SentenceTransformer based on microsoft/mpnet-base

This is a sentence-transformers model finetuned from microsoft/mpnet-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: microsoft/mpnet-base
Maximum Sequence Length: 512 tokens
Output Dimensionality: 768 tokens
Similarity Function: Cosine Similarity

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': 512, 'do_lower_case': False}) with Transformer model: MPNetModel 
  (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})
)

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("DIS-Project/trained_on_all_data_model_push_00")
# Run inference
sentences = [
    'What theory did Cope switch to in order to accommodate functional adaptation for each change in evolution?',
    'Alternatives to Darwinian evolution have been proposed by scholars investigating biology to explain signs of evolution and the relatedness of different groups of living things. The alternatives in question do not deny that evolutionary changes over time are the origin of the diversity of life, nor that the organisms alive today share a common ancestor from the distant past (or ancestors, in some proposals); rather, they propose alternative mechanisms of evolutionary change over time, arguing against mutations acted on by natural selection as the most important driver of evolutionary change. \n\nThis distinguishes them from certain other kinds of arguments that deny that large-scale evolution of any sort has taken place, as in some forms of creationism, which do not propose alternative mechanisms of evolutionary change but instead deny that evolutionary change has taken place at all. Not all forms of creationism deny that evolutionary change takes place; notably, proponents of theistic evolution, such as the biologist Asa Gray, assert that evolutionary change does occur and is responsible for the history of life on Earth, with the proviso that this process has been influenced by a god or gods in some meaningful sense.\n\nWhere the fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained. Different factors motivated people to propose non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection, with its emphasis on death and competition, did not appeal to some naturalists because they felt it immoral, leaving little room for teleology or the concept of progress in the development of life. Some who came to accept evolution, but disliked natural selection, raised religious objections. Others felt that evolution was an inherently progressive process that natural selection alone was insufficient to explain. Still others felt that nature, including the development of life, followed orderly patterns that natural selection could not explain.\n\nBy the start of the 20th century, evolution was generally accepted by biologists but natural selection was in eclipse. Many alternative theories were proposed, but biologists were quick to discount theories such as orthogenesis, vitalism and Lamarckism which offered no mechanism for evolution. Mutationism did propose a mechanism, but it was not generally accepted. The modern synthesis a generation later claimed to sweep away all the alternatives to Darwinian evolution, though some have been revived as molecular mechanisms for them have been discovered.\n\nUnchanging forms\n\nAristotle did not embrace either divine creation or evolution, instead arguing in his biology that each species (eidos) was immutable, breeding true to its ideal eternal form (not the same as Plato\'s theory of forms). Aristotle\'s suggestion in De Generatione Animalium of a fixed hierarchy in nature - a scala naturae ("ladder of nature") provided an early explanation of the continuity of living things. Aristotle saw that animals were teleological (functionally end-directed), and had parts that were homologous with those of other animals, but he did not connect these ideas into a concept of evolutionary progress.\n\nIn the Middle Ages, Scholasticism developed Aristotle\'s view into the idea of a great chain of being. The image of a ladder inherently suggests the possibility of climbing, but both the ancient Greeks and mediaeval scholastics such as Ramon Lull maintained that each species remained fixed from the moment of its creation.\n\nBy 1818, however, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire argued in his Philosophie anatomique that the chain was "a progressive series", where animals like molluscs low on the chain could "rise, by addition of parts, from the simplicity of the first formations to the complication of the creatures at the head of the scale", given sufficient time. Accordingly, Geoffroy and later biologists looked for explanations of such evolutionary change.\n\nGeorges Cuvier\'s 1812 Recherches sur les Ossements Fossiles set out his doctrine of the correlation of parts, namely that since an organism was a whole system, all its parts mutually corresponded, contributing to the function of the whole. So, from a single bone the zoologist could often tell what class or even genus the animal belonged to. And if an animal had teeth adapted for cutting meat, the zoologist could be sure without even looking that its sense organs would be those of a predator and its intestines those of a carnivore. A species had an irreducible functional complexity, and "none of its parts can change without the others changing too". Evolutionists expected one part to change at a time, one change to follow another. In Cuvier\'s view, evolution was impossible, as any one change would unbalance the whole delicate system.\n\nLouis Agassiz\'s 1856 "Essay on Classification" exemplified German philosophical idealism. This held that each species was complex within itself, had complex relationships to other organisms, and fitted precisely into its environment, as a pine tree in a forest, and could not survive outside those circles. The argument from such ideal forms opposed evolution without offering an actual alternative mechanism. Richard Owen held a similar view in Britain.\n\nThe Lamarckian social philosopher and evolutionist Herbert Spencer, ironically the author of the phrase "survival of the fittest" adopted by Darwin, used an argument like Cuvier\'s to oppose natural selection. In 1893, he stated that a change in any one structure of the body would require all the other parts to adapt to fit in with the new arrangement. From this, he argued that it was unlikely that all the changes could appear at the right moment if each one depended on random variation; whereas in a Lamarckian world, all the parts would naturally adapt at once, through a changed pattern of use and disuse.