dwulff commited on
Commit
a32a103
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): fde3537

Add new SentenceTransformer model

Browse files
1_Pooling/config.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ {
2
+ "word_embedding_dimension": 384,
3
+ "pooling_mode_cls_token": false,
4
+ "pooling_mode_mean_tokens": true,
5
+ "pooling_mode_max_tokens": false,
6
+ "pooling_mode_mean_sqrt_len_tokens": false,
7
+ "pooling_mode_weightedmean_tokens": false,
8
+ "pooling_mode_lasttoken": false,
9
+ "include_prompt": true
10
+ }
README.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,789 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ ---
2
+ tags:
3
+ - sentence-transformers
4
+ - sentence-similarity
5
+ - feature-extraction
6
+ - generated_from_trainer
7
+ - dataset_size:50000
8
+ - loss:CosineSimilarityLoss
9
+ base_model: sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2
10
+ widget:
11
+ - source_sentence: 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
12
+
13
+
14
+ Title: Cell-ŧype-specific responses to associative learning in the primary motor
15
+ cortex.
16
+
17
+ Abstract: The primary motor cortex (M1) is known to be a critical site for movement
18
+ initiation and motor learning. Surprisingly, it has also been shown to possess
19
+ reward-related activity, presumably to facilitate reward-based learning of new
20
+ movements. However, whether reward-related signals are represented among different
21
+ cell types in M1, and whether their response properties change after cue-reward
22
+ conditioning remains unclear. Here, we performed longitudinal in vivo two-photon
23
+ Ca2+ imaging to monitor the activity of different neuronal cell types in M1 while
24
+ mice engaged in a classical conditioning task. Our results demonstrate that most
25
+ of the major neuronal cell types in M1 showed robust but differential responses
26
+ to both the conditioned cue stimulus (CS) and reward, and their response properties
27
+ undergo cell-ŧype-specific modifications after associative learning. PV-INs’ responses
28
+ became more reliable to the CS, while VIP-INs’ responses became more reliable
29
+ to reward. Pyramidal neurons only showed robust responses to novel reward, and
30
+ they habituated to it after associative learning. Lastly, SOM-INs’ responses emerged
31
+ and became more reliable to both the CS and reward after conditioning. These observations
32
+ suggest that cue- and reward-related signals are preferentially represented among
33
+ different neuronal cell types in M1, and the distinct modifications they undergo
34
+ during associative learning could be essential in triggering different aspects
35
+ of local circuit reorganization in M1 during reward-based motor skill learning.'
36
+ sentences:
37
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
38
+
39
+
40
+ Title: Learning to construct sentences in Spanish: A replication of the Weird
41
+ Word Order technique.
42
+
43
+ Abstract: In the present study, children''s early ability to organise words into
44
+ sentences was investigated using the Weird Word Order procedure with Spanish-speaking
45
+ children. Spanish is a language that allows for more flexibility in the positions
46
+ of subjects and objects, with respect to verbs, than other previously studied
47
+ languages (English, French, and Japanese). As in prior studies (Abbot-Smith et
48
+ al., 2001; Chang et al., 2009; Franck et al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2005, 2007),
49
+ we manipulated the relative frequency of verbs in training sessions with two age
50
+ groups (three-A nd four-year-old children). Results supported earlier findings
51
+ with regard to frequency: Children produced atypical word orders significantly
52
+ more often with infrequent verbs than with frequent verbs. The findings from the
53
+ present study support probabilistic learning models which allow higher levels
54
+ of flexibility and, in turn, oppose hypotheses that defend early access to advanced
55
+ grammatical knowledge.'
56
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
57
+
58
+
59
+ Title: What are the computations of the cerebellum, the basal ganglia and the
60
+ cerebral cortex?.
61
+
62
+ Abstract: The classical notion that the cerebellum and the basal ganglia are dedicated
63
+ to motor control is under dispute given increasing evidence of their involvement
64
+ in non-motor functions. Is it then impossible to characterize the functions of
65
+ the cerebellum, the basal ganglia and the cerebral cortex in a simplistic manner?
66
+ This paper presents a novel view that their computational roles can be characterized
67
+ not by asking what are the ''goals'' of their computation, such as motor or sensory,
68
+ but by asking what are the ''methods'' of their computation, specifically, their
69
+ learning algorithms. There is currently enough anatomical, physiological, and
70
+ theoretical evidence to support the hypotheses that the cerebellum is a specialized
71
+ organism for supervised learning, the basal ganglia are for reinforcement learning,
72
+ and the cerebral cortex is for unsupervised learning.This paper investigates how
73
+ the learning modules specialized for these three kinds of learning can be assembled
74
+ into goal-oriented behaving systems. In general, supervised learning modules in
75
+ the cerebellum can be utilized as ''internal models'' of the environment. Reinforcement
76
+ learning modules in the basal ganglia enable action selection by an ''evaluation''
77
+ of environmental states. Unsupervised learning modules in the cerebral cortex
78
+ can provide statistically efficient representation of the states of the environment
79
+ and the behaving system. Two basic action selection architectures are shown, namely,
80
+ reactive action selection and predictive action selection. They can be implemented
81
+ within the anatomical constraint of the network linking these structures. Furthermore,
82
+ the use of the cerebellar supervised learning modules for state estimation, behavioral
83
+ simulation, and encapsulation of learned skill is considered. Finally, the usefulness
84
+ of such theoretical frameworks in interpreting brain imaging data is demonstrated
85
+ in the paradigm of procedural learning.'
86
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
87
+
88
+
89
+ Title: Repeated decisions and attitudes to risk.
90
+
91
+ Abstract: In contrast to the underpinnings of expected utility, the experimental
92
+ pilot study results reported here suggest that current decisions may be influenced
93
+ both by past decisions and by the possibility of making decisions in the future.'
94
+ - source_sentence: 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
95
+
96
+
97
+ Title: Sensory Evidence Accumulation Using Optic Flow in a Naturalistic Navigation
98
+ Task.
99
+
100
+ Abstract: Sensory evidence accumulation is considered a hallmark of decision-making
101
+ in noisy environments. Integration of sensory inputs has been traditionally studied
102
+ using passive stimuli, segregating perception from action. Lessons learned from
103
+ this approach, however, may not generalize to ethological behaviors like navigation,
104
+ where there is an active interplay between perception and action. We designed
105
+ a sensory-based sequential decision task in virtual reality in which humans and
106
+ monkeys navigated to a memorized location by integrating optic flow generated
107
+ by their own joystick movements. A major challenge in such closed-loop tasks is
108
+ that subjects’ actions will determine future sensory input, causing ambiguity
109
+ about whether they rely on sensory input rather than expectations based solely
110
+ on a learned model of the dynamics. To test whether subjects integrated optic
111
+ flow over time, we used three independent experimental manipulations, unpredictable
112
+ optic flow perturbations, which pushed subjects off their trajectory; gain manipulation
113
+ of the joystick controller, which changed the consequences of actions; and manipulation
114
+ of the optic flow density, which changed the information borne by sensory evidence.
