metadata

language:
  - en
tags:
  - sentence-transformers
  - sentence-similarity
  - feature-extraction
  - generated_from_trainer
  - dataset_size:2828
  - loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: nomic-ai/modernbert-embed-base
widget:
  - source_sentence: >-
      search_document: The first respects the interest in which the litigation
      is being prosecuted, and the second is the failure of the plaintiff to
      either plead or prove a cause of action on his behalf as a stockholder. If
      this litigation had been honestly instituted by a stockholder for the
      protection of his and other stockholders ’ rights, and was not so
      evidently a suit instigated by a rival company for its own interests, we
      should strive to be astute to discover some remedy for a very evident
      wrong. The far reaching and flexible nature of equitable powers might,
      with proper proof and under other circumstances, enable us to do justice
      as between the stockholders of the Grey Creek Company and Chappell, its
      officer and director. But we have no inclination to struggle for this
      result, because it is a well settled principle that whenever it is made to
      appear that the suit was. not begun in good faith by a shareholder for the
      protection of his rights, but was in reality originated and prosecuted by
      another corporation for its own benefit, the court will consider what led
      the plaintiff to institute his suit, and, finding some other reason than a
      desire to protect stockholders ’ rights, will refuse to entertain the
      bill. Forrest v. Manchester, etc., R ' way Co., 4 De G., F. & J. 19 ( 65
      Eng. Chan., 125 ) ; Filder v. London, etc., R ' way Co., 1 H. & M. 489 ;
      Belmont v. Erie R ' way Co. et al., 52 Barb. 637 ; Waterbury v. The
      Merchants ’ Union Express Co., 50 Barb. 157 ; Camblos v. The P. & R. R. R.
      Co., 4 Brewster, 563. Naturally, the cases respecting this proposition are
      limited, since the question could not often arise. It seldom happens that
      shareholders, otherwise than for the protection of their own interests,
      come into courts of equity to seek redress for wrongs done the corporation
      of which they are * 331members. But wherever it is apparent that this has
      been done, the courts have never hesitated to send the plaintiff out of
      court and refuse him relief.
    sentences:
      - >-
        search_query: When can a shareholder's lawsuit be dismissed for lack of
        good faith?
      - >-
        search_query: What are the requirements for filing a patent application
        in the United States?
      - >-
        search_query: How are disputes over partnership assets and liabilities
        resolved in court?
  - source_sentence: >-
      search_document: It must be conceded that defendant ’ s property within
      the State is negligible. * 766The salaries of Titus and the other salesman
      are paid by the defendant ’ s home office. Titus and his associate
      salesman are employed on a salary basis and devote all their time to the
      business of the defendant. Titus employs a young woman stenographer and
      pays her out of the aforementioned “ H. B. Titus, Special ” account.
      Defendant has no other employees in New York. Titus and his associate are
      constantly and systematically engaged within the State of New York in
      soliciting business for the defendant. Their activities result in the
      continuous shipment by the defendant of its product into and outside of
      the State of New York. It was testified by Titus that the shipments into
      this State attain a monthly average of approximately $ 14, 000. Shipments
      are made in every case from factories without the State “ f. o. b. plant.
      ” Orders received by Titus from new customers are transmitted to the home
      office in Cleveland and are there accepted or rejected, presumably after
      due investigation of the customer ’ s credit standing. In the case of
      orders received from approved accounts, that is to say, from customers who
      have previously done business with the defendant and whose credit standing
      has been found satisfactory by the defendant ’ s home office, and who have
      thus established a permanent relationship with defendant ’ s New York
      office, Titus promptly transmits the order to the factory, by means of a
      teletype machine which the defendant caused to be installed in the 50
      Church street office for the use of Titus. This practice is always
      followed in the case of a rush order from an approved account if the
      amount of the order is not unusually large ; and the testimony affords
      some reason to suppose that it is followed in the case of every normal -
