This is a sentence-transformers model finetuned from nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased. It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for retrieval.

Model Details

Model Description

Model Type: Sentence Transformer
Base model: nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased
Maximum Sequence Length: 512 tokens
Output Dimensionality: 768 dimensions
Similarity Function: Cosine Similarity
Supported Modality: Text

Model Sources

Documentation: Sentence Transformers Documentation
Repository: Sentence Transformers on GitHub
Hugging Face: Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face

Full Model Architecture

SentenceTransformer(
  (0): Transformer({'transformer_task': 'feature-extraction', 'modality_config': {'text': {'method': 'forward', 'method_output_name': 'last_hidden_state'}}, 'module_output_name': 'token_embeddings', 'architecture': 'BertModel'})
  (1): Pooling({'embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode': 'mean', '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.

python

from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer

# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("sentence_transformers_model_id")
# Run inference
sentences = [
    "8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia. 9.  On 6 February 1999 the applicant was driving from Bosnia and Herzegovina and crossed the border to Croatia at the checkpoint at Maljevac. He was stopped by a customs officer for a routine check. 10.  The applicant gives the following account of what happened at the border checkpoint. Before arriving in Croatia, the applicant and another person, K.B., had purchased four cartons of cigarettes and two litres of cooking oil. 11.  At the border checkpoint they were approached by a customs officer who asked the applicant if he had anything to declare. The applicant pointed at the purchased goods, lying in the backseat of the car, inviting the customs officer to take a look. The officer then asked the applicant to show him his passport. While holding the applicant's passport the officer told the applicant that he had failed to declare the goods and thus committed a customs offence. He asked the applicant to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred Croatian Kunas (hereinafter HRK). 12.  The applicant told the officer that he could not pay the fine right away because he did not have enough money on him. The officer did not return the applicant's passport and told him that he would receive his passport when he had paid the fine. The applicant then continued to Croatia. 13.  The Government gave the following account of the facts. While entering Croatia the applicant failed to declare goods that he had purchased in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, a customs officer found five cartons of cigarettes and two litres of cooking oil in the applicant's car. He routinely fined the applicant with HRK 200 [Approximately 30 euros] for a minor customs offence. The applicant was immediately given a document which stated that he was fined with HRK 200 for having failed to declare five cartons of cigarettes he was importing. The applicant signed the document. During this procedure the applicant's passport was kept by the customs officer, who had intended to return it to the applicant. However, the applicant refused to pay the fine and demonstratively drove away, leaving his passport behind. 14.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant wrote from his address in Karlovac to the Ministry of Finance, Customs Administration Headquarters asking that his passport be returned. 15.  On 22 February 1999 the Customs Administration replied to the applicant's address in Karlovac that the custom officers acted in accordance with law when they seized the applicant's passport because he had refused to pay the fine for a customs offence which he had committed by failing to declare goods at a border checkpoint. They relied on Sections 325 to 333 of the Customs Act which, inter alia, provided that a person, while crossing a customs check point, had to declare and show all goods that he was importing. Failure to declare such goods represented a customs offence. The letter also stated that since the applicant had not declared the goods that he had been importing to Croatia, he had committed a customs offence under Section 353 of the Customs Act and fined pursuant to § 2 of that Section. The applicant's passport had been kept because the applicant had refused to pay the fine. The letter contained no indication of how and when the applicant's passport would be returned. 16.  Although the applicant did not pay the imposed fine no other proceedings were instituted against him for the alleged customs offence. 17.  In the meantime, on 12 February 1999, the Customs Administration, apparently having decided not to institute any further proceedings against the applicant, handed over the passport to the Slunj Customs Police Department. The Police noticed, however, that the applicant was registered as living in Zagreb for which reason, on 4 March 1999, the passport was sent to the Zagreb Police Department. 18.  On 5 March 1999 the Zagreb Police Department wrote to the applicant's registered address in Zagreb inviting him to collect his passport. The letter was returned. On 6 April 1999 the Zagreb Police Department wrote once more to the applicant, but the letter was again returned. The receipt showed that the applicant was unknown at that address. 19.  The Police discovered subsequently that the applicant, although registered as living in Zagreb, actually lived in Karlovac. On 23 March 2001 the passport was sent to the Karlovac Police Department which invited the applicant to collect his passport. He did so on 4 April 2001. 20.  Having received the Customs Administration's letter of 22 February 1999 the applicant filed a civil suit on 2 March 1999 in the Zagreb Municipal Court against the Ministry of Finance, seeking the return of his passport and damages flowing from his inability to leave Croatia. He also requested the court to adopt an interim measure and order that his passport be returned to him immediately. 21.  On 13 April 1999 the applicant also filed an application in the Zagreb County Court claiming that the seizure of his passport by a customs officer was an unlawful act and that therefore, his right to freedom of movement had been violated. He requested the court to order the Ministry of Finance to return his passport forthwith. 22.  On 21 September 1999 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It found that a claim for protection from an unlawful act was permitted only if there was no other remedy available. In the opinion of the court the applicant had at his disposal another remedy - a civil action for the return of his property. Accordingly, it instructed the applicant to institute civil proceedings in a municipal court against the Ministry of Finance for the return of his passport. 23.  The applicant appealed against the decision. 24.  The applicant's appeal was rejected on 20 April 2000 by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). 25.  