115
+ Our results suggest that both macaques (male) and humans (female/male) relied
116
+ heavily on optic flow, thereby demonstrating a critical role for sensory evidence
117
+ accumulation during naturalistic action-perception closed-loop tasks.'
118
+ sentences:
119
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
120
+
121
+
122
+ Title: The importance of decision making in causal learning from interventions.
123
+
124
+ Abstract: Recent research has focused on how interventions benefit causal learning.
125
+ This research suggests that the main benefit of interventions is in the temporal
126
+ and conditional probability information that interventions provide a learner.
127
+ But when one generates interventions, one must also decide what interventions
128
+ to generate. In three experiments, we investigated the importance of these decision
129
+ demands to causal learning. Experiment 1 demonstrated that learners were better
130
+ at learning causal models when they observed intervention data that they had generated,
131
+ as opposed to observing data generated by another learner. Experiment 2 demonstrated
132
+ the same effect between self-generated interventions and interventions learners
133
+ were forced to make. Experiment 3 demonstrated that when learners observed a sequence
134
+ of interventions such that the decision-making process that generated those interventions
135
+ was more readily available, learning was less impaired. These data suggest that
136
+ decision making may be an important part of causal learning from interventions.'
137
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
138
+
139
+
140
+ Title: Region-specific effects of acute haloperidol in the human midbrain, striatum
141
+ and cortex.
142
+
143
+ Abstract: D2 autoreceptors provide an important regulatory mechanism of dopaminergic
144
+ neurotransmission. However, D2 receptors are also expressed as heteroreceptors
145
+ at postsynaptic membranes. The expression and the functional characteristics of
146
+ both, D2 auto- and heteroreceptors, differ between brain regions. Therefore, one
147
+ would expect that also the net response to a D2 antagonist, i.e. whether and to
148
+ what degree overall neural activity increases or decreases, varies across brain
149
+ areas. In the current study we systematically tested this hypothesis by parametrically
150
+ increasing haloperidol levels (placebo, 2 and 3 mg) in healthy volunteers and
151
+ measuring brain activity in the three major dopaminergic pathways. In particular,
152
+ activity was assessed using fMRI while participants performed a working memory
153
+ and a reinforcement learning task. Consistent with the hypothesis, across brain
154
+ regions activity parametrically in- and decreased. Moreover, even within the same
155
+ area there were function-specific concurrent de- and increases of activity, likely
156
+ caused by input from upstream dopaminergic regions. In the ventral striatum, for
157
+ instance, activity during reinforcement learning decreased for outcome processing
158
+ while prediction error related activity increased. In conclusion, the current
159
+ study highlights the intricacy of D2 neurotransmission which makes it difficult
160
+ to predict the function-specific net response of a given area to pharmacological
161
+ manipulations.'
162
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
163
+
164
+
165
+ Title: Modeling dopaminergic and other processes involved in learning from reward
166
+ prediction error: Contributions from an individual differences perspective.
167
+
168
+ Abstract: Phasic firing changes of midbrain dopamine neurons have been widely
169
+ characterized as reflecting a reward prediction error (RPE). Major personality
170
+ traits (e.g., extraversion) have been linked to inter-individual variations in
171
+ dopaminergic neurotransmission. Consistent with these two claims, recent research
172
+ (Smillie et al., 2011; Cooper et al., 2014) found that extraverts exhibited larger
173
+ RPEs than introverts, as reflected in feedback related negativity (FRN) effects
174
+ in EEG recordings. Using an established, biologically-localized RPE computational
175
+ model, we successfully simulated dopaminergic cell firing changes which are thought
176
+ to modulate the FRN. We introduced simulated individual differences into the model:
177
+ parameters were systematically varied, with stable values for each simulated individual.
178
+ We explored whether a model parameter might be responsible for the observed covariance
179
+ between extraversion and the FRN changes in real data, and argued that a parameter
180
+ is a plausible source of such covariance if parameter variance, across simulated
181
+ individuals, correlated almost perfectly with the size of the simulated dopaminergic
182
+ FRN modulation, and created as much variance as possible in this simulated output.
183
+ Several model parameters met these criteria, while others did not. In particular,
184
+ variations in the strength of connections carrying excitatory reward drive inputs
185
+ to midbrain dopaminergic cells were considered plausible candidates, along with
186
+ variations in a parameter which scales the effects of dopamine cell firing bursts
187
+ on synaptic modification in ventral striatum. We suggest possible neurotransmitter
188
+ mechanisms underpinning these model parameters. Finally, the limitations and possible
189
+ extensions of our general approach are discussed.'
190
+ - source_sentence: 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
191
+
192
+
193
+ Title: Pigeons'' use of cues in a repeated five-trial-sequence, single-reversal
194
+ task.
195
+
196
+ Abstract: We studied behavioral flexibility, or the ability to modify one''s behavior
197
+ in accordance with the changing environment, in pigeons using a reversal-learning
198
+ paradigm. In two experiments, each session consisted of a series of five-trial
199
+ sequences involving a simple simultaneous color discrimination in which a reversal
200
+ could occur during each sequence. The ideal strategy would be to start each sequence
201
+ with a choice of S1 (the first correct stimulus) until it was no longer correct,
202
+ and then to switch to S2 (the second correct stimulus), thus utilizing cues provided
203
+ by local reinforcement (feedback from the preceding trial). In both experiments,
204
+ subjects showed little evidence of using local reinforcement cues, but instead
205
+ used the mean probabilities of reinforcement for S1 and S2 on each trial within
206
+ each sequence. That is, subjects showed remarkably similar behavior, regardless
207
+ of where (or, in Exp. 2, whether) a reversal occurred during a given sequence.
208
+ Therefore, subjects appeared to be relatively insensitive to the consequences
209
+ of responses (local feedback) and were not able to maximize reinforcement. The
210
+ fact that pigeons did not use the more optimal feedback afforded by recent reinforcement
211
+ contingencies to maximize their reinforcement has implications for their use of
212
+ flexible response strategies under reversal-learning conditions.'
213
+ sentences:
214
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
215
+
216
+
217
+ Title: Behavioral and circuit basis of sucrose rejection by drosophila females
218
+ in a simple decision-making task.
