Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2403.05440v1

In their paper titled "Is Cosine-Similarity of Embeddings Really About Similarity? ", authors Harald Steck, Chaitanya Ekanadham, and Nathan Kallus delve into the concept of cosine-similarity in the context of embeddings. They highlight its definition as the cosine of the angle between two vectors or equivalently the dot product between their normalizations. This measure is commonly used to assess semantic similarity in high-dimensional spaces by applying it to a learned low-dimensional feature embedding. However, while it may yield better results than unnormalized dot-products at times, it can also perform worse in practice. To gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon, the authors focus on studying embeddings derived from regularized linear models. By leveraging closed-form solutions, they are able to gain analytical insights into how cosine-similarity can lead to arbitrary and ultimately meaningless similarities. They demonstrate that for certain linear models, these similarities may not even be unique and are implicitly controlled by the regularization process. Additionally, they extend their analysis beyond linear models to consider deep learning architectures where a combination of different regularizations are employed. The authors caution against blindly relying on cosine-similarity and suggest exploring alternative approaches for measuring similarity in high-dimensional spaces based on their findings. They emphasize that these regularizations can have unintended effects when calculating cosine-similarities of resulting embeddings, leading to opaque and potentially arbitrary results. Overall, this study sheds light on the complexities and limitations of using cosine-similarity in embedding applications and underscores the importance of critically evaluating its implications in various machine learning contexts.

• - Cosine-similarity is defined as the cosine of the angle between two vectors or the dot product between their normalizations.
• - It is commonly used to assess semantic similarity in high-dimensional spaces by applying it to a learned low-dimensional feature embedding.
• - While cosine-similarity may yield better results than unnormalized dot-products, it can also perform worse in practice.
• - The authors focus on studying embeddings derived from regularized linear models to gain analytical insights into how cosine-similarity can lead to arbitrary and ultimately meaningless similarities.
• - For certain linear models, these similarities may not be unique and are implicitly controlled by the regularization process.
• - The analysis extends beyond linear models to consider deep learning architectures with different regularizations employed.
• - The authors caution against blindly relying on cosine-similarity and suggest exploring alternative approaches for measuring similarity in high-dimensional spaces based on their findings.

Summary- Cosine-similarity is a way to measure how similar two things are by looking at the angle between them or their normalized dot product. - It helps us understand if things are alike in a big space by comparing their features. - Sometimes cosine-similarity works well, but other times it doesn't give good results. - People are studying how cosine-similarity can make things seem similar even when they're not really related. - They suggest trying different ways to see if things are similar instead of only using cosine-similarity. Definitions- Cosine-similarity: A method to compare how alike two things are based on the angle between them or their normalized dot product.

Cosine-similarity is a widely used measure in machine learning for assessing semantic similarity between vectors. It has been commonly applied to learned low-dimensional feature embeddings, where it measures the cosine of the angle between two vectors or equivalently, the dot product between their normalizations. However, recent research by Harald Steck, Chaitanya Ekanadham, and Nathan Kallus suggests that this measure may not always be reliable and can lead to arbitrary and potentially meaningless results. In their paper titled "Is Cosine-Similarity of Embeddings Really About Similarity?", the authors delve into the concept of cosine-similarity in the context of embeddings. They focus on studying embeddings derived from regularized linear models and extend their analysis to deep learning architectures as well. The authors begin by highlighting the definition of cosine-similarity as a measure of similarity between two vectors in high-dimensional spaces. This measure has been widely used in various applications such as natural language processing, image recognition, and recommender systems. Its popularity stems from its ability to capture semantic relationships between words or objects without requiring explicit knowledge about them. However, while cosine-similarity may yield better results than unnormalized dot-products at times, it can also perform worse in practice. To gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon, Steck et al. focus on analyzing embeddings derived from regularized linear models. By leveraging closed-form solutions for these models, they are able to gain analytical insights into how cosine-similarity can lead to arbitrary similarities. Their analysis reveals that for certain linear models with different regularization techniques applied, cosine-similarities may not even be unique and are implicitly controlled by the regularization process itself. This means that small changes in regularization parameters can result in significantly different similarities being calculated for similar inputs. Moreover, Steck et al.'s study extends beyond linear models to consider deep learning architectures where multiple regularizations are employed simultaneously. They demonstrate that these regularizations can have unintended effects when calculating cosine-similarities of resulting embeddings, leading to opaque and potentially arbitrary results. The authors caution against blindly relying on cosine-similarity and suggest exploring alternative approaches for measuring similarity in high-dimensional spaces based on their findings. They emphasize the importance of critically evaluating the implications of using this measure in various machine learning contexts. Overall, Steck et al.'s research sheds light on the complexities and limitations of using cosine-similarity in embedding applications. It highlights the need for a deeper understanding of how different regularization techniques can affect this measure and calls for more critical evaluation of its implications in machine learning tasks. This study serves as an important reminder to not blindly rely on popular measures without considering their underlying assumptions and potential limitations.