An efficient framework for learning sentence representations
Open accessAbstract
In this work we propose a simple and efficient framework for learning sentence representations from unlabelled data. Drawing inspiration from the distributional hypothesis and recent work on learning sentence representations, we reformulate the problem of predicting the context in which a sentence appears as a classification problem. Given a sentence and its context, a classifier distinguishes context sentences from other contrastive sentences based on their vector representations. This allows us to efficiently learn different types of encoding functions, and we show that the model learns high-quality sentence representations. We demonstrate that our sentence representations outperform state-of-the-art unsupervised and supervised representation learning methods on several downstream NLP tasks that involve understanding sentence semantics while achieving an order of magnitude speedup in training time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Contrastive learning has resulted in excellent representation learning performance across domains such as computer vision, natural language, speech recognition, and time-series data.
“This framework has resulted in excellent representation learning performance across domains such as computer vision [12, 33, 35], natural language [49], speech recognition [6, 58] and time-series data [39].”
From Contrastive Predictive Coding for Human Activity Recognition (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
Early results on transfer learning for text classification tasks advocated fine-tuning only the parameters of a small classifier fed sentence embeddings from a fixed pre-trained model.
“Early results on transfer learning for text classification tasks advocated fine-tuning only the parameters of a small classifier that was fed sentence embeddings produced by a fixed pre-trained model (Subramanian et al., 2018; Kiros et al., 2015; Logeswaran and Lee, 2018; Hill et al., 2016; Conneau et al., 2017).”
From Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer (2019) · cites this paper as Logeswaran and Lee, 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 427
- Authors
- Logeswaran, L., & Lee, H.
- ORCID
- Lee, Honglak
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1803.02893
- OpenAlex
- W2786464815
- Cited by
- 427
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 22
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- sentence representation, unsupervised feature learning, distributional hypothesis, contrastive learning, sentence embeddings, semantic understanding, training efficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review