metadata
language:
- en
license: apache-2.0
tags:
- sentence-transformers
- sentence-similarity
- feature-extraction
- dense
- generated_from_trainer
- dataset_size:1580
- loss:MatryoshkaLoss
- loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: BAAI/bge-m3
widget:
- source_sentence: >-
When was the information published in the Official Journal of the European
Union?
sentences:
- >-
1.Union or Member State law to which the data controller or processor is
subject may restrict by way of a legislative measure the scope of the
obligations and rights provided for in Articles 12 to 22 and Article 34,
as well as Article 5 in so far as its provisions correspond to the
rights and obligations provided for in Articles 12 to 22, when such a
restriction respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms
and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to
safeguard: (a) national security; (b) defence; (c) public security;
4.5.2016 L 119/46 (d) the prevention, investigation, detection or
prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties,
including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to
public security; (e) other important objectives of general public
interest of the Union or of a Member State, in particular an important
economic or financial interest of the Union or of a Member State,
including monetary, budgetary and taxation a matters, public health and
social security; (f) the protection of judicial independence and
judicial proceedings; (g) the prevention, investigation, detection and
prosecution of breaches of ethics for regulated professions; (h) a
monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even
occasionally, to the exercise of official authority in the cases
referred to in points (a) to (e) and (g); (i) the protection of the
data subject or the rights and freedoms of others; (j) the enforcement
of civil law claims.
2.In particular, any legislative measure referred to in paragraph 1
shall contain specific provisions at least, where relevant, as to: (a)
the purposes of the processing or categories of processing; (b) the
categories of personal data; (c) the scope of the restrictions
introduced; (d) the safeguards to prevent abuse or unlawful access or
transfer; (e) the specification of the controller or categories of
controllers; (f) the storage periods and the applicable safeguards
taking into account the nature, scope and purposes of the processing or
categories of processing; (g) the risks to the rights and freedoms of
data subjects; and (h) the right of data subjects to be informed about
the restriction, unless that may be prejudicial to the purpose of the
restriction. CHAPTER IV Controller and processor Section 1 General
obligations
- >-
1.Where processing is to be carried out on behalf of a controller, the
controller shall use only processors providing sufficient guarantees to
implement appropriate technical and organisational measures in such a
manner that processing will meet the requirements of this Regulation and
ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject.
2.The processor shall not engage another processor without prior
specific or general written authorisation of the controller. In the case
of general written authorisation, the processor shall inform the
controller of any intended changes concerning the addition or
replacement of other processors, thereby giving the controller the
opportunity to object to such changes.
3.Processing by a processor shall be governed by a contract or other
legal act under Union or Member State law, that is binding on the
processor with regard to the controller and that sets out the
subject-matter and duration of the processing, the nature and purpose of
the processing, the type of personal data and categories of data
subjects and the obligations and rights of the controller. That contract
or other legal act shall stipulate, in particular, that the processor:
(a) processes the personal data only on documented instructions from
the controller, including with regard to transfers of personal data to a
third country or an international organisation, unless required to do so
by Union or Member State law to which the processor is subject; in such
a case, the processor shall inform the controller of that legal
requirement before processing, unless that law prohibits such
information on important grounds of public interest; (b) ensures that
persons authorised to process the personal data have committed
themselves to confidentiality or are under an appropriate statutory
obligation of confidentiality; (c) takes all measures required pursuant
to Article 32; (d) respects the conditions referred to in paragraphs 2
and 4 for engaging another processor; (e) taking into account the
nature of the processing, assists the controller by appropriate
technical and organisational measures, insofar as this is possible, for
the fulfilment of the controller's obligation to respond to requests for
exercising the data subject's rights laid down in Chapter III; (f)
assists the controller in ensuring compliance with the obligations
pursuant to Articles 32 to 36 taking into account the nature of
processing and the information available to the processor; (g) at the
choice of the controller, deletes or returns all the personal data to
the controller after the end of the provision of services relating to
processing, and deletes existing copies unless Union or Member State law
requires storage of the personal data; (h) makes available to the
controller all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
obligations laid down in this Article and allow for and contribute to
audits, including inspections, conducted by the controller or another
auditor mandated by the controller. 4.5.2016 L 119/49 With regard to
point (h) of the first subparagraph, the processor shall immediately
inform the controller if, in its opinion, an instruction infringes this
Regulation or other Union or Member State data protection provisions.
4.Where a processor engages another processor for carrying out specific
processing activities on behalf of the controller, the same data
protection obligations as set out in the contract or other legal act
between the controller and the processor as referred to in paragraph 3
shall be imposed on that other processor by way of a contract or other
legal act under Union or Member State law, in particular providing
sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and
organisational measures in such a manner that the processing will meet
the requirements of this Regulation. Where that other processor fails to
fulfil its data protection obligations, the initial processor shall
remain fully liable to the controller for the performance of that other
processor's obligations.
5.Adherence of a processor to an approved code of conduct as referred to
in Article 40 or an approved certification mechanism as referred to in
Article 42 may be used as an element by which to demonstrate sufficient
guarantees as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Article.
6.Without prejudice to an individual contract between the controller and
the processor, the contract or the other legal act referred to in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article may be based, in whole or in part, on
standard contractual clauses referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this
Article, including when they are part of a certification granted to the
controller or processor pursuant to Articles 42 and 43
7.The Commission may lay down standard contractual clauses for the
matters referred to in paragraph 3 and 4 of this Article and in
accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2).
8.A supervisory authority may adopt standard contractual clauses for the
matters referred to in paragraph 3 and 4 of this Article and in
accordance with the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 63
9.The contract or the other legal act referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4
shall be in writing, including in electronic form.
10.Without prejudice to Articles 82, 83 and 84, if a processor infringes
this Regulation by determining the purposes and means of processing, the
processor shall be considered to be a controller in respect of that
processing.
- >-
Awareness-raising activities by supervisory authorities addressed to the
public should include specific measures directed at controllers and
processors, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, as well
as natural persons in particular in the educational context. 4.5.2016 L
119/24 Official Journal of the European Union EN
- source_sentence: >-
What additional security measures are not required for mobile phone
companies?
sentences:
- >-
**Court (Civil/Criminal): Civil**
**Provisions:**
**Time of commission of the act:**
**Outcome (not guilty, guilty):**
**Reasoning:** Claim for compensation and monetary satisfaction due to
moral damage against a mobile phone company and a credit institution
within the framework of inadequate fulfillment of a payment services
contract for "web banking." Appropriate actions for mobile phone
companies in case of a request for a "sim" card replacement due to wear
or loss. They must verify the customer's identity based on the personal
details and identification information registered in their system but
are not liable for any changes in the latter that were not timely
communicated to them. Further security measures such as phone
communication or sending an SMS to the mobile number holder are not
required. Payment services under Law 4357/2018. Obligation of the
payment service provider, such as banks, to inform the payer after
receiving a relevant order for making a payment. The content of this
varies per case, such as sending a personalized code to the user's
mobile phone for transaction approval, as well as sending an email
immediately after its completion. However, the bank is not liable for
customer damage resulting from illicit electronic transactions due to
third-party interception of either the access codes for electronic
banking transactions or the sim card and the phone number to which the
personalized codes for approving the aforementioned transactions are
sent, within the framework of increased security protocols. Appropriate
actions by banks upon diagnosing illicit banking transactions that may
be fraudulent. Relevant criteria for consideration. The evidence did not
indicate negligent and thus tortious behavior from all defendants. The
claim is dismissed.
