The lifecycle of an embedding

In our previous article, we explored the fundamentals of embeddings and how they enable systems to understand and work with complex data. Now, let's take a closer look at the lifecycle of embeddings, from their creation to their utilization, and discuss the tradeoffs, potential pitfalls, and the ever-evolving landscape of this powerful technique.

The Larval Stage: Data Representation

The lifecycle of embeddings begins with the raw data, which can take various forms, such as text or images. Let's consider an example of a piece of unstructured text data that isn’t quite ready for machine understanding.

Raw Text: "Slimey Sara's Secret Slime Recipe: Mix 1 cup of Elmer's glue, 
1/2 cup of shaving cream, and a dash of baking soda. 
Add some food coloring and glitter for extra sparkle!"

At this stage, the data is like a blob of unformed slime. It needs to undergo a transformation to become a numerical representation so systems can work with it.

The Cocoon Stage: Embedding Creation

The raw data is fed into an embedding model, which acts as a cocoon, transforming the data into a numerical representation. The model analyzes the input and assigns a unique set of numbers to represent its features and characteristics. 

Embedding: [0.2, -0.1, 0.5, 0.3, -0.2, ..., 0.1]

‍* Remember, these numbers don’t mean anything directly to us - they’re just a unique encoding of how a given embedding model sees the input you gave it. Think of it like an MRI machine taking a scan.

The resulting embedding is a high-dimensional vector that captures the semantic meaning of the input data. The dimensionality of the embedding, i.e., the number of elements in the vector, plays a crucial role in the expressiveness and efficiency of the representation.

The Metamorphosis: Dimensions and Context Windows

As our slime recipe embedding emerges from the cocoon, it takes on a unique shape and structure. The dimensions and context window of the embedding play a crucial role in determining its expressiveness and efficiency.

Let's walk through the differences and nuances to consider when using shorter and longer context windows.

Dimensions

Dimensions refer to the number of values or coordinates that make up each vector representing a word or piece of text. These dimensions capture different aspects of the semantic and syntactic information associated with the word or text.

Think of dimensions as the different colors and patterns on a butterfly's wings. Just as each color and pattern contributes to the overall appearance and function of the wings, each dimension in an embedding tries to capture a specific aspect or feature of the input data. AI interpretability work, for example, has a large focus on understanding which features are encoded in specific neurons in a neural network. These aren’t always obvious to us, but given enough data and examples, patterns start to form, and dimensions can capture these patterns.

Original Embedding: [0.2, -0.1, 0.5, 0.3, -0.2, ..., 0.1] (768 dimensions)
Reduced Embedding: [0.2, -0.1, 0.5, 0.3] (4 dimensions)

The number of dimensions in an embedding is like the size of a butterfly's wings. Larger wings allow for more intricate patterns and greater flight capabilities, while smaller wings are more lightweight and agile. Similarly, embeddings with higher dimensionality can capture more nuanced relationships and semantics, but they come with increased computational complexity and memory requirements.

Traditionally, a higher dimensionality allows for more fine-grained semantic representation but comes at the cost of increased computational complexity. On the other hand, a lower dimensionality offers faster processing but may sacrifice some expressive power.

Let’s look at the same example as we used for context windows, but this time by looking at three different embedding models at various dimension sizes: 384, 768, and 1024 dimensions.

Query: "how to make fluffy slime"

Scenario 1: Embedding Model A (384 dimensions)

Top Retrieved Text:

1. "Mix glue and shaving cream to make slime." (Similarity: 0.85)

2. "Slime recipe: Glue, shaving cream, baking soda." (Similarity: 0.82)

3. "Fluffy slime ingredients: Glue, lotion, activator." (Similarity: 0.80)

The 384-dimensional model captures the main ingredients and basic steps but lacks nuance in the instructions.

‍Scenario 2: Embedding Model B (768 dimensions)

Top Retrieved Text:

1. "To make fluffy slime, mix equal parts glue and shaving cream, then add baking soda until desired consistency is reached." (Similarity: 0.92)

2. "For stretchier fluffy slime, add a small amount of lotion or baby oil to the mixture and knead thoroughly." (Similarity: 0.88)

3. "Fluffy slime troubleshooting: If too sticky, add more activator; if too rubbery, add more lotion." (Similarity: 0.85)

The 768-dimensional model captures more detailed instructions and relationships between ingredients and texture.

Scenario 3: Embedding Model C (1024 dimensions)

Top Retrieved Documents:

1. "The key to perfect fluffy slime is the ratio of ingredients. Experiment with different proportions of glue, shaving cream, and lotion to achieve your desired consistency." (Similarity: 0.95)

2. "Temperature affects fluffy slime texture. Warm ingredients create a softer slime, while cold ingredients result in a firmer texture." (Similarity: 0.90)

3. "Fluffy slime can be used as a sensory tool for stress relief and improving hand strength and dexterity." (Similarity: 0.87)

The 1024-dimensional model captures nuanced relationships between ingredients, temperature, and texture, as well as unconventional uses for fluffy slime. However, if the model hasn't seen enough data on slime's sensory benefits, it may make incorrect associations or fail to retrieve relevant information.

This adds more complexity when considering changes to language over time (such as from pop culture and trends), multilingual use cases (particularly underrepresented languages), and domain-specific verticals (legal, healthcare, insurance), but presents opportunities for organizations for utilizing their data in innovative ways.

In these examples, we see how higher dimensions allow for more nuanced understanding and complex relationships but also require sufficient training data to avoid potential issues with unseen or domain-specific information. 