\n\nAlternative explanations of change\n\nWhere the fact of evolutionary change was accepted by biologists but natural selection was denied, including but not limited to the late 19th century eclipse of Darwinism, alternative scientific explanations such as Lamarckism, orthogenesis, structuralism, catastrophism, vitalism and theistic evolution were entertained, not necessarily separately. (Purely religious points of view such as young or old earth creationism or intelligent design are not considered here.) Different factors motivated people to propose non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. Natural selection, with its emphasis on death and competition, did not appeal to some naturalists because they felt it immoral, leaving little room for teleology or the concept of progress in the development of life. Some of these scientists and philosophers, like St. George Jackson Mivart and Charles Lyell, who came to accept evolution but disliked natural selection, raised religious objections. Others, such as the biologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, the botanist George Henslow (son of Darwin\'s mentor John Stevens Henslow, also a botanist), and the author Samuel Butler, felt that evolution was an inherently progressive process that natural selection alone was insufficient to explain. Still others, including the American paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope and Alpheus Hyatt, had an idealist perspective and felt that nature, including the development of life, followed orderly patterns that natural selection could not explain.\n\nSome felt that natural selection would be too slow, given the estimates of the age of the earth and sun (10–100 million years) being made at the time by physicists such as Lord Kelvin, and some felt that natural selection could not work because at the time the models for inheritance involved blending of inherited characteristics, an objection raised by the engineer Fleeming Jenkin in a review of Origin written shortly after its publication. Another factor at the end of the 19th century was the rise of a new faction of biologists, typified by geneticists like Hugo de Vries and Thomas Hunt Morgan, who wanted to recast biology as an experimental laboratory science. They distrusted the work of naturalists like Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, dependent on field observations of variation, adaptation, and biogeography, as being overly anecdotal. Instead they focused on topics like physiology and genetics that could be investigated with controlled experiments in the laboratory, and discounted less accessible phenomena like natural selection and adaptation to the environment.\n\nVitalism\n\nVitalism holds that living organisms differ from other things in containing something non-physical, such as a fluid or vital spirit, that makes them live. The theory dates to ancient Egypt.\nSince Early Modern times, vitalism stood in contrast to the mechanistic explanation of biological systems started by Descartes. Nineteenth century chemists  set out to disprove the claim that forming organic compounds required vitalist influence. In 1828, Friedrich Wöhler showed that urea could be made entirely from inorganic chemicals. Louis Pasteur believed that fermentation required whole organisms, which he supposed carried out chemical reactions found only in living things. The embryologist Hans Driesch, experimenting on sea urchin eggs, showed that separating the first two cells led to two complete but small blastulas, seemingly showing that cell division did not divide the egg into sub-mechanisms, but created more cells each with the vital capability to form a new organism. Vitalism faded out with the demonstration of more satisfactory mechanistic explanations of each of the functions of a living cell or organism. By 1931, biologists had "almost unanimously abandoned vitalism as an acknowledged belief."\n\nTheistic evolution\n\nThe American botanist Asa Gray used the name "theistic evolution" for his point of view, presented in his 1876 book Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. He argued that the deity supplies beneficial mutations to guide evolution. St George Jackson Mivart argued instead in his 1871 On the Genesis of Species that the deity, equipped with foreknowledge, sets the direction of evolution by specifying the (orthogenetic) laws that govern it, and leaves species to evolve according to the conditions they experience as time goes by. The Duke of Argyll set out similar views in his 1867 book The Reign of Law. According to the historian Edward Larson, the theory failed as an explanation in the minds of late 19th century biologists as it broke the rules of methodological naturalism which they had grown to expect. Accordingly, by around 1900, biologists no longer saw theistic evolution as a valid theory. In Larson\'s view, by then it "did not even merit a nod among scientists." In the 20th century, theistic evolution could take other forms, such as the orthogenesis of Teilhard de Chardin. The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne calls The BioLogos Foundation the "latest endeavor to forcibly marry science and faith" and "embarrassing in its single-minded fervor to prove that conservative Christianity and evolution are really good buddies."\n\nOrthogenesis\n\nOrthogenesis or Progressionism is the hypothesis that life has an innate tendency to change, developing in a unilinear fashion in a particular direction, or simply making some kind of definite progress. Many different versions have been proposed, some such as that of Teilhard de Chardin openly spiritual, others such as Theodor Eimer\'s apparently simply biological. These theories often combined orthogenesis with other supposed mechanisms. For example, Eimer believed in Lamarckian evolution, but felt that internal laws of growth determined which characteristics would be acquired and would guide the long-term direction of evolution.\n\nOrthogenesis was popular among paleontologists such as Henry Fairfield Osborn. They believed that the fossil record showed unidirectional change, but did not necessarily accept that the mechanism driving orthogenesis was teleological (goal-directed). Osborn argued in his 1918 book Origin and Evolution of Life that trends in Titanothere horns were both orthogenetic and non-adaptive, and could be detrimental to the organism. For instance, they supposed that the large antlers of the Irish elk had caused its extinction.\n\nSupport for orthogenesis fell during the modern synthesis in the 1940s when it became apparent that it could not explain the complex branching patterns of evolution revealed by statistical analysis of the fossil record. Work in the 21st century has supported the mechanism and existence of mutation-biased adaptation (a form of mutationism), meaning that constrained orthogenesis is now seen as possible. Moreover, the self-organizing processes involved in certain aspects of embryonic development often exhibit stereotypical morphological outcomes, suggesting that evolution will proceed in preferred directions once key molecular components are in place.