      sized order from such an account. As a general rule, prices are
      established by the Cleveland office, but Titus was sometimes authorized to
      quote varying prices in order to meet competition. Orders received on the
      basis of prices thus quoted by Titus required the approval of the home
      office, but were, as a matter of fact, in no instance rejected. Defendant
      ’ s customers in New York make payment directly to the Cleveland office,
      but when instructed to do so, Titus undertakes the collection of
      delinquent accounts.
    sentences:
      - >-
        search_query: What factors are considered by courts in determining the
        best interest of a child in custody cases?
      - >-
        search_query: What are the tax implications of freelancing as a sole
        proprietor?
      - >-
        search_query: What constitutes sufficient business activity for a
        company to be subject to jurisdiction in a state?
  - source_sentence: >-
      search_document: The evil is still just as great as it was formerly, if a
      party can have only legal or equitable relief in the same action. In such
      case, if he commences his action asking for equitable relief, as for
      instance a specific performance, and it turns out that he is not entitled
      to it, but only to legal relief, by way of damages, he might perhaps, if
      such strictness is to govern, be put to a new action to obtain redress.
      This certainly ought not to be ; and such a strictness is hostile to the
      whole spirit of the change that has been made. In trying such a cause at
      the circuit, I should most certainly allow whatever amendment in the
      pleadings was necesssary to give the party redress. If the plaintiff had
      asked for equitable relief, and it turned out that he was entitled to
      legal relief only, I should permit him to take it in that form. And if he
      had asked for legal relief only, Avhen he was entitled to both legal and
      equitable relief, I should allow the proper amendment to administer
      complete justice in the case. The power to amend, authorized by the Code,
      is ample for such purpose. Noav the last case of amendment I have
      mentioned as permissible at the circuit, is precisely what is claimed in
      this case, with this difference only, that it is claimed to be made here,
      before issue joined, and when, of course, the defendant has abundant time
      and opportunity to prepare to meet the claim at the circuit. I see no
      objection in this case to uniting claims for both legal and equitable
      relief in the same action. Both depend on the same transaction and both
      are necessary to indemnify the plaintiff for past, and to protect him
      against future injury. I think the proper course, under our present system
      of practice, is to give the party whatever relief is applicable to the
      facts put * 271in issue in the pleadings and established on the trial,
      whether such relief be legal or equitable, or both. And I see no reason
      against uniting in one action claims for both legal and eqiutable relief,
      when they are not inconsistent with each other ( Linden agt. Hepburn, 5
      How. Pr. R. 188 ).
    sentences:
      - >-
        search_query: What are the time requirements for challenging a
        candidate's qualifications to appear on a ballot in Kentucky?
      - >-
        search_query: Can legal and equitable claims be united in one action
        under modern legal practice?
      - >-
        search_query: What are the requirements for filing an international
        patent application?
  - source_sentence: >-
      search_document: The major points presented by appellants are, first, that
      the city of Newark took but an easement in the property, second, that if
      the city did acquire a fee, it was a conditional, base or determinable
      fee, and, finally, that in either event the use for which the property was
      condemned has been abandoned and, in consequence, the property has
      reverted to the former owner. The city responds that, by virtue of the
      condemnation proceedings, it acquired an estate in fee - simple absolute,
      the title to which is not subject to any right of reversion, and,
      furthermore, that even though the city be found to possess only a
      qualified fee, it may nevertheless devote the land to the street use. *
      Page 327 It may be said of a municipality, as it was said of a railroad
      corporation in Currie v. New York Transit Company and National Docks
      Railway Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 313, that the quantity of interest in land
      obtained by it under the power of eminent domain is that which the statute
      conferring the power authorizes it to acquire and that the legislature may