As the embedding dimensionality increases, the models can capture more fine-grained semantic relationships and retrieve documents that cover various aspects of fluffy slime making in greater depth and specificity.

Context Windows

Context windows determine the amount of surrounding information taken into account when creating the embedding. It's like the slime's consistency—a wider context window allows the embedding to capture more contextual cues, while a narrower window focuses on the immediate surroundings.

Longer context windows are typically great for processing longer documents, such as question answering tasks in Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) - the more data you can fit in, the more data you can access, though things start to get a bit ‘crowded’ as more and more concepts get fit into a single embedding. 

Lower context windows, on the other hand, may not offer the same long-range retrieval capabilities as those with larger context windows. With the smaller context window, you’re forced to make the inputs shorter, smaller, and more concise - which can help when preparing your datasets for embedding - but they’re able to focus their full attention on the representation of the inputs, making for richer embeddings that can pack a punch in a smaller package.

Let's showcase the difference between using shorter and longer context windows in the slime example, focusing on product descriptions for the shorter context window and a more comprehensive tutorial for the longer context window.

Scenario 1: Shorter Context Window (512 tokens) 

Use Case: Product Description Similarity Search

‍Query: "Ingredients for making slime"

‍Relevant Product Embeddings:

- "Elmer's White School Glue: Perfect for making slime, this non-toxic, washable glue is a must-have for your slime recipe."

- "Gillette Foamy Shaving Cream: Add this gentle, foamy shaving cream to your slime mixture for a fluffy, touchable texture."

- "Arm & Hammer Baking Soda: A pinch of this all-purpose baking soda helps to firm up your slime and prevent stickiness."

In this scenario, the embedding model with a shorter context window is well-suited for capturing the essential information from concise product descriptions. It can effectively identify the key ingredients mentioned in each description and provide relevant results for the query.

‍Scenario 2: Longer Context Window (2048 tokens)

Use Case: Retrieving and Synthesizing Information

‍Query: "Detailed step-by-step guide for kids making fluffy slime using glue and shaving cream"

‍Relevant Document Embeddings:

"How to Make Fluffy Slime:

1. In a large bowl, mix together 1/2 cup of white school glue and 1/2 cup of shaving cream until well combined.

2. Add a pinch of baking soda to the mixture and stir thoroughly.

3. Slowly add contact lens solution to the mixture, stirring constantly. Add a little at a time until the slime begins to form and pull away from the sides of the bowl.

4. Knead the slime with your hands until it reaches the desired consistency. If it's too sticky, add a little more contact lens solution.

5. To make your fluffy slime even softer and stretchier, add a dollop of hand lotion to the slime and knead it in.

6. Store your fluffy slime in an airtight container when not in use to keep it fresh and prevent it from drying out.

Tips:

- For a scented slime, add a few drops of your favorite essential oil during the mixing process.

- Experiment with different ratios of glue and shaving cream to achieve various textures and consistencies.

- If your slime becomes too hard or rubbery, try adding a little more lotion to soften it up.

Have fun playing with your homemade fluffy slime!"

In this scenario, the embedding model with a longer context window is better equipped to handle the comprehensive tutorial. It can capture the detailed step-by-step instructions, additional tips, and contextual information that span across multiple sentences and paragraphs. The longer context window allows the model to understand the nuances and dependencies within the tutorial, providing a more complete and coherent representation of the information.

By using the appropriate context window size for each scenario, the embedding models can effectively capture and represent the relevant information, whether it's concise product descriptions or detailed step-by-step tutorials.

The Evolutionary Adaptations: Matryoshka and Binary Embeddings

Matryoshka embeddings, inspired by Russian nesting dolls, compress embeddings while preserving essential information. They create a hierarchy of embeddings, capturing different granularities of information. Outer layers capture high-level information, while inner layers capture specific details. This structure allows for efficient compression and retrieval at different levels of granularity.

Matryoshka embeddings involve tradeoffs between compression and information preservation. Compressing embeddings into a hierarchical structure may lose some fine-grained details, but the benefits include significantly reduced storage requirements and improved efficiency in similarity search and retrieval operations. When implemented correctly, accuracy loss can be minimal, and the advantages become more pronounced in large-scale datasets and real-time applications.

Binary embeddings represent data using compact binary codes, encoding information like a binary pattern. They offer a memory-efficient approach to similarity search and retrieval, sacrificing some precision for efficiency. While involving trade offs, binary embeddings provide significant storage and latency improvements when implemented correctly.

Both Matryoshka and binary embeddings demonstrate the power of great engineering and AI research coming together to create innovative solutions. By understanding the tradeoffs and implementing these techniques correctly, we can unlock new possibilities for efficient and effective embedding-based applications.

The Ecosystem: Interoperability and Continuous Evolution

Embeddings created using different models or dimensionalities may not be directly compatible with each other. This can introduce complexity when integrating embeddings from multiple sources or updating existing embeddings with new models.

Embedding Model A: [0.2, -0.1, 0.5, 0.3] (4 dimensions)
Embedding Model B: [0.1, -0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.2] (5 dimensions)

To address this challenge, techniques like embedding alignment or transfer learning can be employed to bridge the gap between different embedding spaces.

As the field continues to evolve, driven by the efforts of researchers and engineers, new techniques and advancements emerge. These innovations push the boundaries of what's possible with embeddings, enabling more efficient and effective representations. Understanding the lifecycle of embeddings, from data representation to dimensionality and beyond, equips practitioners with the knowledge to harness their power effectively.