\n\nLamarckism\n\nJean-Baptiste Lamarck\'s 1809 evolutionary theory, transmutation of species, was based on a progressive (orthogenetic) drive toward greater complexity. Lamarck also shared the belief, common at the time, that characteristics acquired during an organism\'s life could be inherited by the next generation, producing adaptation to the environment. Such characteristics were caused by the use or disuse of the affected part of the body. This minor component of Lamarck\'s theory became known, much later, as Lamarckism. Darwin included Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts, as controlled by Natural Selection in On the Origin of Species, giving examples such as large ground feeding birds getting stronger legs through exercise, and weaker wings from not flying until, like the ostrich, they could not fly at all. In the late 19th century, neo-Lamarckism was supported by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, the American paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope and Alpheus Hyatt, and the American entomologist Alpheus Packard. Butler and Cope believed that this allowed organisms to effectively drive their own evolution. Packard argued that the loss of vision in the blind cave insects he studied was best explained through a Lamarckian process of atrophy through disuse combined with inheritance of acquired characteristics. Meanwhile, the English botanist George Henslow studied how environmental stress affected the development of plants, and he wrote that the variations induced by such environmental factors could largely explain evolution; he did not see the need to demonstrate that such variations could actually be inherited. Critics pointed out that there was no solid evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Instead, the experimental work of the German biologist August Weismann resulted in the germ plasm theory of inheritance, which Weismann said made the inheritance of acquired characteristics impossible, since the Weismann barrier would prevent any changes that occurred to the body after birth from being inherited by the next generation.\n\nIn modern epigenetics, biologists observe that phenotypes depend on heritable changes to gene expression that do not involve changes to the DNA sequence. These changes can cross generations in plants, animals, and prokaryotes. This is not identical to traditional Lamarckism, as the changes do not last indefinitely and do not affect the germ line and hence the evolution of genes.\n\nCatastrophism\n\nCatastrophism is the hypothesis, argued by the French anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier in his 1812 Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes, that the various extinctions and the patterns of faunal succession seen in the fossil record were caused by large-scale natural catastrophes such as volcanic eruptions and, for the most recent extinctions in Eurasia, the inundation of low-lying areas by the sea. This was explained purely by natural events: he did not mention Noah\'s flood, nor did he ever refer to divine creation as the mechanism for repopulation after an extinction event, though he did not support evolutionary theories such as those of his contemporaries Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire either. Cuvier believed that the stratigraphic record indicated that there had been several such catastrophes, recurring natural events, separated by long periods of stability during the history of life on earth. This led him to believe the Earth was several million years old.\n\nCatastrophism has found a place in modern biology with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous period, as proposed in a paper by \nWalter and Luis Alvarez in 1980. It argued that a  asteroid struck Earth 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period. The event, whatever it was, made about 70% of all species extinct, including the dinosaurs, leaving behind the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. In 1990, a  candidate crater marking the impact was identified at Chicxulub in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.\n\nStructuralism\n\nBiological structuralism objects to an exclusively Darwinian explanation of natural selection, arguing that other mechanisms also guide evolution, and sometimes implying that these supersede selection altogether. Structuralists have proposed different mechanisms that might have guided the formation of body plans. Before Darwin, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire argued that animals shared  homologous parts, and that if one was enlarged, the others would be reduced in compensation. After Darwin, D\'Arcy Thompson hinted at vitalism and offered geometric explanations in his classic 1917 book On Growth and Form. Adolf Seilacher suggested mechanical inflation for "pneu" structures in Ediacaran biota fossils such as Dickinsonia. Günter P. Wagner argued for developmental bias, structural constraints on embryonic development. Stuart Kauffman favoured self-organisation, the idea that complex structure emerges holistically and spontaneously from the dynamic interaction of all parts of an organism. Michael Denton argued for laws of form by which Platonic universals or "Types" are self-organised. In 1979 Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin proposed biological "spandrels", features created as a byproduct of the adaptation of nearby structures. Gerd Müller and Stuart Newman argued that the appearance in the fossil record of most of the current phyla in the Cambrian explosion was "pre-Mendelian" evolution caused by plastic responses of morphogenetic systems that were partly organized by physical mechanisms. Brian Goodwin, described by Wagner as part of "a fringe movement in evolutionary biology", denied that biological complexity can be reduced to natural selection, and argued that pattern formation is driven by morphogenetic fields. Darwinian biologists have criticised structuralism, emphasising that there is plentiful evidence from deep homology that genes have been involved in shaping organisms throughout evolutionary history. They accept that some structures such as the cell membrane self-assemble, but question the ability of self-organisation to drive large-scale evolution.\n\nSaltationism, mutationism\n\nSaltationism held that new species arise as a result of large mutations. It was seen as a much faster alternative to the Darwinian concept of a gradual process of small random variations being acted on by natural selection. It was popular with early geneticists such as Hugo de Vries, who along with Carl Correns helped rediscover Gregor Mendel\'s laws of inheritance in 1900, William Bateson, a British zoologist who switched to genetics, and early in his career, Thomas Hunt Morgan. These ideas developed into mutationism, the mutation theory of evolution. This held that species went through periods of rapid mutation, possibly as a result of environmental stress, that could produce multiple mutations, and in some cases completely new species, in a single generation, based on de Vries\'s experiments with the evening primrose, Oenothera, from 1886. The primroses seemed to be constantly producing new varieties with striking variations in form and color, some of which appeared to be new species because plants of the new generation could only be crossed with one another, not with their parents. However, Hermann Joseph Muller showed in 1918 that the new varieties de Vries had observed were the result of polyploid hybrids rather than rapid genetic mutation.\n\nInitially, de Vries and Morgan believed that mutations were so large as to create new forms such as subspecies or even species instantly. Morgan\'s 1910 fruit fly experiments, in which he isolated mutations for characteristics such as white eyes, changed his mind. He saw that mutations represented small Mendelian characteristics that would only spread through a population when they were beneficial, helped by natural selection. This represented the germ of the modern synthesis, and the beginning of the end for mutationism as an evolutionary force.