      authorize the taking of a fee or any less estate in its discretion. The
      earlier cases were reviewed by our Chief Justice in the opinion written by
      him for this court in the Currie case and need not be here adverted to in
      the continued recognition of the enunciated principle. The next question
      is : What quantity of interest did the statute which conferred the power
      of eminent domain authorize the city to acquire? The statute is to be
      read, not under the necessity of finding fixed phraseology, but to
      ascertain its intent, because this intent, clearly found, will prevail. No
      precise words are necessary in a statute to authorize the condemnation of
      a fee. As was said by Mr. Justice Holmes, then a justice of the Supreme
      Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in City of Newton v. Perry, 163 Mass. 319
      ; 39 N. E. Rep. 1032, " there are no sacramental words which must be used
      in a statutory power to take and hold lands in order to give a right to
      take the lands in fee. " See, also, Driscoll v. City of New Haven ( Conn.
      ), 52 Atl.
    sentences:
      - >-
        search_query: What legal principles govern equality and uniformity in
        taxation laws?
      - >-
        search_query: What determines the type of interest a municipality can
        acquire through eminent domain?
      - >-
        search_query: What are the requirements for filing a patent application
        in the United States?
  - source_sentence: >-
      search_document: . for one year ” ; this was eventually codified as part
      of G. L. c. 210, § 3, which also specified other grounds for dispensing
      with parental consent, such as current imprisonment of the parent for more
      than three years. Chapter 593, § 1, of the Acts of 1953, codified as G. L.
      c. 210, § 3A, first provided for an independent proceeding, prior to
      adoption proceedings proper, at which it could be determined whether
      parental consent was to be necessary for the adoption. Its purpose was to
      facilitate and expedite the process of adoption of children being held in
      temporary foster care. See the Department of Public Welfare
      recommendations, 1953 House Doc. No. 118, accompanying their draft bill,.
      1953 House Doc. No. 124. The proceeding could be brought by the Department
      of Public Welfare or any appropriate child care agency having custody of
      the child. But the act was silent as to the standards to be applied in
      deciding when consent could be dispensed with, and in Consent to Adoption
      of a Minor, 345 Mass. 706 ( 1963 ), this court held that, in the absence
      of any other indication in the statute, the conditions set out in § 3 for
      direct adoptions were still to be met ; specifically, the court held that
      a finding of parental “ unsuitability, ” without a finding of * 638wilful
      desertion or neglect for a year, was not an adequate basis for a decree
      dispensing with the parental consent. The department had evidently not
      intended the § 3 conditions to be read into the independent § 3A
      proceeding. Therefore the department immediately sponsored St. 1964, c.
      425, which provided that consent could be dispensed with “ if the court
      finds that the best interests of the child will be served by placement for
      adoption ” ; the court was not to be restricted by the § 3 conditions, but
      was to give “ due regard to the ability, capacity and fitness of the child
      ’ s parents. . . and to the plans proposed by the department or other
      agency initiating such petition. ” This statute thus broadened the factors
      the court could consider in deciding whether to proceed over the parent ’
      s objections ; unsuitability besides desertion or neglect was now clearly
      an available ground.
    sentences:
      - >-
        search_query: What are the legal standards for dispensing with parental
        consent in adoption cases?
      - >-
        search_query: What are the tax implications of inheriting property from
        a deceased relative?
      - >-
        search_query: What legal remedies are available when surface water
        drainage causes damage to private property?
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
metrics:
  - cosine_accuracy
model-index:
  - name: modernbert-embed-base trained on triplets
    results:
      - task:
          type: triplet
          name: Triplet
        dataset:
          name: dev
          type: dev
        metrics:
          - type: cosine_accuracy
            value: 0.9959100484848022
            name: Cosine Accuracy
          - type: cosine_accuracy
            value: 0.9938650131225586
            name: Cosine Accuracy
license: cc0-1.0