219
+
220
+ Abstract: Drosophila melanogaster egg-laying site selection offers a genetic model
221
+ to study a simple form of value-based decision. We have previously shown that
222
+ Drosophila females consistently reject a sucrose-containing substrate and choose
223
+ a plain (sucrose-free) substrate for egg laying in our sucrose versus plain decision
224
+ assay. However, either substrate is accepted when it is the sole option. Here
225
+ we describe the neural mechanism that underlies females’ sucrose rejection in
226
+ our sucrose versus plain assay. First, we demonstrate that females explored the
227
+ sucrose substrate frequently before most egg-laying events, suggesting that they
228
+ actively suppress laying eggs on the sucrose substrate as opposed to avoiding
229
+ visits to it. Second, we show that activating a specific subset of DA neurons
230
+ triggered a preference for laying eggs on the sucrose substrate over the plain
231
+ one, suggesting that activating these DA neurons can increase the value of the
232
+ sucrose substrate for egg laying. Third, we demonstrate that neither ablating
233
+ nor inhibiting the mushroom body (MB), a known Drosophila learning and decision
234
+ center, affected females’ egg-laying preferences in our sucrose versus plain assay,
235
+ suggesting that MB does not mediate this specific decision-making task.Wepropose
236
+ that the value of a sucrose substrate— as an egg-laying option—can be adjusted
237
+ by the activities of a specific DA circuit. Once the sucrose substrate is determined
238
+ to be the lesser valued option, females execute their decision to reject this
239
+ inferior substrate not by stopping their visits to it, but by actively suppressing
240
+ their egg-laying motor program during their visits.'
241
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
242
+
243
+
244
+ Title: Choice in experiential learning: True preferences or experimental artifacts?.
245
+
246
+ Abstract: The rate of selecting different options in the decisions-from-feedback
247
+ paradigm is commonly used to measure preferences resulting from experiential learning.
248
+ While convergence to a single option increases with experience, some variance
249
+ in choice remains even when options are static and offer fixed rewards. Employing
250
+ a decisions-from-feedback paradigm followed by a policy-setting task, we examined
251
+ whether the observed variance in choice is driven by factors related to the paradigm
252
+ itself: Continued exploration (e.g., believing options are non-stationary) or
253
+ exploitation of perceived outcome patterns (i.e., a belief that sequential choices
254
+ are not independent). Across two studies, participants showed variance in their
255
+ choices, which was related (i.e., proportional) to the policies they set. In addition,
256
+ in Study 2, participants'' reported under-confidence was associated with the amount
257
+ of choice variance in later choices and policies. These results suggest that variance
258
+ in choice is better explained by participants lacking confidence in knowing which
259
+ option is better, rather than methodological artifacts (i.e., exploration or failures
260
+ to recognize outcome independence). As such, the current studies provide evidence
261
+ for the decisions-from-feedback paradigm''s validity as a behavioral research
262
+ method for assessing learned preferences.'
263
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
264
+
265
+
266
+ Title: Impaired savings despite intact initial learning of motor adaptation in
267
+ Parkinson''s disease.
268
+
269
+ Abstract: In motor adaptation, the occurrence of savings (faster relearning of
270
+ a previously learned motor adaptation task) has been explained in terms of operant
271
+ reinforcement learning (Huang et al. in Neuron 70(4):787-801, 2011), which is
272
+ thought to associate an adapted motor command with outcome success during repeated
273
+ execution of the adapted movement. There is some evidence for deficient savings
274
+ in Parkinson''s Disease (PD), which might result from deficient operant reinforcement
275
+ processes. However, this evidence is compromised by limited adaptation training
276
+ during initial learning and by multi-target adaptation, which reduces the number
277
+ of reinforced movement repetitions for each target. Here, we examined savings
278
+ in PD patients and controls following overlearning with a single target. PD patients
279
+ showed less savings than controls after successive adaptation and deadaptation
280
+ blocks within the same test session, as well as less savings across test sessions
281
+ separated by a 24-h delay. It is argued that impaired blunted dopaminergic signals
282
+ in PD impairs the modulation of dopaminergic signals to the motor cortex in response
283
+ to rewarding motor outcomes, thus impairing the association of the adapted motor
284
+ command with rewarding motor outcomes. Consequently, the previously adapted motor
285
+ command is not preferentially selected during relearning, and savings is impaired.'
286
+ - source_sentence: 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
287
+
288
+
289
+ Title: Altered cingulate sub-region activation accounts for task-related dissociation
290
+ in ERN amplitude as a function of obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
291
+
292
+ Abstract: Larger error-related negativities (ERNs) have been consistently found
293
+ in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients, and are thought to reflect the
294
+ activities of a hyperactive cortico-striatal circuit during action monitoring.
295
+ We previously observed that obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptomatic students (non-patients)
296
+ have larger ERNs during errors in a response competition task, yet smaller ERNs
297
+ in a reinforcement learning task. The finding of a task-specific dissociation
298
+ suggests that distinct yet partially overlapping medio-frontal systems underlie
299
+ the ERN in different tasks, and that OC symptoms are associated with functional
300
+ differences in these systems. Here, we used EEG source localization to identify
301
+ why OC symptoms are associated with hyperactive ERNs to errors yet hypoactive
302
+ ERNs when selecting maladaptive actions. At rest, OC symptomatology predicted
303
+ greater activity in rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) and lower activity
304
+ in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC). When compared to a group with low
305
+ OC symptom scores, the high OC group had greater rACC reactivity during errors
306
+ in the response competition task and less deactivation of dACC activity during
307
+ errors in the reinforcement learning task. The degree of activation in these areas
308
+ correlated with ERN amplitudes during both tasks in the high OC group, but not
309
+ in the low group. Interactive anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) systems associated
310
+ avoidance of maladaptive actions were intact in the high OC group, but were related
311
+ to poorer performance on a third task: probabilistic reversal learning. These
312
+ novel findings link both tonic and phasic activities in the ACC to action monitoring
313
+ alterations, including dissociation in performance deficits, in OC symptomatic
314
+ participants.'
315
+ sentences:
316
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
317
+
318
+
319
+ Title: The Stroop Effect: Why Proportion Congruent Has Nothing to Do With Congruency
320
+ and Everything to Do With Contingency.
321
+
322
+ Abstract: The item-specific proportion congruent (ISPC) effect refers to the observation
323
+ that the Stroop effect is larger for words that are presented mostly in congruent
324
+ colors (e.g., BLUE presented 75% of the time in blue) and smaller for words that
325
+ are presented mostly in a given incongruent color (e.g., YELLOW presented 75%
326
+ of the time in orange). One account of the ISPC effect, the modulation hypothesis,
327
+ is that participants modulate attention based on the identity of the word (i.e.,
328
+ participants allow the word to influence responding when it is presented mostly
329
+ in its congruent color). Another account, the contingency hypothesis, is that
330
+ participants use the word to predict the response that they will need to make
331
+ (e.g., if the word is YELLOW, then the response is probably "orange"). Reanalyses
332
+ of data from L. L. Jacoby, D. S. Lindsay, and S. Hessels (2003), along with results
333
+ from new experiments, are inconsistent with the modulation hypothesis but entirely
334
+ consistent with the contingency hypothesis. A response threshold mechanism that
335
+ uses contingency information provides a sufficient account of the data.'