In the meantime, at a hearing on 12 April 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court, in the proceedings instituted on 2 March 1999, against the Ministry of Finance, separated the applicant's claim for damages from the claim for return of the passport. 26.  Concerning the claim for return of the applicant's passport the next hearing was held on 11 February 2000. At that hearing the court heard the applicant and then decided to hear K.B., who was with the applicant in the car at the material time. It was furthermore agreed between the parties to adjourn the issue of damages pending the outcome of the claim for the return of the passport. 27.  At a hearing on 1 December 2000 the court heard the customs officer who took the applicant's passport. It also invited the applicant to submit within thirty days a copy of the letter that he had sent to the Customs Administration as well as their reply. 28.  On 23 January 2001 the applicant submitted the Customs Administration's reply of 22 February 1999. 29.  At a hearing on 21 February 2001 the court heard another customs officer and once again the applicant. It then rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure finding that the applicant's main claim, i.e. to have his passport returned, was exactly the same as his request for the interim measure and that, therefore, such a request could only be decided after the court established all the relevant facts of the case. 30.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant filed an application asking that the judge be removed from the case. On 7 March 2001 the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court rejected the applicant's motion. 31.  The next hearing was held on 13 April 2001. The applicant informed the court that on 4 April 2001 the Karlovac Police Department had returned his passport. Therefore, he no longer sought the return of his passport but instead sought a declaratory decision to the effect that on 6 February 1999 his passport was taken from him by the Croatian authorities and returned on 4 April 2001. He also sought costs. 32.  On 24 April 2001 the applicant filed submissions with the court repeating the statements and claims he made at the hearing on 13 April 2001. 33.  On 16 May 2001 the applicant's counsel appeared before the judge and agreed to reformulate the applicant's claim having regard to the fact that the passport had already been returned to him. 34.  The next hearing was held on 28 May 2001 during which it was formally recorded that the passport had been returned to the applicant. The applicant's counsel sought from the court permission to specify the applicant's remaining claims. The court allowed her to do so within thirty days. 35.  On 7 June 2001 the applicant himself filed submissions to the court reiterating the same claims as those submitted on 24 April 2001. No additional claims were submitted by the applicant's counsel. 36.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant again filed an application asking that the judge be removed from the case. The President of the court accepted the request and the case was transferred to another judge. 37.  Following a hearing on 14 November 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's claims. It found that the applicant had no further legal interest in seeking a declaratory decision that his passport had been taken from him by the Croatian authorities on 6 February 1999 and then returned on 4 April 2001. The applicant was also ordered to pay the defendant's costs. 38.  The applicant's subsequent appeal was dismissed and the first instance decision was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 10 September 2002. It held that the applicant had no legal interest in seeking a declaratory decision and that the Zagreb Municipal Court's decision on the costs of the proceedings was well-founded because the applicant had lost his case. 39.  According to the applicant the proceedings concerning his claim for damages have never been resumed and on 24 January 2002 the case was closed without any decision on the merits been taken. 40.  According to the Government the case has not been closed and the proceedings are still pending.",
    'Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.',
    'COMMISSION DECISION of 17 December 1996 concerning protective measures with regard to imports of certain animals and their products from Bulgaria due to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and repealing Decision 96/643/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (96/730/EC)\nTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES\n,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC (2), and in particular Article 19 (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (3), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC, and in particular Article 18 (1),\nWhereas one outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred on 25 October 1996 in Bulgaria;\nWhereas the Bulgarian authorities took action to prohibit the spread of the disease;\nWhereas to protect the livestock population of the Community, the Commission adopted Decision 96/643/EC of 13 November 1996, concerning protective measures with regard to imports of certain animals and their products from Bulgaria (4);\nWhereas Commission Decision 93/242/EEC of 30 April 1993, concerning the importation into the Community of certain live animals and their products originating from certain European countries in relation to foot-and-mouth disease (5), as last amended by Decision 96/643/EC, allows under certain conditions, the importation of live animals, fresh meat and certain meat products from and through certain countries;\nWhereas Commission Decision 95/340/EC (6), as last amended by Decision 96/325/EC (7), draws up a list of third countries from which Member States authorize imports of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products; whereas Bulgaria is included in this list; whereas it is necessary to ensure that any imported milk products have undergone a treatment sufficient to destroy the virus;\nWhereas Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 lays down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to at Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, Directive 90/425/EEC (8), as last amended by Commission Decision 96/340/EC (9), lays down the conditions for the importation of animals casings, hides and skins, bones and bone products, horn and horn products, hooves and hoof products, game trophies and unprocessed wool and hair; whereas these products may be imported only if treated in such a way as to destroy the virus; whereas, however, certain other products may still be imported; whereas this material constitutes a risk;\nWhereas following a Community mission to Bulgaria it has been established that disease control measures have been effectively implemented and prevent the spread of the disease;\nWhereas it is possible to apply the principle of regionalization;\nWhereas with the aim of clarity, Decision 96/643/EC can be repealed;\nWhereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,',
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 768]

# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities)
# tensor([[ 1.0000,  0.4790,  0.1488],
#         [ 0.4790,  1.0000, -0.0600],
#         [ 0.1488, -0.0600,  1.0000]])

Training Details

Training Dataset

Unnamed Dataset

Size: 12,180 training samples
Columns: sentence1, sentence2, and sentence3

Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

	sentence1	sentence2	sentence3
type	string	string	string
details	min: 149 tokens mean: 448.29 tokens max: 512 tokens	min: 15 tokens mean: 216.86 tokens max: 422 tokens	min: 89 tokens mean: 374.35 tokens max: 512 tokens

Samples:

sentence1	sentence2	sentence3
11. At the beginning of the events relevant to the application, K. had a daughter, P., and a son, M., born in 1986 and 1988 respectively. P.’s father is X and M.’s father is V. From March to May 1989 K. was voluntarily hospitalised for about three months, having been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. From August to November 1989 and from December 1989 to March 1990, she was again hospitalised for periods of about three months on account of this illness. In 1991 she was hospitalised for less than a week, diagnosed as suffering from an atypical and undefinable psychosis. It appears that social welfare and health authorities have been in contact with the family since 1989. 12. The applicants initially cohabited from the summer of 1991 to July 1993. In 1991 both P. and M. were living with them. From 1991 to 1993 K. and X were involved in a custody and access dispute concerning P. In May 1992 a residence order was made transferring custody of P. to X. 13. K. was again hospitalis...	Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.	`Commission Regulation (EC) No 537/2002`
of 25 March 2002
opening an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Pursuant to the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, the Community has undertaken to import a certain quantity of maize into Portugal.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 of 26 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000(4), lays down the rules governing the adm...
9. In June 1949 plots of agricultural land owned by the applicant’s father were expropriated by the former Doksy District National Council (okresní národní výbor) under the Czechoslovak New Land Reform Act No. 46/1948 (“the 1948 Act”). The applicant’s father had never obtained any compensation. In 1957 some of these plots were transferred to the ownership of natural persons in an assignment procedure under the 1948 Act. In 1977 the applicant’s father died and the applicant’s rights over his estate were confirmed. 10. After the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, the Act No. 229/1991 on Adjustment of Ownership Rights in respect of Land and Other Agricultural Property (“zákon o půdě”, the “Land Ownership Act”) entered into force on 24 June 1991. The Act provided that the 1948 Act was no longer applicable and that under certain conditions property confiscated pursuant to that Act without compensation could be returned to its former owners or their heirs if it was still in th...	Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the acc...	`Commission Regulation (EC) No 1615/2000`
of 24 July 2000
derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 in respect of the definition of the concept of originating products used for the purposes of the scheme of generalised preferences to take account of the special situation of Nepal regarding certain exports of textiles to the Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 955/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 249 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1662/1999(4), and in particular Article 76 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)...
8. In 1991 Mr Dušan Slobodník, a research worker in the field of literature, published an autobiography entitled Paragraph: Polar Circle. He described in it, inter alia, his conviction by a Soviet military tribunal in 1945 on the ground that he had been ordered to spy on the Soviet army after having been enrolled, in 1944 when he was 17 years old, in a military training course organised by Germans. In the book, Mr Slobodník also wrote about his detention in Soviet gulags and his rehabilitation by the Supreme Court of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in 1960. In June 1992 Mr Slobodník became Minister for Culture and Education of the Slovak Republic. 9. On 20 July 1992 the newspaper Telegraf published a poem by the applicant. It was dated 17 July 1992 (the day when the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic was solemnly proclaimed) and entitled “Good night, my beloved” (“Dobrú noc, má milá”). One of its verses read as follows:
“In Prague prisoner Havel is giving up his president...	Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.	`Commission Regulation (EC) No 562/2004`
of 25 March 2004
on the issue of import licences for olive oil under the Tunisian tariff quota
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 2000/822/EC of 22 December 2000 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Tunisia concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures and amendment of the Agricultural Protocols to the EC/Tunisia Association Agreement(1),
Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2001 of 15 February 2001 laying down detailed rules of application for the importation of olive oil originating in Tunisia and derogating from certain provisions of Regulations (EC) No 1476/95 and (EC) No 1291/2000(3), and...

Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
json
1{ 2 "scale": 20.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim", 4 "gather_across_devices": false, 5 "directions": [ 6 "query_to_doc" 7 ], 8 "partition_mode": "joint", 9 "hardness_mode": null, 10 "hardness_strength": 0.0 11}

Training Hyperparameters

Non-Default Hyperparameters

per_device_train_batch_size: 16
learning_rate: 2e-05
warmup_steps: 0.1
fp16: True

All Hyperparameters

Click to expand

do_predict: False
prediction_loss_only: True
per_device_train_batch_size: 16
per_device_eval_batch_size: 8
gradient_accumulation_steps: 1
eval_accumulation_steps: None
torch_empty_cache_steps: None
learning_rate: 2e-05
weight_decay: 0.0
adam_beta1: 0.9
adam_beta2: 0.999
adam_epsilon: 1e-08
max_grad_norm: 1.0
num_train_epochs: 3
max_steps: -1
lr_scheduler_type: linear
lr_scheduler_kwargs: None
warmup_ratio: None
warmup_steps: 0.1
log_level: passive
log_level_replica: warning
log_on_each_node: True
logging_nan_inf_filter: True
enable_jit_checkpoint: False
save_on_each_node: False
save_only_model: False
restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint: False
use_cpu: False
seed: 42
data_seed: None
bf16: False
fp16: True
bf16_full_eval: False
fp16_full_eval: False
tf32: None
local_rank: -1
ddp_backend: None
debug: []
dataloader_drop_last: False
dataloader_num_workers: 0
dataloader_prefetch_factor: None
disable_tqdm: False
remove_unused_columns: True
label_names: None
load_best_model_at_end: False
ignore_data_skip: False
fsdp: []
fsdp_config: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}
accelerator_config: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}
parallelism_config: None
deepspeed: None
label_smoothing_factor: 0.0
optim: adamw_torch_fused
optim_args: None
group_by_length: False
length_column_name: length
project: huggingface
trackio_space_id: trackio
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
push_to_hub: False
resume_from_checkpoint: None
hub_model_id: None
hub_strategy: every_save
hub_private_repo: None
hub_always_push: False
hub_revision: None
gradient_checkpointing: False
gradient_checkpointing_kwargs: None
include_for_metrics: []
eval_do_concat_batches: True
auto_find_batch_size: False
full_determinism: False
ddp_timeout: 1800
torch_compile: False
torch_compile_backend: None
torch_compile_mode: None
include_num_input_tokens_seen: no
neftune_noise_alpha: None
optim_target_modules: None
batch_eval_metrics: False
eval_on_start: False
use_liger_kernel: False
liger_kernel_config: None
eval_use_gather_object: False
average_tokens_across_devices: True
use_cache: False
prompts: None
batch_sampler: batch_sampler
multi_dataset_batch_sampler: proportional
router_mapping: {}
learning_rate_mapping: {}

Training Logs

Epoch	Step	Training Loss
0.6562	500	2.3605
1.3123	1000	2.0662
1.9685	1500	2.0293
2.6247	2000	1.9372

Training Time

Training: 53.0 minutes

Framework Versions

Python: 3.12.13
Sentence Transformers: 5.4.1
Transformers: 5.0.0
PyTorch: 2.10.0+cu128
Accelerate: 1.13.0
Datasets: 4.0.0
Tokenizers: 0.22.2

Citation

BibTeX

Sentence Transformers

bibtex

@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",
}

MultipleNegativesRankingLoss