Hacker News Reader

Comment by pamelafox | Hacker News Reader

Another tip: do NOT store vector embeddings of nothingness, mostly whitespace, a solid image, etc. We've had a few situations with RAG data stores which accidentally ingested mostly-empty content (either text or image), and those dang vectors matched EVERYTHING. WAs I like to think of it, there's a bit of nothing in everything.. so make sure that if you are storing a vector embedding, there is some amount of signal in that embedding.

View on HN

Interesting. A project I worked on (audio recognition for a voice-command system) we ended up going the other way and explicitly adding an encoding of "nothingness" (actually 2, one for "silence" and another for "white noise") and special casing them ("if either 'silence' or 'noise' is in the top 3 matches, ignore the input entirely").

This was to avoid the problem where, when we only had vectors for "valid" sounds and there was an input that didn't match anything in the training set (a foreign language, garbage truck backing up, a dog barking, ...) the model would still return some word as the closest match (there's always a vector that has the highest similarity) and frequently do so with high confidence i.e. even though the actual input didn't actually match anything in the training set, it would be "enough" more like one known vector than any of the others that it would pass most threshold tests, leading to a lot of false positives.

That sounds like a problem for the embedding, would you need to renormalise so that low signal inputs could be well represented. A white square and a red square shouldn't be different levels of details. Depending on the purpose of the vector embedding, there should be a difference between images of mostly white pixels and partial images.

Disclaimer, I don't know shit.

I should clarify that I experienced these issues with text-embedding-ada-002 and the Azure AI vision model (based on Florence). I have not tested many other embedding models to see if they'd have the same issue.

FWIW I think you're right, we have very different stacks, and I've observed the same thing, with a much clunkier description thank your elegant way of putting it.

I do embeddings on arbitrary websites at runtime, and had a persistent problem with the last chunk of a web page matching more things. In retrospect, its obvious that the smaller the chunk was, the more it was matching everything

Full details: MSMARCO MiniLM L6V3 inferenced using ONNX on iOS/web/android/macos/windows/linux

You could also work around this by adding a scaling transformation that normalizes and centers (e.g. sklearn StandardScaler) in between the raw embeddings — based on some example data points from your data set. Might introduce some bias, but I’ve found this helpful in some cases with off the shelf embeddings.

Use horrible quality embeddings and get horrible results. No surprise there. ada is obsolete - I would never want to use it.

We used to have this problem in AWS Rekognition; a poorly detected face -- e.g. a blurry face in the background -- would hit with high confidence with every other blurry face. We fixed that largely by adding specific tests against this [effectively] null vector. The same will work for text or other image vectors.

If you imagine a cartesian coordinate space where your samples are clustered around the origin, then a zero vector will tend to be close to everything because it is the center of the cluster. Which is a different way of saying that there's a bit of nothing in everything I guess :)

Same experience embedding random alphanumeric strings or strings of digits with smaller embedding models—very important to filter those out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com