336
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
337
+
338
+
339
+ Title: D-cycloserine facilitates socially reinforced learning in an animal model
340
+ relevant to autism spectrum disorders.
341
+
342
+ Abstract: There are no drugs that specifically target the social deficits of autism
343
+ spectrum disorders (ASD). This may be due to a lack of behavioral paradigms in
344
+ animal models relevant to ASD. Partner preference formation in the prairie vole
345
+ represents a social cognitive process involving socially reinforced learning.
346
+ D-cycloserine (DCS) is a cognitive enhancer that acts at the N-methyl-D-aspartate
347
+ receptor to promote learning. If DCS enhances socially reinforced learning in
348
+ the partner preference paradigm, it may be useful in combination with behavioral
349
+ therapies for enhancing social functioning in ASD. Female prairie and meadow voles
350
+ were given DCS either peripherally or directly into one of three brain regions:
351
+ nucleus accumbens, amygdala, or caudate putamen. Subjects were then cohabited
352
+ with a male vole under conditions that do not typically yield a partner preference.
353
+ The development of a preference for that stimulus male vole over a novel male
354
+ vole was assessed using a partner preference test. A low dose of DCS administered
355
+ peripherally enhanced preference formation in prairie voles but not meadow voles
356
+ under conditions in which it would not otherwise occur. These effects were replicated
357
+ in prairie voles by microinfusions of DCS into the nucleus accumbens, which is
358
+ involved in reinforcement learning, and the amygdala, which is involved in social
359
+ information processing. Partner preference in the prairie vole may provide a behavioral
360
+ paradigm with face, construct, and predictive validity for identifying prosocial
361
+ pharmacotherapeutics. D-cycloserine may be a viable treatment strategy for social
362
+ deficits of ASD when paired with social behavioral therapy.'
363
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
364
+
365
+
366
+ Title: Pseudodiagnosticity Revisited.
367
+
368
+ Abstract: In the psychology of reasoning and judgment, the pseudodiagnosticity
369
+ task has been a major tool for the empirical investigation of people''s ability
370
+ to search for diagnostic information. A novel normative analysis of this experimental
371
+ paradigm is presented, by which the participants'' prevailing responses turn out
372
+ not to support the generally accepted existence of a reasoning bias. The conclusions
373
+ drawn do not rest on pragmatic concerns suggesting alleged divergences between
374
+ the experimenter''s and participants'' reading of the task. They only rely, instead,
375
+ on the demonstration that observed behavior largely conforms to optimal utility
376
+ maximizing information search strategies for standard variants of the pseudodiagnosticity
377
+ paradigm that have been investigated so far. It is argued that the experimental
378
+ results obtained, contrary to what has recurrently been claimed, have failed to
379
+ discriminate between normative and nonnormative accounts of behavior. More general
380
+ implications of the analysis presented for past and future research on human information
381
+ search behavior and diagnostic reasoning are discussed.'
382
+ - source_sentence: 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
383
+
384
+
385
+ Title: Confidence and the description–experience distinction.
386
+
387
+ Abstract: In this paper, we extend the literature on the description–experience
388
+ gap in risky choices by focusing on how the mode of learning—through description
389
+ or experience—affects confidence. Specifically, we explore how learning through
390
+ description or experience affects confidence in (1) the information gathered to
391
+ make a decision and (2) the resulting choice. In two preregistered experiments
392
+ we tested whether there was a description–experience gap in both dimensions of
393
+ confidence. Learning from description was associated with higher confidence—both
394
+ in the information gathered and in the choice made—than was learning from experience.
395
+ In a third preregistered experiment, we examined the effect of sample size on
396
+ confidence in decisions from experience. Contrary to the normative view that larger
397
+ samples foster confidence in statistical inference, we observed that more experience
398
+ led to less confidence. This observation is reminiscent of recent theories of
399
+ deliberate ignorance, which highlight the adaptive benefits of deliberately limiting
400
+ information search.'
401
+ sentences:
402
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
403
+
404
+
405
+ Title: Episodic memories predict adaptive Value-Based Decision-Making.
406
+
407
+ Abstract: Prior research illustrates that memory can guide Value-Based Decision-Making.
408
+ For example, previous work has implicated both working memory and procedural memory
409
+ (i.e., reinforcement learning) in guiding choice. However, other types of memories,
410
+ such as episodic memory, may also influence Decision-Making. Here we test the
411
+ role for episodic Memory-Specifically item versus associative Memory-In supporting
412
+ Value-Based choice. Participants completed a task where they first learned the
413
+ value associated with trial unique lotteries. After a short delay, they completed
414
+ a Decision-Making task where they could choose to reengage with previously encountered
415
+ lotteries, or new never before seen lotteries. Finally, participants completed
416
+ a surprise memory test for the lotteries and their associated values. Results
417
+ indicate that participants chose to reengage more often with lotteries that resulted
418
+ in high versus low rewards. Critically, participants not only formed detailed,
419
+ associative memories for the reward values coupled with individual lotteries,
420
+ but also exhibited adaptive Decision-Making only when they had intact associative
421
+ memory. We further found that the relationship between adaptive choice and associative
422
+ memory generalized to more complex, ecologically valid choice behavior, such as
423
+ social decisionmaking. However, individuals more strongly encode experiences of
424
+ social Violations-Such as being treated unfairly, suggesting a bias for how individuals
425
+ form associative memories within social contexts. Together, these findings provide
426
+ an important integration of episodic memory and Decision-Making literatures to
427
+ better understand key mechanisms supporting adaptive behavior.'
428
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
429
+
430
+
431
+ Title: How (in)variant are subjective representations of described and experienced
432
+ risk and rewards?.
433
+
434
+ Abstract: Decisions under risk have been shown to differ depending on whether
435
+ information on outcomes and probabilities is gleaned from symbolic descriptions
436
+ or gathered through experience. To some extent, this description–experience gap
437
+ is due to sampling error in experience-based choice. Analyses with cumulative
438
+ prospect theory (CPT), investigating to what extent the gap is also driven by
439
+ differences in people''s subjective representations of outcome and probability
440
+ information (taking into account sampling error), have produced mixed results.
441
+ We improve on previous analyses of description-based and experience-based choices
442
+ by taking advantage of both a within-subjects design and a hierarchical Bayesian
443
+ implementation of CPT. This approach allows us to capture both the differences
444
+ and the within-person stability of individuals’ subjective representations across
445
+ the two modes of learning about choice options. Relative to decisions from description,
446
+ decisions from experience showed reduced sensitivity to probabilities and increased
447
+ sensitivity to outcomes. For some CPT parameters, individual differences were
448
+ relatively stable across modes of learning. Our results suggest that outcome and
449
+ probability information translate into systematically different subjective representations
450
+ in description- versus experience-based choice. At the same time, both types of
451
+ decisions seem to tap into the same individual-level regularities.'