\n\nContemporary biologists accept that mutation and selection both play roles in evolution; the mainstream view is that while mutation supplies material for selection in the form of variation, all non-random outcomes are caused by natural selection. Masatoshi Nei argues instead that the production of more efficient genotypes by mutation is fundamental for evolution, and that evolution is often mutation-limited. The endosymbiotic theory implies rare but major events of saltational evolution by symbiogenesis. Carl Woese and colleagues suggested that the absence of RNA signature continuum between domains of bacteria, archaea, and eukarya shows that these major lineages materialized via large saltations in cellular organization. Saltation at a variety of scales is agreed to be possible by mechanisms including polyploidy, which certainly can create new species of plant, gene duplication, lateral gene transfer, and transposable elements (jumping genes).\n\nGenetic drift\n\nThe neutral theory of molecular evolution, proposed by Motoo Kimura in 1968, holds that at the molecular level most evolutionary changes and most of the variation within and between species is not caused by natural selection but by genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral. A neutral mutation is one that does not affect an organism\'s ability to survive and reproduce. The neutral theory allows for the possibility that most mutations are deleterious, but holds that because these are rapidly purged by natural selection, they do not make significant contributions to variation within and between species at the molecular level. Mutations that are not deleterious are assumed to be mostly neutral rather than beneficial.\n\nThe theory was controversial as it sounded like a challenge to Darwinian evolution; controversy was intensified by a 1969 paper by Dr. Kasra, Jack Lester King and Thomas H. Jukes, provocatively but misleadingly titled "Non-Darwinian Evolution". It provided a wide variety of evidence including protein sequence comparisons, studies of the Treffers mutator gene in E. coli,  analysis of the genetic code, and comparative immunology, to argue that most protein evolution is due to neutral mutations and genetic drift.\n\nAccording to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, while phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, so the neutral theory does not constitute a true alternative.\n\nCombined theories\n\nThe various alternatives to Darwinian evolution by natural selection were not necessarily mutually exclusive. The evolutionary philosophy of the American palaeontologist Edward Drinker Cope is a case in point. Cope, a religious man, began his career denying the possibility of evolution. In the 1860s, he accepted that evolution could occur, but, influenced by Agassiz, rejected natural selection. Cope accepted instead the theory of recapitulation of evolutionary history during the growth of the embryo - that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, which Agassiz believed showed a divine plan leading straight up to man, in a pattern revealed both in embryology and palaeontology. Cope did not go so far, seeing that evolution created a branching tree of forms, as Darwin had suggested. Each evolutionary step was however non-random: the direction was determined in advance and had a regular pattern (orthogenesis), and steps were not adaptive but part of a divine plan (theistic evolution). This left unanswered the question of why each step should occur, and Cope switched his theory to accommodate functional adaptation for each change. Still rejecting natural selection as the cause of adaptation, Cope turned to Lamarckism to provide the force guiding evolution. Finally, Cope supposed that Lamarckian use and disuse operated by causing a vitalist growth-force substance, "bathmism", to be concentrated in the areas of the body being most intensively used; in turn, it made these areas develop at the expense of the rest. Cope\'s complex set of beliefs thus assembled five evolutionary philosophies: recapitulationism, orthogenesis, theistic evolution, Lamarckism, and vitalism. Other palaeontologists and field naturalists continued to hold beliefs combining orthogenesis and Lamarckism until the modern synthesis in the 1930s.\n\nRebirth of natural selection, with continuing alternatives\n\nBy the start of the 20th century, during the eclipse of Darwinism, biologists were doubtful of natural selection, but equally were quick to discount theories such as orthogenesis, vitalism and Lamarckism which offered no mechanism for evolution. Mutationism did propose a mechanism, but it was not generally accepted. The modern synthesis a generation later, roughly between 1918 and 1932, broadly swept away all the alternatives to Darwinism, though some including forms of orthogenesis,  epigenetic mechanisms that resemble Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, catastrophism, structuralism, and mutationism have been revived, such as through the discovery of molecular mechanisms.\n\nBiology has become Darwinian, but belief in some form of progress (orthogenesis) remains both in the public mind and among biologists. Ruse argues that evolutionary biologists will probably continue to believe in progress for three reasons. Firstly, the anthropic principle demands people able to ask about the process that led to their own existence, as if they were the pinnacle of such progress. Secondly, scientists in general and evolutionists in particular believe that their work is leading them progressively closer to a true grasp of reality, as knowledge increases, and hence (runs the argument) there is progress in nature also. Ruse notes in this regard that Richard Dawkins explicitly compares cultural progress with memes to biological progress with genes. Thirdly, evolutionists are self-selected; they are people, such as the entomologist and sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, who are interested in progress to supply a meaning for life.\n\nSee also\n\n Coloration evidence for natural selection\n History of evolutionary thought\n Objections to evolution\n Extended evolutionary synthesis\n Lysenkoism\n\nNotes\n\nReferences\n\nSources\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\nEvolutionary biology\nHistory of evolutionary biology\nNon-Darwinian evolution',
