Seperating premise and hypothesis in MNLI
# ❓ Questions & Help

I'm adding it here since I didn't receive any reply on SO. I think this query might be relevant for people who are working in few-shot, contrastive/metric learning space.

I'm trying to implement Siamese like transformer architecture. Similar work has been done in SentenceBERT paper. I'm facing an issue. To seperate hypothesis and premise, I modify [this line](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/blob/3dcb748e31be8c7c9e4f62926c5c144c62d07218/src/transformers/data/processors/glue.py#L131) from `_glue_convert_examples_to_features`. Instead I do
```
batch_encoding_a = tokenizer(
        [example.text_a for example in examples],
        max_length=max_length,
        padding="max_length",
        truncation=True,
    )
``` 
Did the same thing for `examples.text_b` to obtain `batch_encoding_b`. Then I modify the GlueDataset by modifying [this line mainly](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/blob/3dcb748e31be8c7c9e4f62926c5c144c62d07218/src/transformers/data/datasets/glue.py#L125), since this will return two items now (segregated "hypothesis" and premise").
Then `__getitem__` is modified accordingly to return `self.features_a[i], self.features_b[i]`.

That's the gist of how I'm obtaining segregated "hypothesis" and "premise". These are then passed to two BERTs (or one BERT if its weights are kept frozen).

This is how I've defined the `collate_fn`
```
def siamese_data_collator(batch):
    features_a, features_b = [], []
    for item in batch:
        for k, v in item.items():
            if k == "a":
                features_a.append(v)
            else:
                features_b.append(v)
    return {
        "a": default_data_collator(features_a),
        "b": default_data_collator(features_b),
    }
```
Then the `dataloader` is created in the usual way. So when we iterate like this:
```
def _training_step(...):
        model.train()
        for k, v in inputs["a"].items():
            if isinstance(v, torch.Tensor):
                inputs["a"][k] = v.to(self.args.device)

    # we get inputs['a'] and inputs['b'] which is passed to the model
``` 
I had to modify `_training_step` and `evaluate` accordingly in the `Trainer` class.

Now the problem is, the model doesn't learn at all (`bert-base-uncased`). I tried with using my `model` and modified `Trainer` with standard `GlueDataset`, and it works. This leads to the conclusion that something is off with the data. The model should learn something (even if is not being fed concatenated "hypothesis" and "premise").

The model basically has one BERT and one linear layer. The logits come from linear layer which is then used to compute loss function (typical siamese like architecture).

Can you suggest if there's an issue in how the `Dataset` is being created here, or propose something of your own to segregate "hypothesis" and "premise" so that they can be fed separately to BERT.

Link to [Stack Overflow question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62771502/seperating-premise-and-hypothesis-in-mnli)
Might be of interest to @joeddav :)<|||||>I've solved this problem. Thanks a lot @joeddav for even showing interest. You guys are very supportive. I'll post what I did so that if someone is stuck, they can refer.
In all `SequenceClassification` model, there's a linear layer. So we can straightaway add the loss from both heads. You can choose to decide how to process the logits , for ex. `[u+v, u-v, u*v]` where `u` and `v` are the respective output vector/logits. It was not a good idea to directly deal with raw hidden states from `BertModel` in my case. I'm closing it now.<|||||>@prajjwal1 Glad you figured it out! FYI we launched a [discussion forum](https://discuss.huggingface.co/) this week (after you opened this issue I think). Questions like this would be well-suited to that forum if you have more to ask or want to help out other people in the community! 😇<|||||>@joeddav Yeah I have answered a couple of questions there already. I was the one who commented about requesting a forum and posted a link at ACL chat. The forum came into being the next day. Maybe someone was working inside the team while other team members didn't know. But really good to have it.<|||||>@prajjwal1 Ahhh yess, sorry I didn't make the connection :) Yes, we had been having some discussions about having our own forum and I knew we had some people working on it, but none of us on rocket chat realized it would be released the next day haha