452
+ - 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:
453
+
454
+
455
+ Title: Do narcissists make better decisions? An investigation of narcissism and
456
+ dynamic decision-making performance.
457
+
458
+ Abstract: We investigated whether narcissism affected dynamic decision-making
459
+ performance in the presence and absence of misleading information. Performance
460
+ was examined in a two-choice dynamic decision-making task where the optimal strategy
461
+ was to forego an option providing larger immediate rewards in favor of an option
462
+ that led to larger delayed rewards. Information regarding foregone rewards from
463
+ the alternate option was presented or withheld to bias participants toward the
464
+ sub-optimal choice. The results demonstrated that individuals high in narcissistic
465
+ traits performed comparably to low narcissism individuals when foregone reward
466
+ information was absent, but high narcissism individuals outperformed individuals
467
+ low in narcissistic traits when misleading information was presented. The advantage
468
+ for participants high in narcissistic traits was strongest within males, and,
469
+ overall, males outperformed females when foregone rewards were present. While
470
+ prior research emphasizes narcissists'' decision-making deficits, our findings
471
+ provide evidence that individuals high in narcissistic traits excel at decision-making
472
+ tasks that involve disregarding ambiguous information and focusing on the long-term
473
+ utility of each option. Their superior ability at filtering out misleading information
474
+ may reflect an effort to maintain their self-view or avoid ego threat.'
475
+ pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
476
+ library_name: sentence-transformers
477
+ ---
478
+
479
+ # SentenceTransformer based on sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2
480
+
481
+ This is a [sentence-transformers](https://www.SBERT.net) model finetuned from [sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2](https://huggingface.co/sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2). It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 384-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for semantic textual similarity, semantic search, paraphrase mining, text classification, clustering, and more.
482
+
483
+ ## Model Details
484
+
485
+ ### Model Description
486
+ - **Model Type:** Sentence Transformer
487
+ - **Base model:** [sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2](https://huggingface.co/sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2) <!-- at revision c9745ed1d9f207416be6d2e6f8de32d1f16199bf -->
488
+ - **Maximum Sequence Length:** 256 tokens
489
+ - **Output Dimensionality:** 384 dimensions
490
+ - **Similarity Function:** Cosine Similarity
491
+ <!-- - **Training Dataset:** Unknown -->
492
+ <!-- - **Language:** Unknown -->
493
+ <!-- - **License:** Unknown -->
494
+
495
+ ### Model Sources
496
+
497
+ - **Documentation:** [Sentence Transformers Documentation](https://sbert.net)
498
+ - **Repository:** [Sentence Transformers on GitHub](https://github.com/UKPLab/sentence-transformers)
499
+ - **Hugging Face:** [Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/models?library=sentence-transformers)
500
+
501
+ ### Full Model Architecture
502
+
503
+ ```
504
+ SentenceTransformer(
505
+ (0): Transformer({'max_seq_length': 256, 'do_lower_case': False}) with Transformer model: BertModel
506
+ (1): Pooling({'word_embedding_dimension': 384, 'pooling_mode_cls_token': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_tokens': True, 'pooling_mode_max_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_sqrt_len_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_weightedmean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_lasttoken': False, 'include_prompt': True})
507
+ (2): Normalize()
508
+ )
509
+ ```
510
+
511
+ ## Usage
512
+
513
+ ### Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)
514
+
515
+ First install the Sentence Transformers library:
516
+
517
+ ```bash
518
+ pip install -U sentence-transformers
519
+ ```
520
+
521
+ Then you can load this model and run inference.
522
+ ```python
523
+ from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer
524
+
525
+ # Download from the 🤗 Hub
526
+ model = SentenceTransformer("dwulff/minilm-brl")
527
+ # Run inference
528
+ sentences = [
529
+ 'An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:\n\nTitle: Confidence and the description–experience distinction.\nAbstract: In this paper, we extend the literature on the description–experience gap in risky choices by focusing on how the mode of learning—through description or experience—affects confidence. Specifically, we explore how learning through description or experience affects confidence in (1) the information gathered to make a decision and (2) the resulting choice. In two preregistered experiments we tested whether there was a description–experience gap in both dimensions of confidence. Learning from description was associated with higher confidence—both in the information gathered and in the choice made—than was learning from experience. In a third preregistered experiment, we examined the effect of sample size on confidence in decisions from experience. Contrary to the normative view that larger samples foster confidence in statistical inference, we observed that more experience led to less confidence. This observation is reminiscent of recent theories of deliberate ignorance, which highlight the adaptive benefits of deliberately limiting information search.',
530
+ "An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:\n\nTitle: How (in)variant are subjective representations of described and experienced risk and rewards?.\nAbstract: Decisions under risk have been shown to differ depending on whether information on outcomes and probabilities is gleaned from symbolic descriptions or gathered through experience. To some extent, this description–experience gap is due to sampling error in experience-based choice. Analyses with cumulative prospect theory (CPT), investigating to what extent the gap is also driven by differences in people's subjective representations of outcome and probability information (taking into account sampling error), have produced mixed results. We improve on previous analyses of description-based and experience-based choices by taking advantage of both a within-subjects design and a hierarchical Bayesian implementation of CPT. This approach allows us to capture both the differences and the within-person stability of individuals’ subjective representations across the two modes of learning about choice options. Relative to decisions from description, decisions from experience showed reduced sensitivity to probabilities and increased sensitivity to outcomes. For some CPT parameters, individual differences were relatively stable across modes of learning. Our results suggest that outcome and probability information translate into systematically different subjective representations in description- versus experience-based choice. At the same time, both types of decisions seem to tap into the same individual-level regularities.",
531
+ "An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:\n\nTitle: Do narcissists make better decisions? An investigation of narcissism and dynamic decision-making performance.\nAbstract: We investigated whether narcissism affected dynamic decision-making performance in the presence and absence of misleading information. Performance was examined in a two-choice dynamic decision-making task where the optimal strategy was to forego an option providing larger immediate rewards in favor of an option that led to larger delayed rewards. Information regarding foregone rewards from the alternate option was presented or withheld to bias participants toward the sub-optimal choice. The results demonstrated that individuals high in narcissistic traits performed comparably to low narcissism individuals when foregone reward information was absent, but high narcissism individuals outperformed individuals low in narcissistic traits when misleading information was presented. The advantage for participants high in narcissistic traits was strongest within males, and, overall, males outperformed females when foregone rewards were present. While prior research emphasizes narcissists' decision-making deficits, our findings provide evidence that individuals high in narcissistic traits excel at decision-making tasks that involve disregarding ambiguous information and focusing on the long-term utility of each option. Their superior ability at filtering out misleading information may reflect an effort to maintain their self-view or avoid ego threat.",
532
+ ]
533
+ embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
534
+ print(embeddings.shape)
535
+ # [3, 384]
536
+
537
+ # Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
538
+ similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
539
+ print(similarities.shape)
540
+ # [3, 3]
541
+ ```
542
+
543
+ <!--
544
+ ### Direct Usage (Transformers)
545
+
546
+ <details><summary>Click to see the direct usage in Transformers</summary>
547
+
548
+ </details>
549
+ -->
550
+
551
+ <!--
552
+ ### Downstream Usage (Sentence Transformers)
553
+
554
+ You can finetune this model on your own dataset.
