Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Is Cosine-Similarity of Embeddings Really About Similarity?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.05440 v1 pith:UPYP5ZR4 submitted 2024-03-08 cs.IR cs.LG

classification cs.IRcs.LG
keywords cosine-similaritymodelsembeddingslineararbitraryinsightssimilaritiessimilarity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosine-similarity is the cosine of the angle between two vectors, or equivalently the dot product between their normalizations. A popular application is to quantify semantic similarity between high-dimensional objects by applying cosine-similarity to a learned low-dimensional feature embedding. This can work better but sometimes also worse than the unnormalized dot-product between embedded vectors in practice. To gain insight into this empirical observation, we study embeddings derived from regularized linear models, where closed-form solutions facilitate analytical insights. We derive analytically how cosine-similarity can yield arbitrary and therefore meaningless `similarities.' For some linear models the similarities are not even unique, while for others they are implicitly controlled by the regularization. We discuss implications beyond linear models: a combination of different regularizations are employed when learning deep models; these have implicit and unintended effects when taking cosine-similarities of the resulting embeddings, rendering results opaque and possibly arbitrary. Based on these insights, we caution against blindly using cosine-similarity and outline alternatives.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Visualizing Graph-to-Answer Mechanism Recovery in Materials-Science Hypothesis Generation

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under graph corruption, mechanism recovery in Graph-PRefLexOR-8B concentrates in late synthesis and answer-start layers 30 and 36, not in transition layers 7 to 10.

  2. How Small Transformation Expose the Weakness of Semantic Similarity Measures

    cs.CL 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A diagnostic benchmark of text and code transformations finds embedding similarity metrics often conflate opposition with equivalence; LLM judges discriminate better, and Euclidean distance improves code embeddings.

  3. In Defense of Cosine Similarity: Normalization Eliminates the Gauge Freedom

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    On unit-normalized embeddings, cosine distance equals half the squared Euclidean distance, so the diagonal gauge ambiguity vanishes when normalization is imposed during training.

Pith tools