prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. Were other baselines tested to compare with the neural baseline?
Context 1: Introduction
Privacy policies are the documents which disclose the ways in which a company gathers, uses, shares and manages a user's data  As legal documents, they function using the principle of notice and choice BIBREF0, where companies post their policies, and theoretically, users read the policies and decide to use a company's products or services only if they find the conditions outlined in its privacy policy acceptable  Many legal jurisdictions around the world accept this framework, including the United States and the European Union BIBREF1, BIBREF2  However, the legitimacy of this framework depends upon users actually reading and understanding privacy policies to determine whether company practices are acceptable to them BIBREF3  In practice this is seldom the case BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8, BIBREF9, BIBREF10  This is further complicated by the highly individual and nuanced compromises that users are willing to make with their data BIBREF11, discouraging a `one-size-fits-all' approach to notice of data practices in privacy documents 
With devices constantly monitoring our environment, including our personal space and our bodies, lack of awareness of how our data is being used easily leads to problematic situations where users are outraged by information misuse, but companies insist that users have consented  The discovery of increasingly egregious uses of data by companies, such as the scandals involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica BIBREF12, have further brought public attention to the privacy concerns of the internet and ubiquitous computing  This makes privacy a well-motivated application domain for NLP researchers, where advances in enabling users to quickly identify the privacy issues most salient to them can potentially have large real-world impact 
[1]https://play google com/store/apps/details?id=com gotokeep keep intl [2]https://play google com/store/apps/details?id=com viber voip [3]A question might not have any supporting evidence for an answer within the privacy policy 
Motivated by this need, we contribute PrivacyQA, a corpus consisting of 1750 questions about the contents of privacy policies, paired with over 3500 expert annotations  The goal of this effort is to kickstart the development of question-answering methods for this domain, to address the (unrealistic) expectation that a large population should be reading many policies per day  In doing so, we identify several understudied challenges to our ability to answer these questions, with broad implications for systems seeking to serve users' information-seeking intent  By releasing this resource, we hope to provide an impetus to develop systems capable of language understanding in this increasingly important domain 
Related Work
Prior work has aimed to make privacy policies easier to understand  Prescriptive approaches towards communicating privacy information BIBREF21, BIBREF22, BIBREF23 have not been widely adopted by industry  Recently, there have been significant research effort devoted to understanding privacy policies by leveraging NLP techniques BIBREF24, BIBREF25, BIBREF26, BIBREF27, BIBREF28, especially by identifying specific data practices within a privacy policy  We adopt a personalized approach to understanding privacy policies, that allows users to query a document and selectively explore content salient to them  Most similar is the PolisisQA corpus BIBREF29, which examines questions users ask corporations on Twitter  Our approach differs in several ways: 1) The PrivacyQA dataset is larger, containing 10x as many questions and answers  2) Answers are formulated by domain experts with legal training  3) PrivacyQA includes diverse question types, including unanswerable and subjective questions 
Our work is also related to reading comprehension in the open domain, which is frequently based upon Wikipedia passages BIBREF16, BIBREF17, BIBREF15, BIBREF30 and news articles BIBREF20, BIBREF31, BIBREF32  Table TABREF4 presents the desirable attributes our dataset shares with past approaches  This work is also tied into research in applying NLP approaches to legal documents BIBREF33, BIBREF34, BIBREF35, BIBREF36, BIBREF37, BIBREF38, BIBREF39  While privacy policies have legal implications, their intended audience consists of the general public rather than individuals with legal expertise  This arrangement is problematic because the entities that write privacy policies often have different goals than the audience  feng2015applying, tan-EtAl:2016:P16-1 examine question answering in the insurance domain, another specialized domain similar to privacy, where the intended audience is the general public 
Data Collection
We describe the data collection methodology used to construct PrivacyQA  With the goal of achieving broad coverage across application types, we collect privacy policies from 35 mobile applications representing a number of different categories in the Google Play Store  One of our goals is to include both policies from well-known applications, which are likely to have carefully-constructed privacy policies, and lesser-known applications with smaller install bases, whose policies might be considerably less sophisticated  Thus, setting 5 million installs as a threshold, we ensure each category includes applications with installs on both sides of this threshold  All policies included in the corpus are in English, and were collected before April 1, 2018, predating many companies' GDPR-focused BIBREF41 updates  We leave it to future studies BIBREF42 to look at the impact of the GDPR (e g , to what extent GDPR requirements contribute to making it possible to provide users with more informative answers, and to what extent their disclosures continue to omit issues that matter to users) 
