When is an Embedding Model More Promising than Another?

Embedders play a central role in machine learning, projecting any object into numerical representations that can, in turn, be leveraged to perform various downstream tasks. The evaluation of embedding models typically depends on domain-specific empirical approaches utilizing downstream tasks, primarily because of the lack of a standardized framework for comparison. However, acquiring adequately large and representative datasets for conducting these assessments is not always viable and can prove to be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. In this paper, we present a unified approach to evaluate embedders. First, we establish theoretical foundations for comparing embedding models, drawing upon the concepts of sufficiency and informativeness. We then leverage these concepts to devise a tractable comparison criterion (information sufficiency), leading to a task-agnostic and self-supervised ranking procedure. We demonstrate experimentally that our approach aligns closely with the capability of embedding models to facilitate various downstream tasks in both natural language processing and molecular biology. This effectively offers practitioners a valuable tool for prioritizing model trials.

Is Meta-training Really Necessary for Molecular Few-Shot Learning ?

Few-shot learning has recently attracted significant interest in drug discovery, with a recent, fast-growing literature mostly involving convoluted meta-learning strategies. We revisit the more straightforward fine-tuning approach for molecular data, and propose a regularized quadratic-probe loss based on the the Mahalanobis distance. We design a dedicated block-coordinate descent optimizer, which avoid the degenerate solutions of our loss. Interestingly, our simple fine-tuning approach achieves highly competitive performances in comparison to state-of-the-art methods, while being applicable to black-box settings and removing the need for specific episodic pre-training strategies. Furthermore, we introduce a new benchmark to assess the robustness of the competing methods to domain shifts. In this setting, our fine-tuning baseline obtains consistently better results than meta-learning methods.

$\texttt{COSMIC}$: Mutual Information for Task-Agnostic Summarization Evaluation

Assessing the quality of summarizers poses significant challenges. In response, we propose a novel task-oriented evaluation approach that assesses summarizers based on their capacity to produce summaries that are useful for downstream tasks, while preserving task outcomes. We theoretically establish a direct relationship between the resulting error probability of these tasks and the mutual information between source texts and generated summaries. We introduce $\texttt{COSMIC}$ as a practical implementation of this metric, demonstrating its strong correlation with human judgment-based metrics and its effectiveness in predicting downstream task performance. Comparative analyses against established metrics like $\texttt{BERTScore}$ and $\texttt{ROUGE}$ highlight the competitive performance of $\texttt{COSMIC}$.