**Facts:** In the present claim, upon due assessment of its content, the
plaintiff states that he has a mobile phone subscription with the first
defendant, a mobile phone company. On October 26, 2020, in the morning,
he realized that his mobile phone was offline, and by noon, he received
email notifications from Bank .......... and ............ (whose third
and fourth defendants are de facto universal successors, respectively),
with which he holds an account, regarding transactions he had made. From
phone calls from his home phone to Bank .............. and ............
Bank, he was informed that on the same day, in a very short period, four
money transfers had been made from the account he maintains at Bank
.............., specifically, an amount of €15,000 was transferred to
the account mentioned in the claim document under the name ...........,
at ........ an amount of €15,000 was transferred to the account
mentioned in the claim document under the name ......... at ...........
Bank, an amount of €15,000 was transferred to the plaintiff's account
with his daughter as a co-holder at ......... Bank, and an amount of
€6,700 was transferred from another of his accounts to the account from
which the transfer to the aforementioned accounts of €45,000 was made.
Additionally, from the plaintiff's account with his daughter as a
co-holder at .......... Bank, an amount of €9,999 was transferred to an
account under the name of .... . He attempted to log into the online
banking service of Bank ......... from his home computer, but found that
the service was locked, while regarding the corresponding service of
........... Bank, he requested alongside his daughter to 'lock' it. In a
phone call with the call center of Bank ............, he was informed
about the locking of his electronic account in the online banking
service and was told to dispute the transactions, which he did
immediately through ... banking, while his daughter communicated about
this with ....... Bank. The transfer to the account with the beneficiary
was canceled, and the amount of €15,000 was returned to the plaintiff.
After his investigation, he discovered that an unknown individual
appeared at the branch of the first defendant, served by the second
defendant, who posed as the plaintiff and presented a forged military ID
card of the plaintiff, requesting and receiving a new sim card,
resulting in the deactivation of the plaintiff's sim card and gaining
access to the codes sent to him by the banks for completing the
transfers. Due to the negligence of the second defendant, he did not
realize that the identity used was forged, as since 2010, when the
plaintiff retired, he has had a police identification card. The first
defendant does not have security protocols to prevent such incidents,
which constitute the sim .... method, despite the issuance of a press
release from the Attica Security and numerous publications regarding the
aforementioned method, unlike other mobile phone companies, which
implement a specific procedure for changing sim cards. The second
defendant did not take the obvious step to check the functioning of the
sim card before replacing it, where he would have realized that the
plaintiff's mobile phone was functioning normally. Bank .......... and
........... Bank: a) accepted requests for transferring large amounts of
money from accounts that had no similar activity in the past, while the
plaintiff's online banking account with the above banks was locked quite
some time later, b) sent email notifications regarding successful
transactions in succession, under a single email, c) did not check the
address ... of the perpetrators, which was different from that used by
the plaintiff, and d) did not take necessary security measures to
prevent fraud via sim ... against the plaintiff, as the security code
(pin) sent by the banks via message to the mobile phone proved to be
compromised. As a result of the above illegal and culpable behavior of
the defendants, the plaintiff suffered property damage amounting to a
total of €24,999, which constitutes the total amount of the transfers
made by third unknown persons to accounts of unknown individuals, as
stated above, and has not been refunded despite his repeated inquiries,
while he also suffered distress and mental anguish, and his trust in the
banks was shaken, thus entitling him to monetary compensation for his
moral damage, amounting to €5,000.
- >-
1.The Board shall issue an opinion where a competent supervisory
authority intends to adopt any of the measures below. To that end, the
competent supervisory authority shall communicate the draft decision to
the Board, when it: (a) aims to adopt a list of the processing
operations subject to the requirement for a data protection impact
assessment pursuant to Article 35(4); (b) concerns a matter pursuant to
Article 40(7) whether a draft code of conduct or an amendment or
extension to a code of conduct complies with this Regulation; 4.5.2016 L
119/73 (c) aims to approve the criteria for accreditation of a body
pursuant to Article 41(3) or a certification body pursuant to Article
43(3); (d) aims to determine standard data protection clauses referred
to in point (d) of Article 46(2) and in Article 28(8); (e) aims to
authorise contractual clauses referred to in point (a) of Article 46(3);
or (f) aims to approve binding corporate rules within the meaning of
Article 47
2.Any supervisory authority, the Chair of the Board or the Commission
may request that any matter of general application or producing effects
in more than one Member State be examined by the Board with a view to
obtaining an opinion, in particular where a competent supervisory
authority does not comply with the obligations for mutual assistance in
accordance with Article 61 or for joint operations in accordance with
Article 62
3.In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Board shall issue
an opinion on the matter submitted to it provided that it has not
already issued an opinion on the same matter. That opinion shall be
adopted within eight weeks by simple majority of the members of the
Board. That period may be extended by a further six weeks, taking into
account the complexity of the subject matter. Regarding the draft
decision referred to in paragraph 1 circulated to the members of the
Board in accordance with paragraph 5, a member which has not objected
within a reasonable period indicated by the Chair, shall be deemed to be
in agreement with the draft decision.
4.Supervisory authorities and the Commission shall, without undue delay,
communicate by electronic means to the Board, using a standardised
format any relevant information, including as the case may be a summary
of the facts, the draft decision, the grounds which make the enactment
of such measure necessary, and the views of other supervisory
authorities concerned.
5.The Chair of the Board shall, without undue, delay inform by
electronic means: (a) the members of the Board and the Commission of
any relevant information which has been communicated to it using a
standardised format. The secretariat of the Board shall, where
necessary, provide translations of relevant information; and (b) the
supervisory authority referred to, as the case may be, in paragraphs 1
and 2, and the Commission of the opinion and make it public.
6.The competent supervisory authority shall not adopt its draft decision
referred to in paragraph 1 within the period referred to in paragraph 3
7.The supervisory authority referred to in paragraph 1 shall take utmost
account of the opinion of the Board and shall, within two weeks after
receiving the opinion, communicate to the Chair of the Board by
electronic means whether it will maintain or amend its draft decision
and, if any, the amended draft decision, using a standardised format.
8.Where the supervisory authority concerned informs the Chair of the
Board within the period referred to in paragraph 7 of this Article that
it does not intend to follow the opinion of the Board, in whole or in
part, providing the relevant grounds, Article 65(1) shall apply.
- >-
Member States law should reconcile the rules governing freedom of
expression and information, including journalistic, academic, artistic
and or literary expression with the right to the protection of personal
data pursuant to this Regulation. The processing of personal data solely
for journalistic purposes, or for the purposes of academic, artistic or
literary expression should be subject to derogations or exemptions from
certain provisions of this Regulation if necessary to reconcile the
right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of
expression and information, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter.