modernbert-embed-base trained on triplets

This is a sentence-transformers model finetuned from nomic-ai/modernbert-embed-base. It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for semantic textual similarity, semantic search, paraphrase mining, text classification, clustering, and more.

Model Details

Model Description

Model Type: Sentence Transformer
Base model: nomic-ai/modernbert-embed-base
Maximum Sequence Length: 8192 tokens
Output Dimensionality: 768 dimensions
Similarity Function: Cosine Similarity
Language: en
License: apache-2.0

Model Sources

Documentation: Sentence Transformers Documentation
Repository: Sentence Transformers on GitHub
Hugging Face: Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face

Full Model Architecture

SentenceTransformer(
  (0): Transformer({'max_seq_length': 8192, 'do_lower_case': False}) with Transformer model: ModernBertModel 
  (1): Pooling({'word_embedding_dimension': 768, '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})
  (2): Normalize()
)

Usage

Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)

First install the Sentence Transformers library:

pip install -U sentence-transformers

Then you can load this model and run inference.

from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer

# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("Free-Law-Project/modernbert-embed-base_finetune_512")
# Run inference
sentences = [
    'search_document: This was eventually codified as part of G. L. c. 210, § 3, which also specified other grounds for dispensing with parental consent, such as current imprisonment of the parent for more than three years. Chapter 593, § 1, of the Acts of 1953, codified as G. L. c. 210, § 3A, first provided for an independent proceeding, prior to adoption proceedings proper, at which it could be determined whether parental consent was to be necessary for the adoption. Its purpose was to facilitate and expedite the process of adoption of children being held in temporary foster care. See the Department of Public Welfare recommendations, 1953 House Doc. No. 118, accompanying their draft bill,. 1953 House Doc. No. 124. The proceeding could be brought by the Department of Public Welfare or any appropriate child care agency having custody of the child. But the act was silent as to the standards to be applied in deciding when consent could be dispensed with, and in Consent to Adoption of a Minor, 345 Mass. 706 ( 1963 ), this court held that, in the absence of any other indication in the statute, the conditions set out in § 3 for direct adoptions were still to be met ; specifically, the court held that a finding of parental “ unsuitability, ” without a finding of * 638wilful desertion or neglect for a year, was not an adequate basis for a decree dispensing with the parental consent. The department had evidently not intended the § 3 conditions to be read into the independent § 3A proceeding. Therefore the department immediately sponsored St. 1964, c. 425, which provided that consent could be dispensed with “ if the court finds that the best interests of the child will be served by placement for adoption ” ; the court was not to be restricted by the § 3 conditions, but was to give “ due regard to the ability, capacity and fitness of the child ’ s parents. . . and to the plans proposed by the department or other agency initiating such petition. ” This statute thus broadened the factors the court could consider in deciding whether to proceed over the parent ’ s objections ; unsuitability besides desertion or neglect was now clearly an available ground.',
    'search_query: What are the legal standards for dispensing with parental consent in adoption cases?',
    'search_query: What are the tax implications of inheriting property from a deceased relative?',
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 768]

# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities.shape)
# [3, 3]

Evaluation

Metrics

Triplet

Dataset: dev
Evaluated with TripletEvaluator

Metric	Value
cosine_accuracy	0.9959

Triplet

Dataset: dev
Evaluated with TripletEvaluator

Metric	Value
cosine_accuracy	0.9939

Training Details

Training Dataset

Free-Law-Project/opinions-synthetic-query-512

Size: 2,828 training samples
Columns: anchor, positive, and negative

Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

	anchor	positive	negative
type	string	string	string
details	min: 33 tokens mean: 407.44 tokens max: 487 tokens	min: 15 tokens mean: 21.59 tokens max: 34 tokens	min: 14 tokens mean: 18.47 tokens max: 27 tokens

Samples:

anchor	positive	negative
search_document: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT EURICE McGILL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17 - 1492 [ August 31, 2017 ] Appeal of order denying rule 3. 850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman, Judge ; L. T. Case No. 10 - 12523CF10A. Eurice McGill, Lake City, pro se. No appearance required for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.	`search_query: What are the procedural outcomes of appealing a denied rule 3.850 motion in Florida?`	`search_query: What are the tax implications of forming an LLC in Florida?`
search_document: Twersky v Incorporated Vil. of Great Neck ( 2015 NY Slip Op 02755 ) Twersky v Incorporated Vil. of Great Neck 2015 NY Slip Op 02755 Decided on April 1, 2015 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on April 1, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department RANDALL T. ENG, P. J. LEONARD B. AUSTIN JEFFREY A. COHEN BETSY BARROS, JJ. 2014 - 07552 ( Index No. 9576 / 12 ) [ * 1 ] Sharon Twersky, respondent, v Incorporated Village of Great Neck, et al., defendants, FHM Mortgage Corp., et al., appellants. Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City, N. Y. ( Howard B. Altman of counsel ), for appellants. Isaacson, Schiowitz & Korson, LLP, Rockville Centre, N. Y. ( Jeremy Schiowitz of counsel ), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for...	`search_query: What is the appellate court's role in reviewing motions for summary judgment in personal injury cases?`	`search_query: What are the tax implications of selling real estate in New York?`
search_document: ), entered June 17, 2014, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. On the evening of November 18, 2011, the plaintiff, while walking on a sidewalk abutting property then owned by the defendants FHM Mortgage Corp. and Killer B ' s Realty Holding Corp. ( hereinafter together the appellants ), allegedly slipped and fell on a driveway apron covered by a blanket of wet and slimy leaves. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that it was very dark in the area where the accident occurred and that the lamp posts in the vicinity did not provide much illumination. She also testified that the portion of the apron on which she slipped sloped down to meet the driveway. The appellants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied their motion...	`search_query: What is the legal responsibility of property owners for maintaining a safe environment on their premises?`	`search_query: What are the tax implications of selling real estate property for a profit?`

Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:

{
    "scale": 20.0,
    "similarity_fct": "cos_sim"
}

Evaluation Dataset

Free-Law-Project/opinions-synthetic-query-512

Size: 489 evaluation samples
Columns: anchor, positive, and negative

Approximate statistics based on the first 489 samples:

	anchor	positive	negative
type	string	string	string
details	min: 23 tokens mean: 401.07 tokens max: 482 tokens	min: 15 tokens mean: 22.1 tokens max: 35 tokens	min: 15 tokens mean: 18.69 tokens max: 26 tokens

Samples:

anchor	positive	negative
search_document: Mr. Justice Mercur delivered the opinion of the court, November 20th 1882. Both parties claim title to this land under sheriff ’ s sale as the property of James Strouss. The defendant purchased at a sale made in December 1815, the plaintiff at one made in March 1880. The plaintiff seeks to impeach the validity of the first sale * 411on the ground that it was made in fraud of the creditors of Strouss. The law presumes that a public judicial sale is made in good faith. This presumption stands, unless overthrown by clear and satisfactory evidence of fraud or unfair means. The contention was one of fact. Much evidence Avas given bearing on the question, and some of it conflicting. The learned judge submitted the case to the jury in a clear and correct charge. He instructed them that if the sheriff ’ s sale was made with the intention of hindering, delaying or defeating creditors, and the purchaser had knowledge of such, it was null and void, although the full value of the ...	`search_query: What constitutes fraud in a sheriff’s sale and how does it affect property titles?`	`search_query: What are the requirements for filing a patent application in the United States?`
search_document: We think the plaintiff has no reason to complain of this declaration of the law. No error is assigned thereto. Then, as to the application of the evidence tending to establish the fraud, the court affirmed a point of the plaintiff put in these words, “ under the plaintiff ’ s evidence tending to prove fraud on the part of the defendant, the jury will consider all the separate facts in evidence, whether each fact of itself would be sufficient or not to fasten fraud on her in the premises ; and they may consider separate facts, if they are connected by the evidence and tend to prove that the [ defendant entered into and carried out a scheme or plan, to purchase the land in dispute at an under value, and for the benefit of herself, and also for the benefit of James Strouss or his family. ” We do not deem it necessary to consider seriatim the twenty - five specifications of error. We do not think the article of agreement Avas prima facie fraudulent as to creditors ; nor do...	`search_query: What legal principles govern the consideration of fraud in contracts involving property disputes?`	`search_query: What are the tax implications of selling inherited property in the United States?`
search_document: 217 N. J. Super. 541 ( 1987 ) 526 A. 2d 290 ALAN C. STAVER, PLAINTIFF, v. MARGARET STAVER, DEFENDANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division Bergen County, Family Part. March 11, 1987. * 543 Donald L. Garber for plaintiff ( Donald L. Garber, attorney ; Michael I. Lubin on the brief ). John Fiorello for defendant ( Feldman, Feldman, Hoffman & Fiorello, attorneys ). SIMON, MARGUERITE T., J. S. C. Plaintiff husband brings this motion seeking to terminate his obligation to pay alimony to defendant pursuant to a judgment of divorce entered September 6, 1974. Defendant wife brings a cross - motion for enforcement of the judgment. At the time of the entry of the final judgment, plaintiff was employed as an ordained minister earning approximately $ 12, 000 a year. The parties entered into a consensual agreement which was incorporated into the judgment. Two pertinent stipulations of the agreement are as follows : ( 1 ) " Said alimony of $ 500 per month shall continue i...	`search_query: Can alimony obligations be modified or terminated based on retirement and financial changes?`	`search_query: What are the tax implications of inheriting property in New Jersey?`

Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:

{
    "scale": 20.0,
    "similarity_fct": "cos_sim"
}

Training Hyperparameters

Non-Default Hyperparameters

eval_strategy: steps
per_device_train_batch_size: 16
per_device_eval_batch_size: 16
learning_rate: 2e-05
num_train_epochs: 1
warmup_ratio: 0.1
fp16: True
batch_sampler: no_duplicates

