On Affine Homotopy between Language Encoders
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Pre-trained language encoders -- functions that represent text as vectors -- are an integral component of many NLP tasks. We tackle a natural question in language encoder analysis: What does it mean for two encoders to be similar? We contend that a faithful measure of similarity needs to be intrinsic, that is, task-independent, yet still be informative of extrinsic similarity -- the performance on downstream tasks. It is common to consider two encoders similar if they are homotopic, i.e., if they can be aligned through some transformation. In this spirit, we study the properties of affine alignment of language encoders and its implications on extrinsic similarity. We find that while affine alignment is fundamentally an asymmetric notion of similarity, it is still informative of extrinsic similarity. We confirm this on datasets of natural language representations. Beyond providing useful bounds on extrinsic similarity, affine intrinsic similarity also allows us to begin uncovering the structure of the space of pre-trained encoders by defining an order over them.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2024.
Builds on
24 of 49 references.
References · 24
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 488
- 2020Fine-Tuning Pretrained Language Models: Weight Initializations, Data Orders, and Early Stoppingcited by 377
- 2018Insights on representational similarity in neural networks with canonical correlationcited by 318
- 2014Understanding image representations by measuring their equivariance and equivalencecited by 240
- 2016Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Changecited by 219
- 2015Convergent Learning: Do different neural networks learn the same representations?cited by 215
- 2021Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural Representationscited by 203
12 more
- 2017On the Properties of the Softmax Function with Application in Game Theory and Reinforcement Learningcited by 136
- 2023Similarity of Neural Network Models: A Survey of Functional and Representational Measurescited by 128
- 2021Generalized Shape Metrics on Neural Representationscited by 109
- 2019BERTs of a feather do not generalize together: Large variability in generalization across models with similar test set performancecited by 89
- 2021The MultiBERTs: BERT Reproductions for Robustness Analysiscited by 89
- 2021Similarity and Matching of Neural Network Representationscited by 77
- 2021Are Larger Pretrained Language Models Uniformly Better? Comparing Performance at the Instance Levelcited by 34
- 2022A Measure-Theoretic Characterization of Tight Language Modelscited by 32
- 2021Grounding Representation Similarity with Statistical Testingcited by 28
- 2022GULP: a prediction-based metric between representationscited by 17
- 2023All Roads Lead to Rome? Exploring the Invariance of Transformers' Representationscited by 6
- 2015A Mathematical Theory for Clustering in Metric Spacescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
3 papers.