This should apply in particular to the processing of personal data in
the audiovisual field and in news archives and press libraries.
Therefore, Member States should adopt legislative measures which lay
down the exemptions and derogations necessary for the purpose of
balancing those fundamental rights. Member States should adopt such
exemptions and derogations on general principles, the rights of the data
subject, the controller and the processor, the transfer of personal data
to third countries or international organisations, the independent
supervisory authorities, cooperation and consistency, and specific
data-processing situations. Where such exemptions or derogations differ
from one Member State to another, the law of the Member State to which
the controller is subject should apply. In order to take account of the
importance of the right to freedom of expression in every democratic
society, it is necessary to interpret notions relating to that freedom,
such as journalism, broadly.
- source_sentence: >-
Which form could the information be provided in when addressed to the
public?
sentences:
- >-
**Court (Civil/Criminal): Civil**
**Provisions:**
**Time of commission of the act:**
**Outcome (not guilty, guilty):**
**Reasoning:** Partially accepts the lawsuit.
**Facts:** The plaintiff, who works as a lawyer, maintains a savings
account with the defendant banking corporation under account number
GR.............. Pursuant to a contract dated June 11, 2010, established
in Thessaloniki between the defendant and the plaintiff, the plaintiff
was granted access to the electronic banking system (e-banking) to
conduct banking transactions remotely. On October 10, 2020, the
plaintiff fell victim to electronic fraud through the "phishing" method,
whereby an unknown perpetrator managed to extract and transfer €3,000.00
from the plaintiff’s account to another account of the same bank.
Specifically, on that day at 6:51 a.m., the plaintiff received an email
from the sender ".........", with the address ..........., informing him
that his debit card had been suspended and that online payments and cash
withdrawals could not be made until the issue was resolved. The email
urged him to confirm his details within the next 72 hours by following a
link titled "card activation."
The plaintiff read the above email on his mobile phone around 8:00 a.m.,
and believing it came from the defendant, he followed the instructions
and accessed a website that was identical (a clone) to that of the
defendant. On this page, he was asked to enter his login credentials to
connect to the service, which he did, and he was subsequently asked to
input his debit card details for the alleged activation, which he also
provided. Then, to complete the process, a number was sent to his mobile
phone at 8:07 a.m. from the sender ........, which he entered, and two
minutes later he received a message from the same sender in English
stating that the quick access code had been activated on his mobile. A
few minutes later, at 8:18 a.m., he received an email from the defendant
informing him of the transfer of €3,000.00 from his account to account
number GR ........... held at the same bank, with the beneficiary's
details being .......... As soon as the plaintiff read this, he
immediately called the defendant's call center and canceled his debit
card, the access codes for the service ......., and locked the
application .......... At the same time, he verbally submitted a request
to dispute and cancel the contested transaction, and in a subsequent
phone call, he also canceled his credit card. On the same day, he also
sent an email to the defendant informing them in writing of the above
and requesting the cancellation of the transaction and the return of the
amount of €3,000.00 to his account, as this transfer was not made by him
but by an unknown perpetrator through electronic fraud and was not
approved by him. It should also be noted that the plaintiff, as the sole
beneficiary according to the aforementioned contract for using the
defendant's Internet Banking service, never received any update via SMS
or the VIBER application from the bank regarding the transaction details
before its completion, nor did he receive a one-time code (OTP) to
approve the contested transaction. He subsequently filed a complaint
against unknown persons at the Cyber Crime Division for the crime of
fraud. The defendant sent an email to the plaintiff on October 16, 2020,
informing him that his request had been forwarded to the appropriate
department of the bank for investigation, stating that the bank would
never send him an email or SMS asking him to enter his personal data and
that as of October 7, 2020, there was a notice posted for its customers
regarding malicious attempts to steal personal data in the "Our News"
section on ....... A month after the disputed incident, on November 10,
2020, an amount of €2,296.82 was transferred to the plaintiff's account
from the account to which the fraudulent credit had been made. The
plaintiff immediately sent an email to the defendant asking to be
informed whether this transfer was a return of part of the amount that
had been illegally withdrawn from his account and requested the return
of the remaining amount of €703.18. In its response dated January 13,
2021, the defendant confirmed that the aforementioned amount indeed came
from the account to which the fraudulent credit had been made, following
a freeze of that account initiated by the defendant during the
investigation of the incident, but refused to return the remaining
amount, claiming it bore no responsibility for the leak of the personal
codes to third parties, according to the terms of the service contract
established between them.
From the entirety of the evidence presented to the court, there is no
indication of the authenticity of the contested transaction, as the
plaintiff did not give his consent for the execution of the transfer of
the amount of €3,000.00, especially in light of the provision in Article
72 paragraph 2 of Law 4537/2018 stating that the mere use of the
Internet Banking service by the plaintiff does not necessarily
constitute sufficient evidence that the payer approved the payment
action. Specifically, it was proven that the contested transaction was
not carried out following a strong identification of the plaintiff – the
sole beneficiary of the account – and his approval, as the latter may
have entered his personal codes on the counterfeit website; however, he
was never informed, before the completion of the contested transaction,
of the amount that would be transferred from his account to a
third-party account, nor did he receive on his mobile phone, either via
SMS or through the VIBER application or any other means, the one-time
code - extra PIN for its completion, which he was required to enter to
approve the contested transaction (payment action) and thus complete his
identification, a fact that was not countered by any evidence from the
defendant. Furthermore, it is noted that the defendant's claims that it
bears no responsibility under the terms of the banking services
contract, whereby it is not liable for any damage to its customer in
cases of unauthorized use of their personal access codes to the Internet
Banking service, are to be rejected as fundamentally unfounded. This is
because the aforementioned contractual terms are invalid according to
the provision of Article 103 of Law 4537/2018, as they contradict the
provisions of Articles 71, 73, and 92 of the same Law, which provide for
the provider's universal liability and its exemption only for unusual
and unforeseen circumstances that are beyond the control of the party
invoking them and whose consequences could not have been avoided despite
all efforts to the contrary; these provisions establish mandatory law in
favor of users, as according to Article 103 of Law 4537/2018, payment
service providers are prohibited from deviating from the provisions to
the detriment of payment service users, unless the possibility of
deviation is explicitly provided and they can decide to offer only more
favorable terms to payment service users; the aforementioned contractual
terms do not constitute more favorable terms but rather disadvantageous
terms for the payment service user. In this case, however, the defendant
did not prove the authenticity of the transaction and its approval by
the plaintiff and did not invoke, nor did any unusual and unforeseen
circumstances beyond its control, the consequences of which could not
have been avoided despite all efforts to the contrary, come to light.
