignored. Further, all'positive' examples are considered to be The batch size is set to 16000. We train on 4 A100 GPUs.

The extraction of variable definitions from scientific and technical papers is essential for understanding these documents. However, the characteristics of variable definitions, such as the length and the words that make up the definition, differ among fields, which leads to differences in the performance of existing extraction methods across fields. Although preparing training data specific to each field can improve the performance of the methods, it is costly to create high-quality training data. To address this challenge, this study proposes a new method that generates new definition sentences from template sentences and variable-definition pairs in the training data. The proposed method has been tested on papers about chemical processes, and the results show that the model trained with the definition sentences generated by the proposed method achieved a higher accuracy of 89.6%, surpassing existing models.

This paper considers contrastive training for cross-modal 0-shot transfer wherein a pre-trained model in one modality is used for representation learning in another domain using pairwise data. The learnt models in the latter domain can then be used for a diverse set of tasks in a 0-shot way, similar to "Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP)" [1] and "Locked-image Tuning (LiT)" [2] that have recently gained considerable attention. Most existing works for cross-modal representation alignment (including CLIP and LiT) use the standard contrastive training objective, which employs sets of positive and negative examples to align similar and repel dissimilar training data samples. However, similarity amongst training examples has a more continuous nature, thus calling for a more'non-binary' treatment. To address this, we propose a novel loss function called Continuously Weighted Contrastive Loss (CWCL) that employs a continuous measure of similarity. With CWCL, we seek to align the embedding space of one modality with another. Owing to the continuous nature of similarity in the proposed loss function, these models outperform existing methods for 0-shot transfer across multiple models, datasets and modalities. Particularly, we consider the modality pairs of image-text and speech-text and our models achieve 5-8% (absolute) improvement over previous state-of-the-art methods in 0-shot image classification and 20-30% (absolute) improvement in 0-shot speech-to-intent classification and keyword classification.

The awareness and mitigation of biases are of fundamental importance for the fair and transparent use of contextual language models, yet they crucially depend on the accurate detection of biases as a precursor. Consequently, numerous bias detection methods have been proposed, which vary in their approach, the considered type of bias, and the data used for evaluation. However, while most detection methods are derived from the word embedding association test for static word embeddings, the reported results are heterogeneous, inconsistent, and ultimately inconclusive. To address this issue, we conduct a rigorous analysis and comparison of bias detection methods for contextual language models. Our results show that minor design and implementation decisions (or errors) have a substantial and often significant impact on the derived bias scores. Overall, we find the state of the field to be both worse than previously acknowledged due to systematic and propagated errors in implementations, yet better than anticipated since divergent results in the literature homogenize after accounting for implementation errors. Based on our findings, we conclude with a discussion of paths towards more robust and consistent bias detection methods.