←back to thread

149 points fzliu | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
gdiamos ◴[] No.45069705[source]
Their idea is that capacity of even 4096-wide vectors limits their performance.

Sparse models like BM25 have a huge dimension and thus don’t suffer from this limit, but they don’t capture semantics and can’t follow instructions.

It seems like the holy grail is a sparse semantic model. I wonder how splade would do?

replies(3): >>45070552 #>>45070624 #>>45088848 #
CuriouslyC ◴[] No.45070552[source]
We already have "sparse" embeddings. Google's Matryoshka embedding schema can scale embeddings from ~150 dimensions to >3k, and it's the same embedding with layers of representational meaning. Imagine decomposing an embedding along principle components, then streaming the embedding vectors in order of their eigenvalue, kind of the idea.
replies(3): >>45070777 #>>45071166 #>>45075319 #
jxmorris12 ◴[] No.45070777[source]
Matryoshka embeddings are not sparse. And SPLADE can scale to tens or hundreds of thousands of dimensions.
replies(2): >>45070869 #>>45088885 #
1. faxipay349 ◴[] No.45088885[source]
Yeah, the standard SPLADE model trained from BERT typically already has a vocabulary/vector size of 30,552. If the SPLADE model is based on a multilingual version of BERT, such as mBERT or XLM-R, the vocabulary size could inherently expand to approximately 100,000, as does the vector size.