Therefore, the contested transaction transferring the amount of
€3,000.00 is considered, in the absence of demonstrable consent from the
plaintiff, unapproved according to the provisions of Article 64 of Law
4537/2018, and the defendant's contrary claims are rejected, especially
since the plaintiff proceeded, according to Article 71 paragraph 1 of
Law 4537/2018, without undue delay to notify the defendant regarding the
contested unapproved payment action. Consequently, the defendant is
liable for compensating the plaintiff for the positive damage he
suffered under Article 73 of Law 4537/2018 and is obliged to pay him the
requested amount of €703.18, while the plaintiff’s fault in the
occurrence of this damage cannot be established, as he entered his
personal details in an online environment that was a faithful imitation
of that of the defendant, as evidenced by the comparison of the
screenshots of the fake website and the real website provided by the
plaintiff, a fact that he could not have known while being fully
convinced that he was transacting with the defendant. Furthermore, the
defendant’s liability to compensate the plaintiff is based on the
provision of Article 8 of Law 2251/1994, which applies in this case, as
the plaintiff's damage resulted from inadequate fulfillment of its
obligations in the context of providing its services, but also on the
provision of Article 914 of the Civil Code in the sense of omission on
its part of unlawfully and culpably imposed actions. In this case, given
that during the relevant period there had been a multitude of similar
incidents of fraud against the defendant's customers, the latter, as a
service provider to the consumer public and bearing transactional
obligations of care and security towards them, displayed gross
negligence regarding the security provided for electronic transaction
services, which was compromised by the fraudulent theft of funds, as it
did not comply with all required high-security measures for executing
the contested transaction, failing to implement the strict customer
identification verification process and to check the authenticity of the
account to which the funds were sent, thus not assuming the suspicious
nature of the transaction, did not adopt comprehensive and improved
protective measures to fully protect its customers against malicious
attacks and online fraud and to prevent the infiltration of unauthorized
third parties, nor did it fulfill its obligations to inform, accurately
inform, and warn its consumers - customers, as it failed to adequately
inform them of attempts to steal their personal data through the sending
of informative emails or SMS, while merely posting in a section rather
than on a central banner (as it later did) does not constitute adequate
information such that it meets the requirement of protecting its
customers and the increased safeguarding of their interests. Although
the plaintiff acted promptly and informed the defendant on the same day
about the contested incident, the defendant did not act as promptly
regarding the investigation of the incident and the freezing of the
account that held the fraudulent credit to prevent the plaintiff's loss,
but only returned part of the funds to the plaintiff a month later. This
behavior, beyond being culpable due to gross negligence, was also
unlawful, as it would have been illegal even without the contractual
relationship, as contrary to the provisions of Law 4537/2018 and Law
2251/1994, regarding the lack of security of the services that the
consumer is legitimately entitled to expect, as well as the building of
trust that is essential in banking transactions, elements that it was
obligated to provide within the sphere of the services offered, and
contrary to the principles of good faith and commercial ethics, as
crystallized in the provision of Article 288 of the Civil Code, as well
as the general duty imposed by Article 914 of the Civil Code not to
cause harm to another culpably. This resulted not only in positive
damage to the plaintiff but also in causing him moral harm consisting of
his mental distress and the disruption, agitation, and sorrow he
experienced, for which he must be awarded financial compensation. Taking
into account all the general circumstances of the case, the extent of
the plaintiff's damage, the severity of the defendant's fault, the
mental distress suffered by the plaintiff, the insecurity he felt
regarding his deposits, the sorrow he experienced, and the stress caused
by his financial loss, which occurred during the pandemic period when
his earnings from his professional activity had significantly decreased,
as well as the financial and social situation of the parties, it is the
court's opinion that he should be granted, as financial compensation for
his moral harm, an amount of €250.00, which is deemed reasonable and
fair. Therefore, the total monetary amount that the plaintiff is
entitled to for his positive damage and financial compensation for the
moral harm suffered amounts to a total of (€703.18 + €250.00) = €953.18.
- >-
In the context of the adoption of the Member State law on which the
performance of the tasks of the public authority or public body is based
and which regulates the specific processing operation or set of
operations in question, Member States may deem it necessary to carry out
such assessment prior to the processing activities.
- >-
The principle of transparency requires that any information addressed to
the public or to the data subject be concise, easily accessible and easy
to understand, and that clear and plain language and, additionally,
where appropriate, visualisation be used. Such information could be
provided in electronic form, for example, when addressed to the public,
through a website. This is of particular relevance in situations where
the proliferation of actors and the technological complexity of practice
make it difficult for the data subject to know and understand whether,
by whom and for what purpose personal data relating to him or her are
being collected, such as in the case of online advertising. Given that
children merit specific protection, any information and communication,
where processing is addressed to a child, should be in such a clear and
plain language that the child can easily understand.
- source_sentence: >-
What should the lead supervisory authority take into account when deciding
whether to handle the case?
sentences:
- >-
Where another supervisory authority should act as a lead supervisory
authority for the processing activities of the controller or processor
but the concrete subject matter of a complaint or the possible
infringement concerns only processing activities of the controller or
processor in the Member State where the complaint has been lodged or the
possible infringement detected and the matter does not substantially
affect or is not likely to substantially affect data subjects in other
Member States, the supervisory authority receiving a complaint or
detecting or being informed otherwise of situations that entail possible
infringements of this Regulation should seek an amicable settlement with
the controller and, if this proves unsuccessful, exercise its full range
of powers. This should include: specific processing carried out in the
territory of the Member State of the supervisory authority or with
regard to data subjects on the territory of that Member State;
processing that is carried out in the context of an offer of goods or
services specifically aimed at data subjects in the territory of the
Member State of the supervisory authority; or processing that has to be
assessed taking into account relevant legal obligations under Member
State law.
- >-
A data subject should have the right of access to personal data which
have been collected concerning him or her, and to exercise that right
easily and at reasonable intervals, in order to be aware of, and verify,
the lawfulness of the processing. This includes the right for data
subjects to have access to data concerning their health, for example the
data in their medical records containing information such as diagnoses,
examination results, assessments by treating physicians and any
treatment or interventions provided. Every data subject should therefore
have the right to know and obtain communication in particular with
regard to the purposes for which the personal data are processed, where
possible the period for which the personal data are processed, the
recipients of the personal data, the logic involved in any automatic
personal data processing and, at least when based on profiling, the
consequences of such processing. Where possible, the controller should
be able to provide remote access to a secure system which would provide
the data subject with direct access to his or her personal data. That
right should not adversely affect the rights or freedoms of others,
including trade secrets or intellectual property and in particular the
copyright protecting the software. However, the result of those
considerations should not be a refusal to provide all information to the
data subject. Where the controller processes a large quantity of
information concerning the data subject, the controller should be able
to request that, before the information is delivered, the data subject
specify the information or processing activities to which the request
relates.
- >-
Each supervisory authority not acting as the lead supervisory authority
should be competent to handle local cases where the controller or
processor is established in more than one Member State, but the subject
matter of the specific processing concerns only processing carried out
in a single Member State and involves only data subjects in that single
Member State, for example, where the subject matter concerns the
processing of employees' personal data in the specific employment
context of a Member State. In such cases, the supervisory authority
should inform the lead supervisory authority without delay about the
matter. After being informed, the lead supervisory authority should
decide, whether it will handle the case pursuant to the provision on
cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and other supervisory
authorities concerned (‘one-stop-shop mechanism’), or whether the
supervisory authority which informed it should handle the case at local
level. When deciding whether it will handle the case, the lead
supervisory authority should take into account whether there is an
establishment of the controller or processor in the Member State of the
supervisory authority which informed it in order to ensure effective
enforcement of a decision vis-à-vis the controller or processor. Where
the lead supervisory authority decides to handle the case, the
supervisory authority which informed it should have the 4.5.2016 L
119/23 Official Journal of the European Union EN possibility to submit
a draft for a decision, of which the lead supervisory authority should
take utmost account when preparing its draft decision in that
one-stop-shop mechanism.