Data Collection ::: Crowdsourced Question Elicitation
The intended audience for privacy policies consists of the general public  This informs the decision to elicit questions from crowdworkers on the contents of privacy policies  We choose not to show the contents of privacy policies to crowdworkers, a procedure motivated by a desire to avoid inadvertent biases BIBREF43, BIBREF44, BIBREF45, BIBREF46, BIBREF47, and encourage crowdworkers to ask a variety of questions beyond only asking questions based on practices described in the document 
Instead, crowdworkers are presented with public information about a mobile application available on the Google Play Store including its name, description and navigable screenshots  Figure FIGREF9 shows an example of our user interface  Crowdworkers are asked to imagine they have access to a trusted third-party privacy assistant, to whom they can ask any privacy question about a given mobile application  We use the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform and recruit crowdworkers who have been conferred “master” status and are located within the United States of America  Turkers are asked to provide five questions per mobile application, and are paid $2 per assignment, taking ~eight minutes to complete the task 
Data Collection ::: Answer Selection
To identify legally sound answers, we recruit seven experts with legal training to construct answers to Turker questions  Experts identify relevant evidence within the privacy policy, as well as provide meta-annotation on the question's relevance, subjectivity, OPP-115 category BIBREF49, and how likely any privacy policy is to contain the answer to the question asked 
Data Collection ::: Analysis
Table TABREF17 presents aggregate statistics of the PrivacyQA dataset  1750 questions are posed to our imaginary privacy assistant over 35 mobile applications and their associated privacy documents  As an initial step, we formulate the problem of answering user questions as an extractive sentence selection task, ignoring for now background knowledge, statistical data and legal expertise that could otherwise be brought to bear  The dataset is partitioned into a training set featuring 27 mobile applications and 1350 questions, and a test set consisting of 400 questions over 8 policy documents  This ensures that documents in training and test splits are mutually exclusive  Every question is answered by at least one expert  In addition, in order to estimate annotation reliability and provide for better evaluation, every question in the test set is answered by at least two additional experts 
Table TABREF14 describes the distribution over first words of questions posed by crowdworkers  We also observe low redundancy in the questions posed by crowdworkers over each policy, with each policy receiving ~49 94 unique questions despite crowdworkers independently posing questions  Questions are on average 8 4 words long  As declining to answer a question can be a legally sound response but is seldom practically useful, answers to questions where a minority of experts abstain to answer are filtered from the dataset  Privacy policies are ~3000 words long on average  The answers to the question asked by the users typically have ~100 words of evidence in the privacy policy document 
Data Collection ::: Analysis ::: Categories of Questions
Questions are organized under nine categories from the OPP-115 Corpus annotation scheme BIBREF49:
First Party Collection/Use: What, why and how information is collected by the service provider
Third Party Sharing/Collection: What, why and how information shared with or collected by third parties
Data Security: Protection measures for user information
Data Retention: How long user information will be stored
User Choice/Control: Control options available to users
User Access, Edit and Deletion: If/how users can access, edit or delete information
Policy Change: Informing users if policy information has been changed
International and Specific Audiences: Practices pertaining to a specific group of users
Other: General text, contact information or practices not covered by other categories 
For each question, domain experts indicate one or more relevant OPP-115 categories  We mark a category as relevant to a question if it is identified as such by at least two annotators  If no such category exists, the category is marked as `Other' if atleast one annotator has identified the `Other' category to be relevant  If neither of these conditions is satisfied, we label the question as having no agreement  The distribution of questions in the corpus across OPP-115 categories is as shown in Table TABREF16  First party and third party related questions are the largest categories, forming nearly 66 4% of all questions asked to the privacy assistant 
Data Collection ::: Analysis ::: Answer Validation
When do experts disagree? We would like to analyze the reasons for potential disagreement on the annotation task, to ensure disagreements arise due to valid differences in opinion rather than lack of adequate specification in annotation guidelines  It is important to note that the annotators are experts rather than crowdworkers  Accordingly, their judgements can be considered valid, legally-informed opinions even when their perspectives differ  For the sake of this question we randomly sample 100 instances in the test data and analyze them for likely reasons for disagreements  We consider a disagreement to have occurred when more than one expert does not agree with the majority consensus  By disagreement we mean there is no overlap between the text identified as relevant by one expert and another 