    'In Greek mythology, Phoenix (Ancient Greek: Φοῖνιξ Phoinix, gen. Φοίνικος Phoinikos) was the son of king Amyntor. Because of a dispute with his father, Phoenix fled to Phytia, where he became king of the Dolopians, and tutor of the young Achilles, whom he accompanied to the Trojan War. After Achilles had in anger withdrawn from the war, Phoenix tried to persuade Achilles to return.\n\nPhoenix appears as a character in the Iliad, where Homer has him tell his story. He is also mentioned several times in the Epic Cycle. There were several lost 5th-century BC tragedies titled Phoenix,  which presumably told his story, and he appeared as a character in several others. Mentions of Phoenix occur in Pindar, the Palatine Anthology, Lycophron, Ovid and Hyginus, and a brief account of his story is given by the mythographer Apollodorus. Phoenix also appears in many works of ancient art from as early as the 6th century BC.\n\nMythology \nPhoenix was the son of Amyntor. A dispute with his father, concerning his father\'s concubine, resulted in Phoenix fleeing his homeland for Phytia, where he became a vassal of Achilles\' father Peleus, the king. As told in the Iliad, on the urgings of his jealous mother (variously named as Cleobule, Hippodameia, or Alcimede), Phoenix had had sex with his father\'s concubine. Amyntor, discovering this, called upon the Erinyes to curse Phoenix with childlessness. In later accounts of the story, Phoenix was falsely accused by Amyntor\'s concubine, and blinded by his father, but Chiron restored his sight. In either case, Phoenix fled to Phytia, where Peleus made Phoenix a king of the Dolopians, and gave him his young son Achilles to raise.\n\nPhoenix participated in the Calydonian boar hunt, and was said to have given Achilles\' son the name Neoptolemus. As an old man, he went with Odysseus and Nestor to find and recruit Achilles for the Trojan War, and was Achilles\' companion at Troy. After Achilles, in his anger at Agamemnon, had withdrawn from the fighting, Phoenix was part of the unsuccessful embassy sent by Agamemnon to persuade Achilles to return to the battle. After Achilles died, Phoenix was one of those sent to fetch Neoptolemus from Scyros. On his way home from Troy, Phoenix died and was buried by Neoptolemus. His tomb was said to be either in Eion, Macedonia, or in Trachis, Thessaly, nearby the "Phoenix River" which was said to have been named after the hero.\n\nSources\n\nThe Iliad\n\nPhoenix plays an important role in Book 9 of the Iliad of Homer. Achilles, the Greeks\' greatest warrior, has withdrawn from the war because of his great anger at his ill treatment by the Greek commander Agamemnon.  Phoenix, who had been in charge of Achilles upbringing, now an old man, has accompanied Achilles to the Trojan War. Phoenix is sent by Agamemnon to Achilles\' tent, as part of an embassy with Ajax and Odysseus, to persuade Achilles to return to the battle. Odysseus speaks first, presenting Agamemnon\'s offer of reconciliation, an appeal which Achilles rejects utterly, saying that he will leave with his ships the next morning. Next Phoenix—who as his tutor, as he reminds Achilles, has taught him "to be both a speaker of words and a doer of deeds"—begins himself a long speech covering 172 lines. Phoenix, "bursting into tears", pleads passionately with Achilles to put down his anger and return to the war. Phoenix\'s speech presents an "exposition of heroic, traditional ethics".\n\nPhoenix begins his appeal, in personal terms, by reminding Achilles how he came to be a second father to Achilles. Phoenix\'s father was Amyntor, the son of Ormenus, and a king in Hellas. When Amyntor forsook his wife, Phoenix\'s mother, for a concubine, at the urging of his jealous mother, Phoenix had sex with Amyntor\'s concubine. To punish this crime Amyntor called upon the Erinyes to curse Phoenix with childlessness. Outraged Phoenix intended to kill Amyntor, but was finally dissuaded. Instead he decided to leave his father\'s kingdom. For nine days some of his friends and family kept watch over him to prevent his leaving, but finally on the tenth day he managed to escape, and fleeing through Hellas, Phoenix came to Phthia, where king Peleus, the father of Achilles, took in Phoenix, and treated him like a son. Peleus made Phoenix a king of the Dolopians. And Phoenix was given charge of the young Achilles, whom Phoenix reared as a son. Having reminded Achilles of all this, Phoenix asks Achilles to "master thy proud spirit; it beseemeth thee not to have a pitiless heart. Nay, even the very gods can bend".\n\nPhoenix next relates two stories meant to persuade Achilles to relent. The first story concerns the Litai ("Prayers"), daughters of Zeus, who follow along after Ate ("Sin").  This story is meant to show Achilles the dangers inherent in refusing prayers of supplication.  After telling the story, Phoenix again asks Achilles to "cast aside thine anger" and heed the supplication of his comrads in arms and return to the battle. Phoenix reminds Achilles\' that heroes of old, in their wrath, might be won over by gifts and pleadings. He then recounts the story of the hero Meleager, with its many parallels to Achilles\' situation. Like Achilles, Meleager has withdrawn from battle in anger. Offering gifts, his friends and family beg Meleager to return to the battle, but he refuses them. But when his own household is threatened, finally heeding the pleas of his wife, he returns to the battle, but received no gifts and honors, for doing so. Finally Phoenix urges Achilles not to be like Meleager, but to accept the gifts and honors Agammenon has offered, before it is too late.\n\nBut Achilles, responding to Phoenix, says he has no need of such gifts and has honor enough already. Further he admonishes Phoenix "not to confound my spirit by weeping and sorrowing," on Agamemnon\'s behalf. Nevertheless, Achilles invites Phoenix to stay the night "and at break of day we will take counsel whether to return to our own or to tarry here."\n\nBrief mentions of Phoenix also appear in Books 16, 17, 19, and 23. In Book 16 Phoenix leads a company of Myrmidons into battle. In Book 17, Athena takes Phoenix\'s form, as she urges on Menelaus in the heat of battle. In Book 19, Phoenix is among those comforting Achilles in his tent after the death of Patroclus. In Book 23, Phoenix is an umpire in Patroclus\' funeral games.\n\nEpic Cycle\nBesides the Iliad a few other mentions of Phoenix, from the epic tradition, are found in the Epic Cycle, a collection of epic poems about the Trojan War.\nAccording to scholia to Iliad 19, citing the Epic Cycle, prior to the Trojan War, Phoenix was sent with Odysseus and Nestor to seek out Achilles (who, as it turns out, is hiding on Skyros disguised as a girl) to recruit him for the war. According to the Cypria, (one of the poems in the Epic Cycle) Achilles\' son Neoptolemus, originally named Pyrrhus, was given the name Neoptolemus ("young soldier") by Phoenix, because Achilles was a young man when he went to war. According to Proclus\' summary of the Nostoi, Phoenix, while traveling home from the Trojan War with Neoptolemus, died and was buried by Neoptolemus.\n\nLater sources\nThe late sixth-century early fifth-century BC poet Pindar mentioned Phoenix, saying that he "held a throng of Dolopians, bold in the use of the sling and bringing aid to the missiles of the Danaans, tamers of horses." Phoenix appeared as a character in tragedian Aeschylus\' lost play Myrmidons (c. 490–480), which included an embassy scene, and presumably Phoenix\'s attempt to persuade Achilles to put aside his anger and return to the battlefield.\n\nThe tragedian Sophocles, in his play Philoctetes (409 BC), tells us that after Achilles died at Troy, the Greeks received a prophecy which said that they would never take Troy unless Neoptolemus came to fight for them, so the Greeks sent Phoenix and Odysseus to Scyros to bring Neoptolemus back with them to Troy. A red-figure volute-krater (c. 470 BC), had already depicted Neoptolemus, with Phoenix and Odysseus (all named), saying goodbye to his mother and grandfather Lycomedes on Skyros (Ferrara 44701).