A visual observation on the geometry of UMAP projections of the difference vectors of antonym and synonym word pair embeddings

How can an analyst decide whether a nonlinear dimensionality reduction embedding can be trusted? Existing diagnostics provide only partial answers: projection glyphs characterize local sensitivity, map-continuity scores measure local conditioning, and transport-based analyses reveal path-dependent inconsistencies. However, these methods appear unrelated and provide no common framework for understanding when they agree or not. We show that they are all derived from a single geometric object induced by every differentiable embedding, whether defined implicitly through optimization or explicitly by a learned mapping. This framework provides two complementary geometric views of an embedding. The differential view explains local behavior: its first-order term recovers projection glyphs, while its second-order curvature quantifies how far their linear approximation remains reliable. The integral view follows the same geometry along high dimensional paths and determines whether an embedding depends only on the current state or also on the path taken to reach it. We further show that map-continuity is a prerequisite for the other analyses. The framework is theoretically complete for diagnostics derived from the embedding geometry, and we prove the integral view irreducible: no amount of local measurement at any number of points, to any order of derivative, reproduces what it detects. Classical rank-based metrics form a complementary class based on finite-scale neighborhood relationships. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets validate theoretical predictions, demonstrate accurate curvature-based trust estimates on single-cell embeddings, and show that the integral analysis distinguishes single-valued embeddings from path-dependent optimization-based embeddings in ways that existing pointwise diagnostics cannot.

The standard way to compare two text embeddings is cosine similarity. Scattered studies report that a different metric does better, but never pin down the geometric condition that decides when, or why. We settle both with a comprehensive empirical study: nineteen parameter-free similarity metrics on nineteen encoders, from compact sentence transformers up to seven-billion-parameter large language models, across seven datasets. The answer is geometric. When an encoder spreads its variance evenly across directions, cosine is the best parameter-free choice and no other metric helps by a usable margin. When the variance concentrates into a few dominant directions, a property known as anisotropy, rank-based and L1-type metrics beat cosine by a clear margin. The absolute gain is modest, but because cosine starts low on these encoders it is a sizable relative improvement, around twenty percent on average and largest where cosine is weakest. What decides this is the geometry of the embedding space, not how the model was trained: where the two disagree, the metric follows the geometry. One number, the fraction of variance held by the single most dominant dimension, predicts how much the alternatives help across all nineteen encoders, with a rank correlation of 0.86 and a linear correlation of 0.95. To test this as the cause rather than a correlate, we project out the dominant directions: cosine recovers and the advantage of the other metrics nearly vanishes, but only on the encoders that were anisotropic to begin with. The effect is directional, not magnitude based, since it survives normalizing every vector to unit length. Among parameter-free metrics, then, cosine is the right tool wherever an encoder is well spread, which includes the fine-tuned embedders commonly deployed for retrieval, and we give a one-number diagnostic for when it is not.

The embedding of word sequences into continuous vector spaces has been one of the most important developments in Natural Language Processing in the recent past. Such embeddings have found application in areas such as Automatic Speech Recognition, Machine Translation, Sentiment Analysis and many more. This essay reviews the various mechanisms that have been proposed for the calculation of word embeddings, investigates popular toolkits and embedding matrices that are available in the public domain, and experiments with one or more selected implementations to better understand their characteristics. La représentation vectorielle continue de mots a été l'un des développements les plus importants dans le domaine du traitement automatique du langage naturel au cours des dernières années. Ces représentations ont trouvé application dans des domaines tels que la reconnaissance vocale, la traduction automatique, l'analyse des sentiments, etc. Ce travail passe en revue les différents mécanismes proposés pour le calcul de ces vecteurs de mots, étudie les kits d'outils populaires et les matrices disponibles publiquement en ligne, et expérimente avec une ou plusieurs implémentations sélectionnées pour mieux comprendre leurs caractéristiques.