We find that the annotators agree on the answer for 74% of the questions, even if the supporting evidence they identify is not identical i e full overlap  They disagree on the remaining 26%  Sources of apparent disagreement correspond to situations when different experts: have differing interpretations of question intent (11%) (for example, when a user asks 'who can contact me through the app', the questions admits multiple interpretations, including seeking information about the features of the app, asking about first party collection/use of data or asking about third party collection/use of data), identify different sources of evidence for questions that ask if a practice is performed or not (4%), have differing interpretations of policy content (3%), identify a partial answer to a question in the privacy policy (2%) (for example, when the user asks `who is allowed to use the app' a majority of our annotators decline to answer, but the remaining annotators highlight partial evidence in the privacy policy which states that children under the age of 13 are not allowed to use the app), and other legitimate sources of disagreement (6%) which include personal subjective views of the annotators (for example, when the user asks `is my DNA information used in any way other than what is specified', some experts consider the boilerplate text of the privacy policy which states that it abides to practices described in the policy document as sufficient evidence to answer this question, whereas others do not) 
Experimental Setup
We evaluate the ability of machine learning methods to identify relevant evidence for questions in the privacy domain  We establish baselines for the subtask of deciding on the answerability (§SECREF33) of a question, as well as the overall task of identifying evidence for questions from policies (§SECREF37)  We describe aspects of the question that can render it unanswerable within the privacy domain (§SECREF41) 
Experimental Setup ::: Answerability Identification Baselines
We define answerability identification as a binary classification task, evaluating model ability to predict if a question can be answered, given a question in isolation  This can serve as a prior for downstream question-answering  We describe three baselines on the answerability task, and find they considerably improve performance over a majority-class baseline 
SVM: We define 3 sets of features to characterize each question  The first is a simple bag-of-words set of features over the question (SVM-BOW), the second is bag-of-words features of the question as well as length of the question in words (SVM-BOW + LEN), and lastly we extract bag-of-words features, length of the question in words as well as part-of-speech tags for the question (SVM-BOW + LEN + POS)  This results in vectors of 200, 201 and 228 dimensions respectively, which are provided to an SVM with a linear kernel 
CNN: We utilize a CNN neural encoder for answerability prediction  We use GloVe word embeddings BIBREF50, and a filter size of 5 with 64 filters to encode questions 
BERT: BERT BIBREF51 is a bidirectional transformer-based language-model BIBREF52  We fine-tune BERT-base on our binary answerability identification task with a learning rate of 2e-5 for 3 epochs, with a maximum sequence length of 128 
Experimental Setup ::: Privacy Question Answering
Our goal is to identify evidence within a privacy policy for questions asked by a user  This is framed as an answer sentence selection task, where models identify a set of evidence sentences from all candidate sentences in each policy 
Experimental Setup ::: Privacy Question Answering ::: Evaluation Metric
Our evaluation metric for answer-sentence selection is sentence-level F1, implemented similar to BIBREF30, BIBREF16  Precision and recall are implemented by measuring the overlap between predicted sentences and sets of gold-reference sentences  We report the average of the maximum F1 from each n$-$1 subset, in relation to the heldout reference 
Experimental Setup ::: Privacy Question Answering ::: Baselines
We describe baselines on this task, including a human performance baseline 
No-Answer Baseline (NA) : Most of the questions we receive are difficult to answer in a legally-sound way on the basis of information present in the privacy policy  We establish a simple baseline to quantify the effect of identifying every question as unanswerable 
Word Count Baseline : To quantify the effect of using simple lexical matching to answer the questions, we retrieve the top candidate policy sentences for each question using a word count baseline BIBREF53, which counts the number of question words that also appear in a sentence  We include the top 2, 3 and 5 candidates as baselines 
BERT: We implement two BERT-based baselines BIBREF51 for evidence identification  First, we train BERT on each query-policy sentence pair as a binary classification task to identify if the sentence is evidence for the question or not (Bert)  We also experiment with a two-stage classifier, where we separately train the model on questions only to predict answerability  At inference time, if the answerable classifier predicts the question is answerable, the evidence identification classifier produces a set of candidate sentences (Bert + Unanswerable) 
Human Performance: We pick each reference answer provided by an annotator, and compute the F1 with respect to the remaining references, as described in section 4 2 1  Each reference answer is treated as the prediction, and the remaining n-1 answers are treated as the gold reference  The average of the maximum F1 across all reference answers is computed as the human baseline 
Results and Discussion
The results of the answerability baselines are presented in Table TABREF31, and on answer sentence selection in Table TABREF32  We observe that bert exhibits the best performance on a binary answerability identification task  However, most baselines considerably exceed the performance of a majority-class baseline  This suggests considerable information in the question, indicating it's possible answerability within this domain 