\n\nSophocles, and his fellow fifth-century tragedians Euripides, and Ion of Chios, among others, all wrote plays titled Phoenix, now lost, which presumably told the story of Phoenix\'s conflict with his father. Nothing is known about the plays by Sophocles or Ion. However, from an allusion in Aristophanes\' play The Acharnians, Euripides seems to have represented Phoenix as blind. Moreover, evidence indicates that in Euripides\' version of the story, Phoenix is falsely accused of rape by his father\'s concubine, and is blinded by Amyntor in punishment.\n\nThe Cyzicene epigrams, the third book of the Palatine Anthology, refers to the blinding of Phoenix by Amyntor, with Phoenix\'s mother, here named Alcimede, trying to restrain her husband. The poet Lycophron alludes to Phoenix, and his blinding by his father, and the poet Propertius, mentions Chiron restoring Phoenix\'s sight.\n\nLycophron also connects Phoenix with Eion, where he was said to have been buried. Lycophron scholia name Phoenix\'s mother Cleobule, and give the concubine\'s name as either Clytie or Phthia. According to the A scholia to Iliad 9.448, Phoenix\'s mother was named Hippodameia, and the concubine Clytia.\n\nBoth the poet Ovid and the mythographer Hyginus say that Phoenix was one of the heroes to have participated in the hunt for the Calydonian Boar. And Virgil in his Aeneid, has Phoenix and Odysseus, during the sack of Troy, in a temple, in Priam\'s palace, standing guard over Troy\'s treasures.\n\nThe mythographer Apollodorus, probably drawing on Euripides\' Phoenix, says that Phoenix was falsely accused of seducing Amyntor\'s concubine Phthia. Amyntor blinded Phoenix, but Peleus brought Phoenix to the centaur Chiron who restored his sight. Peleus then made Phoenix king of the Dolopians. Apollodorus mentions the embassy of Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax, to Achilles. Like Sophocles, Apollodorus says Phoenix and Odysseus were sent to bring Neoptolemus to Troy, and agreeing with Proclus, says that after the war, traveling home with Neoptolemus, Phoenix died and Neoptolemus buried him.\n\nThe Greek comic poet Eubulus wrote a play titled Phoenix, so too did the Latin poet Ennius. The 4th-century AD (?) Greek poet Quintus Smyrnaeus, in his epic poem Posthomerica, has Phoenix welcome Achilles\' son Neoptolemus to Troy, and give a speech telling Neoptolemus about his father. According to the c. 4th-century AD Dictys Cretensis, Achilles, Ajax, and Phoenix were the commanders of the Greek\'s Trojan War fleet.\n\nIconography\n\nPhoenix is depicted in several ancient works of art, from as early as c. 570 BC. He can often be distinguished by his white hair and beard, in contrast to the black of the other figures, as in the red-figure kylix by the Brygos Painter (c. 490 BC), where he is being served wine by Briseis (Louvre G152 shown above).\n\nThe embassy to Achilles, from Book 9 of Homer\'s Iliad, becomes a popular scene on Attic vases of the early fifth century BC, with Phoenix being a prominent figure.  A dozen or so Attic vases depict the scene. The earliest of these, c. 490 BC, is a red-figure calyx-krater attributed to the Eucharides Painter (Louvre G163). It depicts, on the left, Phoenix standing behind a seated Odysseus, both facing right, and on the right, Diomedes (rather than the expected Ajax) standing behind a seated Achilles, both facing left, all named by inscription. Though without his usual white hair, Phoenix here is still recognizably older than the other three men. Other vases showing similar embassy scenes include: Antikensammlungen 8770 (shown above), and Louvre G146 (shown right).\n\nPhoenix also appears on several other vases. On a black-figure Tyrrhenian amphora, c. 570 BC, (London 1897.0727.2), Phoenix is shown as part of a scene depicting Polyxena\'s slaughter at the tomb of Achilles. While Neoptolemus cuts Polyxena\'s throat, Phoenix stands on the far right, with his back turned looking away (perhaps disapproving or unable to watch). As noted above, Phoenix appears with Odysseus and Neoptolemos on a red-figure volute-krater (c. 470 BC), in a scene depicting Neoptolemos\' departure from Skyros (Ferrara 44701). Phoenix is probably also depicted on a red-figure kylix, by Euphronios, leading a procession, followed by a woman with hand to head (Thetis?) looking back, Ajax carrying Achilles\' corpse, and a warrior (probably Odysseus) at the rear of the procession (J. Paul Getty Museum 77.AE.20).\n\nPhoenix appears on both sides of an Athenian red-figure stamnos, c. 480 BC, attributed to the Triptolemos Painter (Antikenmuseum BS 477). The B. side is another embassy to Achilles scene. Phoenix, his long white hair tied up in back, stands on the right, behind the seated Achilles. On the A. side, Phoenix on the left, named by inscription, restrains either Ajax or Achilles, while Priam on the right, also depicted with long white hair tied up in the back, restrains Hector. If the warrior being restrained by Phoenix is Ajax, then this would appear to be Ajax\'s dual with Hector from Iliad 7, otherwise this might be Achilles\' dual with Hektor, following the death of Patroclus, although the Iliad does not mention Phoenix\'s involvement in either dual. A related scene occurs on an Athenian red-figure amphora (c. 480 BC) by the Kleophrades Painter (Martin von Wagner Museum L508). On the A. side, Phoenix (named) restrains a warrior (Ajax?), while on the B. side, another old man (Priam?) restrains Hektor (named).\n\nNotes\n\nReferences\n Apollodorus, Apollodorus, The Library, with an English Translation by Sir James George Frazer, F.B.A., F.R.S. in 2 Volumes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1921. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library.\n Aristophanes, Acharnians, in  Acharnians. Knights. Edited and translated by Jeffrey Henderson. Loeb Classical Library No. 178. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998. Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Boardman, John, Jasper Griffin, Oswyn Murray, The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, Oxford University Press, 2001. .\n Brill\'s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, Volume 11, Phi-Prok, editors: Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, Brill Publishers, 2007. Online version.\n Collard, Christopher and Martin Cropp (2008b), Euripides Fragments: Oedipus-Chrysippus: Other Fragments, Loeb Classical Library No. 506. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2008. . Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Dictys Cretensis, The Trojan War. The Chronicles of Dictys of Crete and Dares the Phrygian, translated by R. M. Frazer (Jr.). Indiana University Press. 1966. Online version. PDF.\n Gantz, Timothy, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, Two volumes:  (Vol. 1),  (Vol. 2).\n Goldberg, Sander M., Gesine Manuwald, Fragmentary Republican Latin, Volume II: Ennius, Dramatic Fragments. Minor Works, Edited and translated by Sander M. Goldberg, Gesine Manuwald. Loeb Classical Library No. 537. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2018. Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Grimal, Pierre, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. .\n Hard, Robin, The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose\'s "Handbook of Greek Mythology", Psychology Press, 2004, . Google Books.\n Homer, The Iliad with an English Translation by A.T. Murray, Ph.D. in two volumes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library.