555
+
556
+ <details><summary>Click to expand</summary>
557
+
558
+ </details>
559
+ -->
560
+
561
+ <!--
562
+ ### Out-of-Scope Use
563
+
564
+ *List how the model may foreseeably be misused and address what users ought not to do with the model.*
565
+ -->
566
+
567
+ <!--
568
+ ## Bias, Risks and Limitations
569
+
570
+ *What are the known or foreseeable issues stemming from this model? You could also flag here known failure cases or weaknesses of the model.*
571
+ -->
572
+
573
+ <!--
574
+ ### Recommendations
575
+
576
+ *What are recommendations with respect to the foreseeable issues? For example, filtering explicit content.*
577
+ -->
578
+
579
+ ## Training Details
580
+
581
+ ### Training Dataset
582
+
583
+ #### Unnamed Dataset
584
+
585
+ * Size: 50,000 training samples
586
+ * Columns: <code>sentence_0</code>, <code>sentence_1</code>, and <code>label</code>
587
+ * Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:
588
+ | | sentence_0 | sentence_1 | label |
589
+ |:--------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------|
590
+ | type | string | string | float |
591
+ | details | <ul><li>min: 102 tokens</li><li>mean: 237.66 tokens</li><li>max: 256 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 61 tokens</li><li>mean: 227.84 tokens</li><li>max: 256 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 0.0</li><li>mean: 0.17</li><li>max: 0.9</li></ul> |
592
+ * Samples:
593
+ | sentence_0 | sentence_1 | label |
594
+ |:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------|
595
+ | <code>An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:<br><br>Title: Working memory and response selection: A computational account of interactions among cortico-basalganglio-thalamic loops.<br>Abstract: Cortico-basalganglio-thalamic loops are involved in both cognitive processes and motor control. We present a biologically meaningful computational model of how these loops contribute to the organization of working memory and the development of response behavior. Via reinforcement learning in basal ganglia, the model develops flexible control of working memory within prefrontal loops and achieves selection of appropriate responses based on working memory content and visual stimulation within a motor loop. We show that both working memory control and response selection can evolve within parallel and interacting cortico-basalganglio-thalamic loops by Hebbian and three-factor learning rules. Furthermore, the model gives a coherent explanation for how complex strategies of working memory control and respo...</code> | <code>An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:<br><br>Title: The role of basal ganglia in reinforcement learning and imprinting in domestic chicks.<br>Abstract: Effects of bilateral kainate lesions of telencephalic basal ganglia (lobus parolfactorius, LPO) were examined in domestic chicks. In the imprinting paradigm, where chicks learned to selectively approach a moving object without any explicitly associated reward, both the pre- and post-training lesions were without effects. On the other hand, in the water-reinforced pecking task, pre-training lesions of LPO severely impaired immediate reinforcement as well as formation of the association memory. However, post-training LPO lesions did not cause amnesia, and chicks selectively pecked at the reinforced color. The LPO could thus be involved specifically in the evaluation of present rewards and the instantaneous reinforcement of pecking, but not in the execution of selective behavior based on a memorized color cue.</code> | <code>0.5</code> |
596
+ | <code>An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:<br><br>Title: Exploration Disrupts Choice-Predictive Signals and Alters Dynamics in Prefrontal Cortex.<br>Abstract: In uncertain environments, decision-makers must balance two goals: they must “exploit” rewarding options but also “explore” in order to discover rewarding alternatives. Exploring and exploiting necessarily change how the brain responds to identical stimuli, but little is known about how these states, and transitions between them, change how the brain transforms sensory information into action. To address this question, we recorded neural activity in a prefrontal sensorimotor area while monkeys naturally switched between exploring and exploiting rewarding options. We found that exploration profoundly reduced spatially selective, choice-predictive activity in single neurons and delayed choice-predictive population dynamics. At the same time, reward learning was increased in brain and behavior. These results indicate that exploration i...</code> | <code>An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:<br><br>Title: Counterfactual choice and learning in a Neural Network centered on human lateral frontopolar cortex.<br>Abstract: Decision making and learning in a real-world context require organisms to track not only the choices they make and the outcomes that follow but also other untaken, or counterfactual, choices and their outcomes. Although the neural system responsible for tracking the value of choices actually taken is increasingly well understood, whether a neural system tracks counterfactual information is currently unclear. Using a three-alternative decision-making task, a Bayesian reinforcement-learning algorithm, and fMRI, we investigated the coding of counterfactual choices and prediction errors in the human brain. Rather than representing evidence favoring multiple counterfactual choices, lateral frontal polar cortex (lFPC), dorsomedial frontal cortex (DMFC), and posteromedial cortex (PMC) encode the reward-based evidence favoring t...</code> | <code>0.5</code> |
597
