SlowGuess/NAACL_2022_OCR huggingface dataset:
Kevin Yang and Dan Klein. 2021. FUDGE: Controlled text generation with future discriminators. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Online.
Lantao Yu, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. 2017. Seqgan: Sequence generative adversarial nets with policy gradient. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA. AAAI Press.
Rohola Zandie and Mohammad H Mahoor. 2020. Emptransfo: A multi-head transformer architecture for creating empathetic dialog systems. In The Thirty-Third International Flairs Conference.
Chengkun Zeng, Guanyi Chen, Chenghua Lin, Ruizhe Li, and Zhi Chen. 2021. Affective decoding for empathetic response generation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Natural Language Generation.
Chujie Zheng, Yong Liu, Wei Chen, Yongcai Leng, and Minlie Huang. 2021. CoMAE: A multi-factor hierarchical framework for empathetic response generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, Online.
Naitian Zhou and David Jurgens. 2020. Condolences and empathy in online communities. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
Xuhui Zhou, Maarten Sap, Swabha Swayamdipta, Yejin Choi, and Noah Smith. 2021. Challenges in automated debiasing for toxic language detection. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, Online.
Figure 4: Boxplots demonstrating the distribution of the class log-likelihoods produced by the empathy classifier over the  $2.3\mathrm{m}$  samples of non-toxic test.  $2=$  strong,  $1=$  weak, and  $0=$  no communication.
Our human annotators included one graduate student and one postdoctoral researcher from one of the universities of one of the authors. These annotators performed the work as part of their paid research. Annotators were native English speakers between 25-35 years of age, one male and one female.
Variation	Empathy	Size	Unigram	Bigram	Trigram
Random	7500	0.606	0.824	0.805
Random	15000	0.602	0.827	0.811
Random	22500	0.603	0.830	0.814
Random	30000	0.604	0.836	0.821
Max Empathy	ER	7500	0.586	0.824	0.810
Max Empathy	ER	15000	0.587	0.828	0.815
Max Empathy	ER	22500	0.588	0.828	0.814
Max Empathy	ER	30000	0.585	0.831	0.821
Max Empathy	EX	7500	0.599	0.815	0.791
Max Empathy	EX	15000	0.583	0.817	0.801
Max Empathy	EX	22500	0.582	0.817	0.800
Max Empathy	EX	30000	0.568	0.821	0.814
Max Empathy	IP	7500	0.590	0.834	0.822
Max Empathy	IP	15000	0.584	0.840	0.833
Max Empathy	IP	22500	0.578	0.842	0.838
Max Empathy	IP	30000	0.577	0.843	0.840
EPITOME	1/3 each	7500	0.597	0.828	0.812
EPITOME	1/3 each	15000	0.598	0.830	0.814
EPITOME	1/3 each	22500	0.592	0.838	0.826
EPITOME	1/3 each	30000	0.590	0.839	0.829
Table 5: Diversity metrics as described in § 4.