\n Homer, The Odyssey with an English Translation by A.T. Murray, PH.D. in two volumes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library.\n Hyginus, Gaius Julius, Fabulae in Apollodorus\' Library and Hyginus\' Fabulae: Two Handbooks of Greek Mythology, Translated, with Introductions by R. Scott Smith and Stephen M. Trzaskoma, Hackett Publishing Company,  2007. .\n Kauffmann-Samaras, Aliki, "Phoinix II" in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) VIII.1 Artemis Verlag, Zürich and Munich, 1997. . pp. 984–987.\n Kotlinska-Toma, Agnieszka, Hellenistic Tragedy: Texts, Translations and a Critical Survey, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. .\n Leaf, Walter, The Iliad, Edited, with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices, Vol I, Books I–XII, second edition, London, Macmillan and Co., limited; New York, The Macmillan Company, 1900. Internet Archive.\n Lloyd-Jones, Hugh, Sophocles: Fragments, Edited and translated by Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Loeb Classical Library No. 483. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996. . Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Lycophron, Alexandra (or Cassandra) in Callimachus and Lycophron with an English translation by A. W. Mair ; Aratus, with an English translation by G. R. Mair, London: W. Heinemann, New York: G. P. Putnam 1921. Internet Archive.\n Matheson, Susan B. (2009), "Old Age in Athenian Vase Painting," in J.H. Oakley and O. Palagia, eds., Athenian Potters and Painters: Papers of the International Conference Held in Athens, March 2007 (Oxford 2009) pp.\xa0191–199.\n Matheson, Susan B. (2014), "The Wretchedness of Old Kings" in Approaching the Ancient Artifact: Representation, Narrative, and Function, Editors: Amalia Avramidou, Denise Demetriou, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2014. \n Moore, Mary B., "The Berlin Painter and Troy" in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum: Volume 6, J. Paul Getty Museum, 2000. \n Ovid. Heroides. Amores. Translated by Grant Showerman. Revised by G. P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library No. 41. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977. . Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Ovid, Metamorphoses, Brookes More. Boston. Cornhill Publishing Co. 1922. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library.\n The Oxford Classical Dictionary, second edition, Hammond, N.G.L. and Howard Hayes Scullard (editors), Oxford University Press, 1992. .\n Parada, Carlos, Genealogical Guide to Greek Mythology, Jonsered, Paul Åströms Förlag, 1993. .\n Pausanias, Pausanias Description of Greece with an English Translation by W.H.S. Jones, Litt.D., and H.A. Ormerod, M.A., in 4 Volumes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1918. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library.\n Paton, W. R. (ed.), Greek Anthology, Volume I: Book 1: Christian Epigrams. Book 2: Description of the Statues in the Gymnasium of Zeuxippus. Book 3: Epigrams in the Temple of Apollonis at Cyzicus. Book 4: Prefaces to the Various Anthologies. Book 5: Erotic Epigrams. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Michael A. Tueller. Loeb Classical Library No. 67. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2014. Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Philostratus the Younger, Imagines, in Philostratus the Elder, Imagines. Philostratus the Younger, Imagines. Callistratus, Descriptions. Translated by Arthur Fairbanks. Loeb Classical Library No. 256. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1931.  . Online version at Harvard University Press. Internet Archive 1926 edition.\n Pindar, Nemean Odes. Isthmian Odes. Fragments, Edited and translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library No. 485. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997. . Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Powell, Barry, B., Homer, The Iliad, Translated by Barry B. Powell, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2014. .\n Proclus, The Epic Cycle, translated by Gregory Nagy, revised by Eugenia Lao, Harvard University\'s Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington DC, November 2, 2020.  Online at The Center for Hellenic Studies.\n Propertius, Elegies Edited and translated by G. P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library 18. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1990.  Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica, edited and translated by Neil Hopkinson, Loeb Classical Library No. 19, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2018. . Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Robertson, Martin, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, Cambridge University Press, 1996. \n Rosner, Judith A., "The Speech of Phoenix: Iliad 9.434–605", Phoenix, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Winter, 1976), pp.\xa0314–327. \n Scodel, Ruth, "The Autobiography of Phoenix: Iliad 9.444–95", The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 193, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp.\xa0128–136. \n Shapiro, H. A. (1994), Myth Into Art: Poet and Painter in Classical Greece, Routledge, 1994. \n Shapiro, H. A. (2009), "Homer in the City of Erasmus" in American Journal of Archaeology Online Museum Review, Issue 113.1 (January 2009). PDF\n Sophocles, The Philoctetes of Sophocles. Edited with introduction and notes by Sir Richard Jebb, Sir Richard Jebb. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1898 Online version at the Perseus Digital Library\n Smith, William; Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, London (1873). Online version at the Perseus Digital Library\n Sommerstein, Alan H., Aeschylus: Fragments. Edited and translated by Alan H. Sommerstein. Loeb Classical Library No. 505. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009. . Online version at Harvard University Press.\n Strabo, Geography, translated by Horace Leonard Jones; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. (1924). Online version at the Perseus Digital Library, Books 6–14\n Swain, S. C. R., "A Note on Iliad 9.524–99: The Story of Meleager", The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1988), pp.\xa0271–276.  \n Tripp, Edward, Crowell\'s Handbook of Classical Mythology, Thomas Y. Crowell Co; First edition (June 1970). .\n Tzetzes, Scolia eis Lycophroon, edited by Christian Gottfried Müller, Sumtibus F.C.G. Vogelii, 1811. Internet Archive\n Tzetzes, John, Allegories of the Iliad, translated by Adam J. Goldwyn and Dimitra Kokkini, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, Harvard University Press, 2015. .\nVirgil, Aeneid, Theodore C. Williams. trans. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Co. 1910. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library\n West, M. L. (2003), Greek Epic Fragments: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Edited and translated by Martin L. West. Loeb Classical Library No. 497. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003.  . Online version at Harvard University Press.\n\nExternal links\n\nAchaean Leaders',
]
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_evaluator
Evaluated with TripletEvaluator