+ | <code>An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:<br><br>Title: Electrophysiological signatures of visual statistical learning in 3-month-old infants at familial and low risk for autism spectrum disorder.<br>Abstract: Visual statistical learning (VSL) refers to the ability to extract associations and conditional probabilities within the visual environment. It may serve as a precursor to cognitive and social communication development. Quantifying VSL in infants at familial risk (FR) for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) provides opportunities to understand how genetic predisposition can influence early learning processes which may, in turn, lay a foundation for cognitive and social communication delays. We examined electroencephalography (EEG) signatures of VSL in 3-month-old infants, examining whether EEG correlates of VSL differentiated FR from low-risk (LR) infants. In an exploratory analysis, we then examined whether EEG correlates of VSL at 3 months relate to cognitive function and ASD symptoms...</code> | <code>An article on behavioral reinforcement learning:<br><br>Title: Reduced nucleus accumbens reactivity and adolescent depression following early-life stress.<br>Abstract: Depression is a common outcome for those having experienced early-life stress (ELS). For those individuals, depression typically increases during adolescence and appears to endure into adulthood, suggesting alterations in the development of brain systems involved in depression. Developmentally, the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), a limbic structure associated with reward learning and motivation, typically undergoes dramatic functional change during adolescence; therefore, age-related changes in NAcc function may underlie increases in depression in adolescence following ELS. The current study examined the effects of ELS in 38 previously institutionalized children and adolescents in comparison to a group of 31 youths without a history of ELS. Consistent with previous research, the findings showed that depression was higher in adolescents...</code> | <code>0.0</code> |
598
+ * Loss: [<code>CosineSimilarityLoss</code>](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/losses.html#cosinesimilarityloss) with these parameters:
599
+ ```json
600
+ {
601
+ "loss_fct": "torch.nn.modules.loss.MSELoss"
602
+ }
603
+ ```
604
+
605
+ ### Training Hyperparameters
606
+ #### Non-Default Hyperparameters
607
+
608
+ - `per_device_train_batch_size`: 64
609
+ - `per_device_eval_batch_size`: 64
610
+ - `num_train_epochs`: 5
611
+ - `multi_dataset_batch_sampler`: round_robin
612
+
613
+ #### All Hyperparameters
614
+ <details><summary>Click to expand</summary>
615
+
616
+ - `overwrite_output_dir`: False
617
+ - `do_predict`: False
618
+ - `eval_strategy`: no
619
+ - `prediction_loss_only`: True
620
+ - `per_device_train_batch_size`: 64
621
+ - `per_device_eval_batch_size`: 64
622
+ - `per_gpu_train_batch_size`: None
623
+ - `per_gpu_eval_batch_size`: None
624
+ - `gradient_accumulation_steps`: 1
625
+ - `eval_accumulation_steps`: None
626
+ - `torch_empty_cache_steps`: None
627
+ - `learning_rate`: 5e-05
628
+ - `weight_decay`: 0.0
629
+ - `adam_beta1`: 0.9
630
+ - `adam_beta2`: 0.999
631
+ - `adam_epsilon`: 1e-08
632
+ - `max_grad_norm`: 1
633
+ - `num_train_epochs`: 5
634
+ - `max_steps`: -1
635
+ - `lr_scheduler_type`: linear
636
+ - `lr_scheduler_kwargs`: {}
637
+ - `warmup_ratio`: 0.0
638
+ - `warmup_steps`: 0
639
+ - `log_level`: passive
640
+ - `log_level_replica`: warning
641
+ - `log_on_each_node`: True
642
+ - `logging_nan_inf_filter`: True
643
+ - `save_safetensors`: True
644
+ - `save_on_each_node`: False
645
+ - `save_only_model`: False
646
+ - `restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint`: False
647
+ - `no_cuda`: False
648
+ - `use_cpu`: False
649
+ - `use_mps_device`: False
650
+ - `seed`: 42
651
+ - `data_seed`: None
652
+ - `jit_mode_eval`: False
653
+ - `use_ipex`: False
654
+ - `bf16`: False
655
+ - `fp16`: False
656
+ - `fp16_opt_level`: O1
657
+ - `half_precision_backend`: auto
658
+ - `bf16_full_eval`: False
659
+ - `fp16_full_eval`: False
660
+ - `tf32`: None
661
+ - `local_rank`: 0
662
+ - `ddp_backend`: None
663
+ - `tpu_num_cores`: None
664
+ - `tpu_metrics_debug`: False
665
+ - `debug`: []
666
+ - `dataloader_drop_last`: False
667
+ - `dataloader_num_workers`: 0
668
+ - `dataloader_prefetch_factor`: None
669
+ - `past_index`: -1
670
+ - `disable_tqdm`: False
671
+ - `remove_unused_columns`: True
672
+ - `label_names`: None
673
+ - `load_best_model_at_end`: False
674
+ - `ignore_data_skip`: False
675
+ - `fsdp`: []
676
+ - `fsdp_min_num_params`: 0
677
+ - `fsdp_config`: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}
678
+ - `tp_size`: 0
679
+ - `fsdp_transformer_layer_cls_to_wrap`: None
680
+ - `accelerator_config`: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}
681
+ - `deepspeed`: None
682
+ - `label_smoothing_factor`: 0.0
683
+ - `optim`: adamw_torch
684
+ - `optim_args`: None
685
+ - `adafactor`: False
686
+ - `group_by_length`: False
687
+ - `length_column_name`: length
688
+ - `ddp_find_unused_parameters`: None
689
+ - `ddp_bucket_cap_mb`: None
690
+ - `ddp_broadcast_buffers`: False
691
+ - `dataloader_pin_memory`: True
692
+ - `dataloader_persistent_workers`: False
693
+ - `skip_memory_metrics`: True
694
+ - `use_legacy_prediction_loop`: False
695
+ - `push_to_hub`: False
696
+ - `resume_from_checkpoint`: None
697
+ - `hub_model_id`: None
698
+ - `hub_strategy`: every_save
699
+ - `hub_private_repo`: None
700
+ - `hub_always_push`: False
701
+ - `gradient_checkpointing`: False
702
+ - `gradient_checkpointing_kwargs`: None
703
+ - `include_inputs_for_metrics`: False
704
+ - `include_for_metrics`: []
705
+ - `eval_do_concat_batches`: True
706
+ - `fp16_backend`: auto
707
+ - `push_to_hub_model_id`: None
708
+ - `push_to_hub_organization`: None
709
+ - `mp_parameters`:
710
+ - `auto_find_batch_size`: False
711
+ - `full_determinism`: False
712
+ - `torchdynamo`: None
713
+ - `ray_scope`: last
714
+ - `ddp_timeout`: 1800
715
+ - `torch_compile`: False
716
+ - `torch_compile_backend`: None
717
+ - `torch_compile_mode`: None
718
+ - `dispatch_batches`: None
719
+ - `split_batches`: None
720
+ - `include_tokens_per_second`: False
721
+ - `include_num_input_tokens_seen`: False
722
+ - `neftune_noise_alpha`: None
723
+ - `optim_target_modules`: None
724
+ - `batch_eval_metrics`: False
725
+ - `eval_on_start`: False
726
+ - `use_liger_kernel`: False
727
+ - `eval_use_gather_object`: False
728
+ - `average_tokens_across_devices`: False
729
+ - `prompts`: None
730