- source_sentence: Who should communicate a personal data breach to the data subject?
sentences:
- >-
1.In the absence of an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45(3), or
of appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 46, including binding
corporate rules, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to a
third country or an international organisation shall take place only on
one of the following conditions: (a) the data subject has explicitly
consented to the proposed transfer, after having been informed of the
possible risks of such transfers for the data subject due to the absence
of an adequacy decision and appropriate safeguards; (b) the transfer is
necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and
the controller or the implementation of pre-contractual measures taken
at the data subject's request; (c) the transfer is necessary for the
conclusion or performance of a contract concluded in the interest of the
data subject between the controller and another natural or legal person;
(d) the transfer is necessary for important reasons of public interest;
(e) the transfer is necessary for the establishment, exercise or
defence of legal claims; (f) the transfer is necessary in order to
protect the vital interests of the data subject or of other persons,
where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving
consent; (g) the transfer is made from a register which according to
Union or Member State law is intended to provide information to the
public and which is open to consultation either by the public in general
or by any person who can demonstrate a legitimate interest, but only to
the extent that the conditions laid down by Union or Member State law
for consultation are fulfilled in the particular case. Where a transfer
could not be based on a provision in Article 45 or 46, including the
provisions on binding corporate rules, and none of the derogations for a
specific situation referred to in the first subparagraph of this
paragraph is applicable, a transfer to a third country or an
international organisation may take place only if the transfer is not
repetitive, concerns only a limited number of data subjects, is
necessary for the purposes of compelling legitimate interests pursued by
the controller which are not overridden by the interests or rights and
freedoms of the data subject, and the controller has assessed all the
circumstances surrounding the data transfer and has on the basis of that
assessment provided suitable safeguards with regard to the protection of
personal data. The controller shall inform the supervisory authority of
the transfer. The controller shall, in addition to providing the
information referred to in Articles 13 and 14, inform the data subject
of the transfer and on the compelling legitimate interests pursued.
2.A transfer pursuant to point (g) of the first subparagraph of
paragraph 1 shall not involve the entirety of the personal data or
entire categories of the personal data contained in the register. Where
the register is intended for consultation by persons having a legitimate
interest, the transfer shall be made only at the request of those
persons or if they are to be the recipients. 4.5.2016 L 119/64
3.Points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 and
the second subparagraph thereof shall not apply to activities carried
out by public authorities in the exercise of their public powers.
4.The public interest referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph
of paragraph 1 shall be recognised in Union law or in the law of the
Member State to which the controller is subject.
5.In the absence of an adequacy decision, Union or Member State law may,
for important reasons of public interest, expressly set limits to the
transfer of specific categories of personal data to a third country or
an international organisation. Member States shall notify such
provisions to the Commission.
6.The controller or processor shall document the assessment as well as
the suitable safeguards referred to in the second subparagraph of
paragraph 1 of this Article in the records referred to in Article 30.
- >-
The controller should communicate to the data subject a personal data
breach, without undue delay, where that personal data breach is likely
to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the natural
person in order to allow him or her to take the necessary precautions.
The communication should describe the nature of the personal data breach
as well as recommendations for the natural person concerned to mitigate
potential adverse effects. Such communications to data subjects should
be made as soon as reasonably feasible and in close cooperation with the
supervisory authority, respecting guidance provided by it or by other
relevant authorities such as law-enforcement authorities. For example,
the need to mitigate an immediate risk of damage would call for prompt
communication with data subjects whereas the need to implement
appropriate measures against continuing or similar personal data
breaches may justify more time for communication.
- >-
Court (Civil/Criminal):
Provisions:
Time of commission of the act:
Outcome (not guilty, guilty): ORDERS the defendant to pay the plaintiff
the amount of two thousand four hundred thirty-four euros and
eighty-three cents (€2,434.83) with legal interest from the service of
the lawsuit.
Reasoning: Law 4537/2018 introduces mandatory provisions in favor of
users, as according to Article 103, payment service providers are
prohibited from deviating from the provisions to the detriment of
payment service users, unless the possibility of deviation is expressly
provided, and they can decide to offer only more favorable terms to
payment service users. Under this law and its provisions, providers are
only liable when there are unusual and unforeseen circumstances beyond
the control of the party invoking them, and whose consequences could not
have been avoided despite efforts to the contrary. However, operational
risks and security risks of the system do not constitute unusual and
unforeseen circumstances, so any damage to users resulting from their
occurrence falls on the providers. Furthermore, the authenticity of the
disputed transaction, namely the payment act, is not proven, in the
sense that none of the beneficiaries of the contested joint account,
namely the plaintiff or her husband, had given their consent as
stipulated in Article 64 of Law 4537/2018. Burden of proof. The payment
service provider of the payer is liable to the payer for the proper
execution of the payment act, unless it proves to the payer that the
service provider of the beneficiary received the amount of the payment
act according to paragraph 1 of Article 83 of Law 4537/2018.