All Hyperparameters

Click to expand

overwrite_output_dir: False
do_predict: False
eval_strategy: steps
prediction_loss_only: True
per_device_train_batch_size: 16
per_device_eval_batch_size: 16
per_gpu_train_batch_size: None
per_gpu_eval_batch_size: None
gradient_accumulation_steps: 1
eval_accumulation_steps: None
torch_empty_cache_steps: None
learning_rate: 2e-05
weight_decay: 0.0
adam_beta1: 0.9
adam_beta2: 0.999
adam_epsilon: 1e-08
max_grad_norm: 1.0
num_train_epochs: 1
max_steps: -1
lr_scheduler_type: linear
lr_scheduler_kwargs: {}
warmup_ratio: 0.1
warmup_steps: 0
log_level: passive
log_level_replica: warning
log_on_each_node: True
logging_nan_inf_filter: True
save_safetensors: True
save_on_each_node: False
save_only_model: False
restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint: False
no_cuda: False
use_cpu: False
use_mps_device: False
seed: 42
data_seed: None
jit_mode_eval: False
use_ipex: False
bf16: False
fp16: True
fp16_opt_level: O1
half_precision_backend: auto
bf16_full_eval: False
fp16_full_eval: False
tf32: None
local_rank: 0
ddp_backend: None
tpu_num_cores: None
tpu_metrics_debug: False
debug: []
dataloader_drop_last: False
dataloader_num_workers: 0
dataloader_prefetch_factor: None
past_index: -1
disable_tqdm: False
remove_unused_columns: True
label_names: None
load_best_model_at_end: False
ignore_data_skip: False
fsdp: []
fsdp_min_num_params: 0
fsdp_config: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}
fsdp_transformer_layer_cls_to_wrap: None
accelerator_config: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}
deepspeed: None
label_smoothing_factor: 0.0
optim: adamw_torch
optim_args: None
adafactor: False
group_by_length: False
length_column_name: length
ddp_find_unused_parameters: None
ddp_bucket_cap_mb: None
ddp_broadcast_buffers: False
dataloader_pin_memory: True
dataloader_persistent_workers: False
skip_memory_metrics: True
use_legacy_prediction_loop: False
push_to_hub: False
resume_from_checkpoint: None
hub_model_id: None
hub_strategy: every_save
hub_private_repo: None
hub_always_push: False
gradient_checkpointing: False
gradient_checkpointing_kwargs: None
include_inputs_for_metrics: False
include_for_metrics: []
eval_do_concat_batches: True
fp16_backend: auto
push_to_hub_model_id: None
push_to_hub_organization: None
mp_parameters:
auto_find_batch_size: False
full_determinism: False
torchdynamo: None
ray_scope: last
ddp_timeout: 1800
torch_compile: False
torch_compile_backend: None
torch_compile_mode: None
dispatch_batches: None
split_batches: None
include_tokens_per_second: False
include_num_input_tokens_seen: False
neftune_noise_alpha: None
optim_target_modules: None
batch_eval_metrics: False
eval_on_start: False
use_liger_kernel: False
eval_use_gather_object: False
average_tokens_across_devices: False
prompts: None
batch_sampler: no_duplicates
multi_dataset_batch_sampler: proportional

Training Logs

Epoch	Step	Validation Loss	dev_cosine_accuracy
-1	-1	-	0.9939
0.5650	100	0.1276	0.9959
-1	-1	-	0.9939

Framework Versions

Python: 3.11.11
Sentence Transformers: 3.4.1
Transformers: 4.48.3
PyTorch: 2.5.1+cu124
Accelerate: 1.3.0
Datasets: 3.3.2
Tokenizers: 0.21.0

Citation

BibTeX

Sentence Transformers

@inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert,
    title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks",
    author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
    month = "11",
    year = "2019",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084",
}

MultipleNegativesRankingLoss

@misc{henderson2017efficient,
    title={Efficient Natural Language Response Suggestion for Smart Reply},
    author={Matthew Henderson and Rami Al-Rfou and Brian Strope and Yun-hsuan Sung and Laszlo Lukacs and Ruiqi Guo and Sanjiv Kumar and Balint Miklos and Ray Kurzweil},
    year={2017},
    eprint={1705.00652},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    primaryClass={cs.CL}
}