+ - `batch_sampler`: batch_sampler
731
+ - `multi_dataset_batch_sampler`: round_robin
732
+
733
+ </details>
734
+
735
+ ### Training Logs
736
+ | Epoch | Step | Training Loss |
737
+ |:------:|:----:|:-------------:|
738
+ | 0.6394 | 500 | 0.0179 |
739
+ | 1.2788 | 1000 | 0.0124 |
740
+ | 1.9182 | 1500 | 0.0107 |
741
+ | 2.5575 | 2000 | 0.0092 |
742
+ | 3.1969 | 2500 | 0.0086 |
743
+ | 3.8363 | 3000 | 0.0078 |
744
+ | 4.4757 | 3500 | 0.0073 |
745
+
746
+
747
+ ### Framework Versions
748
+ - Python: 3.13.2
749
+ - Sentence Transformers: 4.0.2
750
+ - Transformers: 4.50.0.dev0
751
+ - PyTorch: 2.6.0
752
+ - Accelerate: 1.5.2
753
+ - Datasets: 3.5.0
754
+ - Tokenizers: 0.21.1
755
+
756
+ ## Citation
757
+
758
+ ### BibTeX
759
+
760
+ #### Sentence Transformers
761
+ ```bibtex
762
+ @inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert,
763
+ title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks",
764
+ author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna",
765
+ booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
766
+ month = "11",
767
+ year = "2019",
768
+ publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
769
+ url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084",
770
+ }
771
+ ```
772
+
773
+ <!--
774
+ ## Glossary
775
+
776
+ *Clearly define terms in order to be accessible across audiences.*
777
+ -->
778
+
779
+ <!--
780
+ ## Model Card Authors
781
+
782
+ *Lists the people who create the model card, providing recognition and accountability for the detailed work that goes into its construction.*
783
+ -->
784
+
785
+ <!--
786
+ ## Model Card Contact
787
+
788
+ *Provides a way for people who have updates to the Model Card, suggestions, or questions, to contact the Model Card authors.*
789
+ -->
config.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ {
2
+ "architectures": [
3
+ "BertModel"
4
+ ],
5
+ "attention_probs_dropout_prob": 0.1,
6
+ "classifier_dropout": null,
7
+ "gradient_checkpointing": false,
8
+ "hidden_act": "gelu",
9
+ "hidden_dropout_prob": 0.1,
10
+ "hidden_size": 384,
11
+ "initializer_range": 0.02,
12
+ "intermediate_size": 1536,
13
+ "layer_norm_eps": 1e-12,
14
+ "max_position_embeddings": 512,
15
+ "model_type": "bert",
16
+ "num_attention_heads": 12,
17
+ "num_hidden_layers": 6,
18
+ "pad_token_id": 0,
19
+ "position_embedding_type": "absolute",
20
+ "torch_dtype": "float32",
21
+ "transformers_version": "4.50.0.dev0",
22
+ "type_vocab_size": 2,
23
+ "use_cache": true,
24
+ "vocab_size": 30522
25
+ }
config_sentence_transformers.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ {
2
+ "__version__": {
3
+ "sentence_transformers": "4.0.2",
4
+ "transformers": "4.50.0.dev0",
5
+ "pytorch": "2.6.0"
6
+ },
7
+ "prompts": {},
8
+ "default_prompt_name": null,
9
+ "similarity_fn_name": "cosine"
10
+ }
model.safetensors ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
 
 
 
 
1
+ version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
2
+ oid sha256:18a8507cd33f1a7f86c4f9d6179c8694bde6dda77d02482ab21ef0515465fc4b
3
+ size 90864192
modules.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ [
2
+ {
3
+ "idx": 0,
4
+ "name": "0",
5
+ "path": "",
6
+ "type": "sentence_transformers.models.Transformer"
7
+ },
8
+ {
9
+ "idx": 1,
10
+ "name": "1",
11
+ "path": "1_Pooling",
12
+ "type": "sentence_transformers.models.Pooling"
13
+ },
14
+ {
15
+ "idx": 2,
16
+ "name": "2",
17
+ "path": "2_Normalize",
18
+ "type": "sentence_transformers.models.Normalize"
19
+ }
20
+ ]
sentence_bert_config.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ {
2
+ "max_seq_length": 256,
3
+ "do_lower_case": false
4
+ }
special_tokens_map.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ {
2
+ "cls_token": {
3
+ "content": "[CLS]",
4
+ "lstrip": false,
5
+ "normalized": false,
6
+ "rstrip": false,
7
+ "single_word": false
8
+ },
9
+ "mask_token": {
10
+ "content": "[MASK]",
11
+ "lstrip": false,
12
+ "normalized": false,
13
+ "rstrip": false,
14
+ "single_word": false
15
+ },
16
+ "pad_token": {
17
+ "content": "[PAD]",
18
+ "lstrip": false,
19
+ "normalized": false,
20
+ "rstrip": false,
21
+ "single_word": false
22
+ },
23
+ "sep_token": {
24
+ "content": "[SEP]",
25
+ "lstrip": false,
26
+ "normalized": false,
27
+ "rstrip": false,
28
+ "single_word": false
29
+ },
30
+ "unk_token": {
31
+ "content": "[UNK]",
32
+ "lstrip": false,
33
+ "normalized": false,
34
+ "rstrip": false,
35
+ "single_word": false
36
+ }
37
+ }
tokenizer.json ADDED
The diff for this file is too large to render. See raw diff
 
tokenizer_config.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ {
2
+ "added_tokens_decoder": {
3
+ "0": {
4
+ "content": "[PAD]",
5
+ "lstrip": false,
6
+ "normalized": false,
7
+ "rstrip": false,
8
+ "single_word": false,
9
+ "special": true
10
+ },
11
+ "100": {
12
+ "content": "[UNK]",
13
+ "lstrip": false,
14
+ "normalized": false,
15
+ "rstrip": false,
16
+ "single_word": false,
17
+ "special": true
18
+ },
19
+ "101": {
20
+ "content": "[CLS]",
21
+ "lstrip": false,
22
+ "normalized": false,
23
+ "rstrip": false,
24
+ "single_word": false,
25
+ "special": true
26
+ },
27
+ "102": {
28
+ "content": "[SEP]",
29
+ "lstrip": false,
30
+ "normalized": false,
31
+ "rstrip": false,
32
+ "single_word": false,
33
+ "special": true
34
+ },
35
+ "103": {
36
+ "content": "[MASK]",
37
+ "lstrip": false,
38
+ "normalized": false,
39
+ "rstrip": false,
40
+ "single_word": false,
41
+ "special": true
42
+ }
43
+ },
44
+ "clean_up_tokenization_spaces": false,
45
+ "cls_token": "[CLS]",
46
+ "do_basic_tokenize": true,
47
+ "do_lower_case": true,
48
+ "extra_special_tokens": {},
49
+ "mask_token": "[MASK]",
50
+ "max_length": 128,
51
+ "model_max_length": 256,
52
+ "never_split": null,
53
+ "pad_to_multiple_of": null,
54
+ "pad_token": "[PAD]",
55
+ "pad_token_type_id": 0,
56
+ "padding_side": "right",
57
+ "sep_token": "[SEP]",
58
+ "stride": 0,
59
+ "strip_accents": null,
60
+ "tokenize_chinese_chars": true,
61
+ "tokenizer_class": "BertTokenizer",
62
+ "truncation_side": "right",
63
+ "truncation_strategy": "longest_first",
64
+ "unk_token": "[UNK]"
65
+ }
vocab.txt ADDED
The diff for this file is too large to render. See raw diff