Metric	Value
cosine_accuracy	0.5408
dot_accuracy	0.4898
manhattan_accuracy	0.6429
euclidean_accuracy	0.5204
max_accuracy	0.6429

Training Details

Training Hyperparameters

Non-Default Hyperparameters

eval_strategy: epoch
per_device_train_batch_size: 4
per_device_eval_batch_size: 4
gradient_accumulation_steps: 4
weight_decay: 0.005
num_train_epochs: 5
warmup_ratio: 0.1
fp16: True
load_best_model_at_end: True
hub_model_id: DIS-Project/trained_on_all_data_trainer_push_00
hub_private_repo: True
batch_sampler: no_duplicates

All Hyperparameters

Click to expand

overwrite_output_dir: False
do_predict: False
eval_strategy: epoch
prediction_loss_only: True
per_device_train_batch_size: 4
per_device_eval_batch_size: 4
per_gpu_train_batch_size: None
per_gpu_eval_batch_size: None
gradient_accumulation_steps: 4
eval_accumulation_steps: None
learning_rate: 5e-05
weight_decay: 0.005
adam_beta1: 0.9
adam_beta2: 0.999
adam_epsilon: 1e-08
max_grad_norm: 1.0
num_train_epochs: 5
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: True
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: DIS-Project/trained_on_all_data_trainer_push_00
hub_strategy: every_save
hub_private_repo: True
hub_always_push: False
gradient_checkpointing: False
gradient_checkpointing_kwargs: None
include_inputs_for_metrics: False
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
batch_sampler: no_duplicates
multi_dataset_batch_sampler: proportional

Training Logs

Epoch	Step	Training Loss	loss	dev_evaluator_max_accuracy
0.3656	100	4.8658	-	-
0.7313	200	4.3892	-	-
0.9982	273	-	4.2133	0.6837
1.0969	300	4.3572	-	-
1.4625	400	4.2538	-	-
1.8282	500	3.7372	-	-
2.0	547	-	4.3974	0.6122
2.1938	600	3.7935	-	-
2.5594	700	3.156	-	-
2.9250	800	3.0318	-	-
2.9982	820	-	4.7131	0.6122
3.2907	900	2.9946	-	-
3.6563	1000	2.462	-	-
4.0	1094	-	4.9397	0.6939
4.0219	1100	2.4782	-	-
4.3876	1200	2.2449	-	-
4.7532	1300	1.9286	-	-
4.9909	1365	-	5.3030	0.6429

The bold row denotes the saved checkpoint.

Framework Versions

Python: 3.10.14
Sentence Transformers: 3.1.1
Transformers: 4.41.0
PyTorch: 2.4.1+cu121
Accelerate: 0.34.2
Datasets: 3.0.0
Tokenizers: 0.19.1

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",
}

TripletLoss

@misc{hermans2017defense,
    title={In Defense of the Triplet Loss for Person Re-Identification},
    author={Alexander Hermans and Lucas Beyer and Bastian Leibe},
    year={2017},
    eprint={1703.07737},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    primaryClass={cs.CV}
}

DIS-Project
/

trained_on_all_data_model_push_00