Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Revealing the Blind Spot of Sentence Encoder Evaluation by HEROS

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.05083 v2 pith:NUQWU4O2 submitted 2023-06-08 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords sentenceherossimilarbenchmarksdifferentencoderlexicalpairs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing sentence textual similarity benchmark datasets only use a single number to summarize how similar the sentence encoder's decision is to humans'. However, it is unclear what kind of sentence pairs a sentence encoder (SE) would consider similar. Moreover, existing SE benchmarks mainly consider sentence pairs with low lexical overlap, so it is unclear how the SEs behave when two sentences have high lexical overlap. We introduce a high-quality SE diagnostic dataset, HEROS. HEROS is constructed by transforming an original sentence into a new sentence based on certain rules to form a \textit{minimal pair}, and the minimal pair has high lexical overlaps. The rules include replacing a word with a synonym, an antonym, a typo, a random word, and converting the original sentence into its negation. Different rules yield different subsets of HEROS. By systematically comparing the performance of over 60 supervised and unsupervised SEs on HEROS, we reveal that most unsupervised sentence encoders are insensitive to negation. We find the datasets used to train the SE are the main determinants of what kind of sentence pairs an SE considers similar. We also show that even if two SEs have similar performance on STS benchmarks, they can have very different behavior on HEROS. Our result reveals the blind spot of traditional STS benchmarks when evaluating SEs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Similarity Gates Approve Reversals: A Validity Audit of Embedding-Cosine Thresholds in Agent Systems

    cs.CL 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Embedding-cosine thresholds used as meaning gates instead measure lexical overlap, so in the target cases of reversal-versus-paraphrase the gates fire backwards; a matched-pair audit reveals the regime.

Pith tools