Facts:
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
metrics:
- cosine_accuracy@1
- cosine_accuracy@3
- cosine_accuracy@5
- cosine_accuracy@10
- cosine_precision@1
- cosine_precision@3
- cosine_precision@5
- cosine_precision@10
- cosine_recall@1
- cosine_recall@3
- cosine_recall@5
- cosine_recall@10
- cosine_ndcg@10
- cosine_mrr@10
- cosine_map@100
model-index:
- name: bge-m3
results:
- task:
type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset:
name: dim 768
type: dim_768
metrics:
- type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.5050505050505051
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
- type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.5378787878787878
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
- type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.5782828282828283
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
- type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.6237373737373737
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
- type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.5050505050505051
name: Cosine Precision@1
- type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.48316498316498313
name: Cosine Precision@3
- type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.4494949494949495
name: Cosine Precision@5
- type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.3888888888888889
name: Cosine Precision@10
- type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.10832333640111431
name: Cosine Recall@1
- type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.2625352410394081
name: Cosine Recall@3
- type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.34742695443516225
name: Cosine Recall@5
- type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.471052270935327
name: Cosine Recall@10
- type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.5624388862453237
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
- type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.5318472422639089
name: Cosine Mrr@10
- type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.6073394067451282
name: Cosine Map@100
- task:
type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset:
name: dim 512
type: dim_512
metrics:
- type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.49242424242424243
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
- type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.5328282828282829
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
- type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.5707070707070707
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
- type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.6212121212121212
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
- type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.49242424242424243
name: Cosine Precision@1
- type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.47474747474747475
name: Cosine Precision@3
- type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.44393939393939397
name: Cosine Precision@5
- type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.3828282828282829
name: Cosine Precision@10
- type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.10500024769037898
name: Cosine Recall@1
- type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.2570068431448079
name: Cosine Recall@3
- type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.34593786739805465
name: Cosine Recall@5
- type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.47197321949954296
name: Cosine Recall@10
- type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.5541022948657252
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
- type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.5216901154401153
name: Cosine Mrr@10
- type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.6006993331399361
name: Cosine Map@100
- task:
type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset:
name: dim 256
type: dim_256
metrics:
- type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.4621212121212121
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
- type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.5
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
- type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.547979797979798
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
- type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.5782828282828283
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
- type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.4621212121212121
name: Cosine Precision@1
- type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.4461279461279461
name: Cosine Precision@3
- type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.4227272727272727
name: Cosine Precision@5
- type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.36439393939393944
name: Cosine Precision@10
- type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.09725757269489572
name: Cosine Recall@1
- type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.2379922007625032
name: Cosine Recall@3
- type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.3246225291589775
name: Cosine Recall@5
- type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.44731055858092
name: Cosine Recall@10
- type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.5235934722759641
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
- type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.4904050424883758
name: Cosine Mrr@10
- type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.5706447969365108
name: Cosine Map@100
- task:
type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset:
name: dim 128
type: dim_128
metrics:
- type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.4595959595959596
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
- type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.4823232323232323
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
- type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.5202020202020202
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
- type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.5757575757575758
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
- type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.4595959595959596
name: Cosine Precision@1
- type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.43771043771043766
name: Cosine Precision@3
- type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.407070707070707
name: Cosine Precision@5
- type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.35454545454545455
name: Cosine Precision@10
- type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.09698923307996522
name: Cosine Recall@1
- type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.23617106840159813
name: Cosine Recall@3
- type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.31399558819924883
name: Cosine Recall@5
- type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.43909597785948196
name: Cosine Recall@10
- type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.5127720060858907
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
- type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.4833924563091229
name: Cosine Mrr@10
- type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.5605596517236341
name: Cosine Map@100
- task:
type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset:
name: dim 64
type: dim_64
metrics:
- type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.3661616161616162
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
- type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.4015151515151515
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
- type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.45707070707070707
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
- type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.5126262626262627
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
- type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.3661616161616162
name: Cosine Precision@1
- type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.35437710437710435
name: Cosine Precision@3
- type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.3368686868686869
name: Cosine Precision@5
- type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.3047979797979798
name: Cosine Precision@10
- type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.07890402318604318
name: Cosine Recall@1
- type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.19677794363915516
name: Cosine Recall@3
- type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.2664281674203789
name: Cosine Recall@5
- type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.380769398197064
name: Cosine Recall@10
- type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.4353175725232405
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
- type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.39882154882154874
name: Cosine Mrr@10
- type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.48523613865845294
name: Cosine Map@100
bge-m3
This is a sentence-transformers model finetuned from BAAI/bge-m3. It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 1024-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for semantic textual similarity, semantic search, paraphrase mining, text classification, clustering, and more.
Model Details
Model Description
- Model Type: Sentence Transformer
- Base model: BAAI/bge-m3
- Maximum Sequence Length: 8192 tokens
- Output Dimensionality: 1024 dimensions
- Similarity Function: Cosine Similarity
- Language: en
- License: apache-2.0
