arXiv:2603. 20990v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Hard-negative source selection for dense retrieval is usually decided only after fine-tuning and downstream evaluation.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2603. 20990v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Hard-negative source selection for dense retrieval is usually decided only after fine-tuning and downstream evaluation.
arXiv:2606. 01304v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Hard negative mining has become the dominant strategy for training retrievers, yet it faces intrinsic limitations: negatives are bounded by corpus availability, selected by retriever score rather than diagnostic value, and increasingly contaminated by false positives as the retriever improves.
arXiv:2609.10224v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models such as CLIP embed images and text in a shared space, where modality-specific distributions often remain separated. Existing acc...
arXiv:2608. 02112v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embedding benchmarks measure standalone model quality, but they do not establish whether a low-cost retriever contributes complementary ranking information once lexical and transformer-based retrieval are already combined.
arXiv:2607. 04733v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is the standard approach for adapting pretrained language models to downstream domains, yet it often improves target-domain behavior at the cost of degrading pre-existing capabilities.
The paper introduces HN-CLIP, a new objective for dense-caption retrieval that adapts similarity margins per negative example using the text encoder’s own geometry. By adding a detached caption‑similarity matrix to the negative logits, HN‑CLIP addresses the issue of near‑duplicate captions that cause premature loss saturation in InfoNCE training. Experiments on four benchmarks show that HN‑CLIP outperforms leading methods by 2.4–4.3 R@1, trains 2.4× faster than GOAL and 5.4× faster than StructXLIP, and achieves the best full‑data baseline with only 20% of the training data.