Model Sources
- Documentation: Sentence Transformers Documentation
- Repository: Sentence Transformers on GitHub
- Hugging Face: Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face
Full Model Architecture
SentenceTransformer(
(0): Transformer({'max_seq_length': 8192, 'do_lower_case': False, 'architecture': 'XLMRobertaModel'})
(1): Pooling({'word_embedding_dimension': 1024, 'pooling_mode_cls_token': True, 'pooling_mode_mean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_max_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_sqrt_len_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_weightedmean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_lasttoken': False, 'include_prompt': True})
(2): Normalize()
)
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.
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer
# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("sentence_transformers_model_id")
# Run inference
sentences = [
'Who should communicate a personal data breach to the data subject?',
'The controller should communicate to the data subject a personal data breach, without undue delay, where that personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the natural person in order to allow him or her to take the necessary precautions. The communication should describe the nature of the personal data breach as well as recommendations for the natural person concerned to mitigate potential adverse effects. Such communications to data subjects should be made as soon as reasonably feasible and in close cooperation with the supervisory authority, respecting guidance provided by it or by other relevant authorities such as law-enforcement authorities. For example, the need to mitigate an immediate risk of damage would call for prompt communication with data subjects whereas the need to implement appropriate measures against continuing or similar personal data breaches may justify more time for communication.',
"1.In the absence of an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45(3), or of appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 46, including binding corporate rules, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation shall take place only on one of the following conditions: (a) the data subject has explicitly consented to the proposed transfer, after having been informed of the possible risks of such transfers for the data subject due to the absence of an adequacy decision and appropriate safeguards; (b) the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the controller or the implementation of pre-contractual measures taken at the data subject's request; (c) the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract concluded in the interest of the data subject between the controller and another natural or legal person; (d) the transfer is necessary for important reasons of public interest; (e) the transfer is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; (f) the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of other persons, where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; (g) the transfer is made from a register which according to Union or Member State law is intended to provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in general or by any person who can demonstrate a legitimate interest, but only to the extent that the conditions laid down by Union or Member State law for consultation are fulfilled in the particular case. Where a transfer could not be based on a provision in Article 45 or 46, including the provisions on binding corporate rules, and none of the derogations for a specific situation referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph is applicable, a transfer to a third country or an international organisation may take place only if the transfer is not repetitive, concerns only a limited number of data subjects, is necessary for the purposes of compelling legitimate interests pursued by the controller which are not overridden by the interests or rights and freedoms of the data subject, and the controller has assessed all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer and has on the basis of that assessment provided suitable safeguards with regard to the protection of personal data. The controller shall inform the supervisory authority of the transfer. The controller shall, in addition to providing the information referred to in Articles 13 and 14, inform the data subject of the transfer and on the compelling legitimate interests pursued.\n2.A transfer pursuant to point (g) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall not involve the entirety of the personal data or entire categories of the personal data contained in the register. Where the register is intended for consultation by persons having a legitimate interest, the transfer shall be made only at the request of those persons or if they are to be the recipients. 4.5.2016 L 119/64 \n3.Points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 and the second subparagraph thereof shall not apply to activities carried out by public authorities in the exercise of their public powers.\n4.The public interest referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be recognised in Union law or in the law of the Member State to which the controller is subject.\n5.In the absence of an adequacy decision, Union or Member State law may, for important reasons of public interest, expressly set limits to the transfer of specific categories of personal data to a third country or an international organisation. Member States shall notify such provisions to the Commission.\n6.The controller or processor shall document the assessment as well as the suitable safeguards referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article in the records referred to in Article 30.",
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 1024]
# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities)
# tensor([[1.0000, 0.7041, 0.2945],
# [0.7041, 1.0000, 0.3575],
# [0.2945, 0.3575, 1.0000]])
Evaluation
Metrics
Information Retrieval
- Dataset:
dim_768 - Evaluated with
InformationRetrievalEvaluatorwith these parameters:{ "truncate_dim": 768 }
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| cosine_accuracy@1 | 0.5051 |
| cosine_accuracy@3 | 0.5379 |
| cosine_accuracy@5 | 0.5783 |
| cosine_accuracy@10 | 0.6237 |
| cosine_precision@1 | 0.5051 |
| cosine_precision@3 | 0.4832 |
| cosine_precision@5 | 0.4495 |
| cosine_precision@10 | 0.3889 |
| cosine_recall@1 | 0.1083 |
| cosine_recall@3 | 0.2625 |
| cosine_recall@5 | 0.3474 |
| cosine_recall@10 | 0.4711 |
| cosine_ndcg@10 | 0.5624 |
| cosine_mrr@10 | 0.5318 |
| cosine_map@100 | 0.6073 |
Information Retrieval
- Dataset:
dim_512 - Evaluated with
InformationRetrievalEvaluatorwith these parameters:{ "truncate_dim": 512 }
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| cosine_accuracy@1 | 0.4924 |
| cosine_accuracy@3 | 0.5328 |
| cosine_accuracy@5 | 0.5707 |
| cosine_accuracy@10 | 0.6212 |
| cosine_precision@1 | 0.4924 |
| cosine_precision@3 | 0.4747 |
| cosine_precision@5 | 0.4439 |
| cosine_precision@10 | 0.3828 |
| cosine_recall@1 | 0.105 |
| cosine_recall@3 | 0.257 |
| cosine_recall@5 | 0.3459 |
| cosine_recall@10 | 0.472 |
| cosine_ndcg@10 | 0.5541 |
| cosine_mrr@10 | 0.5217 |
| cosine_map@100 | 0.6007 |
Information Retrieval
- Dataset:
dim_256 - Evaluated with
InformationRetrievalEvaluatorwith these parameters:{ "truncate_dim": 256 }
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| cosine_accuracy@1 | 0.4621 |
| cosine_accuracy@3 | 0.5 |
| cosine_accuracy@5 | 0.548 |
| cosine_accuracy@10 | 0.5783 |
| cosine_precision@1 | 0.4621 |
| cosine_precision@3 | 0.4461 |
| cosine_precision@5 | 0.4227 |
| cosine_precision@10 | 0.3644 |
| cosine_recall@1 | 0.0973 |
| cosine_recall@3 | 0.238 |
| cosine_recall@5 | 0.3246 |
| cosine_recall@10 | 0.4473 |
| cosine_ndcg@10 | 0.5236 |
| cosine_mrr@10 | 0.4904 |
| cosine_map@100 | 0.5706 |
Information Retrieval
- Dataset:
dim_128 - Evaluated with
InformationRetrievalEvaluatorwith these parameters:{ "truncate_dim": 128 }
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| cosine_accuracy@1 | 0.4596 |
| cosine_accuracy@3 | 0.4823 |
| cosine_accuracy@5 | 0.5202 |
| cosine_accuracy@10 | 0.5758 |
| cosine_precision@1 | 0.4596 |
| cosine_precision@3 | 0.4377 |
| cosine_precision@5 | 0.4071 |
| cosine_precision@10 | 0.3545 |
| cosine_recall@1 | 0.097 |
| cosine_recall@3 | 0.2362 |
| cosine_recall@5 | 0.314 |
| cosine_recall@10 | 0.4391 |
| cosine_ndcg@10 | 0.5128 |
| cosine_mrr@10 | 0.4834 |
| cosine_map@100 | 0.5606 |
Information Retrieval
- Dataset:
dim_64 - Evaluated with
InformationRetrievalEvaluatorwith these parameters:{ "truncate_dim": 64 }
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| cosine_accuracy@1 | 0.3662 |
| cosine_accuracy@3 | 0.4015 |
| cosine_accuracy@5 | 0.4571 |
| cosine_accuracy@10 | 0.5126 |
| cosine_precision@1 | 0.3662 |
| cosine_precision@3 | 0.3544 |
| cosine_precision@5 | 0.3369 |
| cosine_precision@10 | 0.3048 |
| cosine_recall@1 | 0.0789 |
| cosine_recall@3 | 0.1968 |
| cosine_recall@5 | 0.2664 |
| cosine_recall@10 | 0.3808 |
| cosine_ndcg@10 | 0.4353 |
| cosine_mrr@10 | 0.3988 |
| cosine_map@100 | 0.4852 |
Training Details
Training Dataset
Unnamed Dataset
- Size: 1,580 training samples
- Columns:
anchorandpositive - Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:
anchor positive type string string details - min: 8 tokens
- mean: 17.23 tokens
- max: 37 tokens
- min: 27 tokens
- mean: 739.0 tokens
- max: 2824 tokens
- Samples:
anchor positive How has technology affected the collection and sharing of personal data?Rapid technological developments and globalisation have brought new challenges for the protection of personal data. The scale of the collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly. Technology allows both private companies and public authorities to make use of personal data on an unprecedented scale in order to pursue their activities. Natural persons increasingly make personal information available publicly and globally. Technology has transformed both the economy and social life, and should further facilitate the free flow of personal data within the Union and the transfer to third countries and international organisations, while ensuring a high level of the protection of personal data.When was the Official Journal of the European Union published?In order to create incentives to apply pseudonymisation when processing personal data, measures of pseudonymisation should, whilst allowing general analysis, be possible within the same controller when that controller has taken technical and organisational measures necessary to ensure, for the processing concerned, that this Regulation is implemented, and that additional information for attributing the personal data to a specific data subject is kept separately. The controller processing the personal data should indicate the authorised persons within the same controller. 4.5.2016 L 119/5 Official Journal of the European Union ENWhat is the meaning of 'processing' in the context of personal data?1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;
(2) ‘processing’ means any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction;
(3) ‘restriction of processing’ means the marking of stored personal data with the aim of limiting their processin... - Loss:
MatryoshkaLosswith these parameters:{ "loss": "MultipleNegativesRankingLoss", "matryoshka_dims": [ 768, 512, 256, 128, 64 ], "matryoshka_weights": [ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 ], "n_dims_per_step": -1 }
Training Hyperparameters
Non-Default Hyperparameters
eval_strategy: epochgradient_accumulation_steps: 4learning_rate: 3e-05num_train_epochs: 20lr_scheduler_type: cosinewarmup_ratio: 0.1bf16: Trueload_best_model_at_end: Trueoptim: adamw_torch_fusedbatch_sampler: no_duplicates
All Hyperparameters
Click to expand
overwrite_output_dir: Falsedo_predict: Falseeval_strategy: epochprediction_loss_only: Trueper_device_train_batch_size: 8per_device_eval_batch_size: 8per_gpu_train_batch_size: Noneper_gpu_eval_batch_size: Nonegradient_accumulation_steps: 4eval_accumulation_steps: Nonetorch_empty_cache_steps: Nonelearning_rate: 3e-05weight_decay: 0.0adam_beta1: 0.9adam_beta2: 0.999adam_epsilon: 1e-08max_grad_norm: 1.0num_train_epochs: 20max_steps: -1lr_scheduler_type: cosinelr_scheduler_kwargs: {}warmup_ratio: 0.1warmup_steps: 0log_level: passivelog_level_replica: warninglog_on_each_node: Truelogging_nan_inf_filter: Truesave_safetensors: Truesave_on_each_node: Falsesave_only_model: Falserestore_callback_states_from_checkpoint: Falseno_cuda: Falseuse_cpu: Falseuse_mps_device: Falseseed: 42data_seed: Nonejit_mode_eval: Falseuse_ipex: Falsebf16: Truefp16: Falsefp16_opt_level: O1half_precision_backend: autobf16_full_eval: Falsefp16_full_eval: Falsetf32: Nonelocal_rank: 0ddp_backend: Nonetpu_num_cores: Nonetpu_metrics_debug: Falsedebug: []dataloader_drop_last: Falsedataloader_num_workers: 0dataloader_prefetch_factor: Nonepast_index: -1disable_tqdm: Falseremove_unused_columns: Truelabel_names: Noneload_best_model_at_end: Trueignore_data_skip: Falsefsdp: []fsdp_min_num_params: 0fsdp_config: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}tp_size: 0fsdp_transformer_layer_cls_to_wrap: Noneaccelerator_config: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}deepspeed: Nonelabel_smoothing_factor: 0.0optim: adamw_torch_fusedoptim_args: Noneadafactor: Falsegroup_by_length: Falselength_column_name: lengthddp_find_unused_parameters: Noneddp_bucket_cap_mb: Noneddp_broadcast_buffers: Falsedataloader_pin_memory: Truedataloader_persistent_workers: Falseskip_memory_metrics: Trueuse_legacy_prediction_loop: Falsepush_to_hub: Falseresume_from_checkpoint: Nonehub_model_id: Nonehub_strategy: every_savehub_private_repo: Nonehub_always_push: Falsegradient_checkpointing: Falsegradient_checkpointing_kwargs: Noneinclude_inputs_for_metrics: Falseinclude_for_metrics: []eval_do_concat_batches: Truefp16_backend: autopush_to_hub_model_id: Nonepush_to_hub_organization: Nonemp_parameters:auto_find_batch_size: Falsefull_determinism: Falsetorchdynamo: Noneray_scope: lastddp_timeout: 1800torch_compile: Falsetorch_compile_backend: Nonetorch_compile_mode: Noneinclude_tokens_per_second: Falseinclude_num_input_tokens_seen: Falseneftune_noise_alpha: Noneoptim_target_modules: Nonebatch_eval_metrics: Falseeval_on_start: Falseuse_liger_kernel: Falseeval_use_gather_object: Falseaverage_tokens_across_devices: Falseprompts: Nonebatch_sampler: no_duplicatesmulti_dataset_batch_sampler: proportionalrouter_mapping: {}learning_rate_mapping: {}
Training Logs
| Epoch | Step | Training Loss | dim_768_cosine_ndcg@10 | dim_512_cosine_ndcg@10 | dim_256_cosine_ndcg@10 | dim_128_cosine_ndcg@10 | dim_64_cosine_ndcg@10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | -1 | - | 0.4571 | 0.4375 | 0.4008 | 0.3170 | 0.2563 |
| 0.2020 | 10 | 21.3767 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 0.4040 | 20 | 19.2573 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 0.6061 | 30 | 18.6623 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 0.8081 | 40 | 18.2772 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1.0 | 50 | 16.0375 | 0.4596 | 0.4511 | 0.4154 | 0.3519 | 0.2872 |
| 1.2020 | 60 | 17.5302 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1.4040 | 70 | 17.0313 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1.6061 | 80 | 14.3965 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1.8081 | 90 | 14.3407 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2.0 | 100 | 12.6464 | 0.4835 | 0.4805 | 0.4585 | 0.4101 | 0.3288 |
| 2.2020 | 110 | 12.1612 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2.4040 | 120 | 12.1747 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2.6061 | 130 | 10.8968 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2.8081 | 140 | 11.3075 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 3.0 | 150 | 9.3359 | 0.5314 | 0.5141 | 0.4915 | 0.4568 | 0.3777 |
| 3.2020 | 160 | 8.9723 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 3.4040 | 170 | 9.4735 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 3.6061 | 180 | 9.3438 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 3.8081 | 190 | 9.643 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 4.0 | 200 | 8.3103 | 0.5374 | 0.5426 | 0.5113 | 0.4848 | 0.4180 |
| 4.2020 | 210 | 7.3441 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 4.4040 | 220 | 7.8091 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 4.6061 | 230 | 7.1368 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 4.8081 | 240 | 7.7728 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 5.0 | 250 | 8.0139 | 0.5495 | 0.5443 | 0.5049 | 0.4923 | 0.4108 |
| 5.2020 | 260 | 5.6836 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 5.4040 | 270 | 6.0556 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 5.6061 | 280 | 7.1601 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 5.8081 | 290 | 7.8578 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 6.0 | 300 | 5.7557 | 0.5700 | 0.5564 | 0.5235 | 0.5106 | 0.4292 |
| 6.2020 | 310 | 5.7718 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 6.4040 | 320 | 5.1293 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 6.6061 | 330 | 6.7643 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 6.8081 | 340 | 5.1791 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 7.0 | 350 | 5.4592 | 0.5624 | 0.5541 | 0.5236 | 0.5128 | 0.4353 |
| 7.2020 | 360 | 5.0135 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 7.4040 | 370 | 4.9931 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 7.6061 | 380 | 5.1182 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 7.8081 | 390 | 4.5808 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 8.0 | 400 | 4.6313 | 0.5716 | 0.5549 | 0.5362 | 0.4893 | 0.4189 |
| 8.2020 | 410 | 5.0518 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 8.4040 | 420 | 4.7227 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 8.6061 | 430 | 3.5472 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 8.8081 | 440 | 5.4843 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 9.0 | 450 | 4.6137 | 0.5738 | 0.5589 | 0.5320 | 0.4849 | 0.4286 |
| -1 | -1 | - | 0.5624 | 0.5541 | 0.5236 | 0.5128 | 0.4353 |
- The bold row denotes the saved checkpoint.
Framework Versions
- Python: 3.12.11
- Sentence Transformers: 5.1.0
- Transformers: 4.51.3
- PyTorch: 2.8.0+cu126
- Accelerate: 1.10.1
- Datasets: 4.0.0
- Tokenizers: 0.21.4
Citation
BibTeX
Sentence Transformers
@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",
}
MatryoshkaLoss
@misc{kusupati2024matryoshka,
title={Matryoshka Representation Learning},
author={Aditya Kusupati and Gantavya Bhatt and Aniket Rege and Matthew Wallingford and Aditya Sinha and Vivek Ramanujan and William Howard-Snyder and Kaifeng Chen and Sham Kakade and Prateek Jain and Ali Farhadi},
year={2024},
eprint={2205.13147},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.LG}
}
MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
@misc{henderson2017efficient,
title={Efficient Natural Language Response Suggestion for Smart Reply},
author={Matthew Henderson and Rami Al-Rfou and Brian Strope and Yun-hsuan Sung and Laszlo Lukacs and Ruiqi Guo and Sanjiv Kumar and Balint Miklos and Ray Kurzweil},
year={2017},
eprint={1705.00652},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.CL}
}