Table TABREF32 describes the performance of our baselines on the answer sentence selection task  The No-answer (NA) baseline performs at 28 F1, providing a lower bound on performance at this task  We observe that our best-performing baseline, Bert + Unanswerable achieves an F1 of 39 8  This suggest that bert is capable of making some progress towards answering questions in this difficult domain, while still leaving considerable headroom for improvement to reach human performance  Bert + Unanswerable performance suggests that incorporating information about answerability can help in this difficult domain  We examine this challenging phenomena of unanswerability further in Section  
Results and Discussion ::: Error Analysis
Disagreements are analyzed based on the OPP-115 categories of each question (Table TABREF34)  We compare our best performing BERT variant against the NA model and human performance  We observe significant room for improvement across all categories of questions but especially for first party, third party and data retention categories 
We analyze the performance of our strongest BERT variant, to identify classes of errors and directions for future improvement (Table 8)  We observe that a majority of answerability mistakes made by the BERT model are questions which are in fact answerable, but are identified as unanswerable by BERT  We observe that BERT makes 124 such mistakes on the test set  We collect expert judgments on relevance, subjectivity , silence and information about how likely the question is to be answered from the privacy policy from our experts  We find that most of these mistakes are relevant questions  However many of them were identified as subjective by the annotators, and at least one annotator marked 19 of these questions as having no answer within the privacy policy  However, only 6 of these questions were unexpected or do not usually have an answer in privacy policies  These findings suggest that a more nuanced understanding of answerability might help improve model performance in his challenging domain 
Results and Discussion ::: What makes Questions Unanswerable?
We further ask legal experts to identify potential causes of unanswerability of questions  This analysis has considerable implications  While past work BIBREF17 has treated unanswerable questions as homogeneous, a question answering system might wish to have different treatments for different categories of `unanswerable' questions  The following factors were identified to play a role in unanswerability:
Incomprehensibility: If a question is incomprehensible to the extent that its meaning is not intelligible 
Relevance: Is this question in the scope of what could be answered by reading the privacy policy 
Ill-formedness: Is this question ambiguous or vague  An ambiguous statement will typically contain expressions that can refer to multiple potential explanations, whereas a vague statement carries a concept with an unclear or soft definition 
Silence: Other policies answer this type of question but this one does not 
Atypicality: The question is of a nature such that it is unlikely for any policy policy to have an answer to the question 
Our experts attempt to identify the different `unanswerable' factors for all 573 such questions in the corpus  4 18% of the questions were identified as being incomprehensible (for example, `any difficulties to occupy the privacy assistant')  Amongst the comprehendable questions, 50% were identified as likely to have an answer within the privacy policy, 33 1% were identified as being privacy-related questions but not within the scope of a privacy policy (e g , 'has Viber had any privacy breaches in the past?') and 16 9% of questions were identified as completely out-of-scope (e g , `'will the app consume much space?')  In the questions identified as relevant, 32% were ill-formed questions that were phrased by the user in a manner considered vague or ambiguous  Of the questions that were both relevant as well as `well-formed', 95 7% of the questions were not answered by the policy in question but it was reasonable to expect that a privacy policy would contain an answer  The remaining 4 3% were described as reasonable questions, but of a nature generally not discussed in privacy policies  This suggests that the answerability of questions over privacy policies is a complex issue, and future systems should consider each of these factors when serving user's information seeking intent 
We examine a large-scale dataset of “natural” unanswerable questions BIBREF54 based on real user search engine queries to identify if similar unanswerability factors exist  It is important to note that these questions have previously been filtered, according to a criteria for bad questions defined as “(questions that are) ambiguous, incomprehensible, dependent on clear false presuppositions, opinion-seeking, or not clearly a request for factual information ” Annotators made the decision based on the content of the question without viewing the equivalent Wikipedia page  We randomly sample 100 questions from the development set which were identified as unanswerable, and find that 20% of the questions are not questions (e g , “all I want for christmas is you mariah carey tour”)  12% of questions are unlikely to ever contain an answer on Wikipedia, corresponding closely to our atypicality category  3% of questions are unlikely to have an answer anywhere (e g , `what guides Santa home after he has delivered presents?')  7% of questions are incomplete or open-ended (e g , `the south west wind blows across nigeria between')  3% of questions have an unresolvable coreference (e g , `how do i get to Warsaw Missouri from here')  4% of questions are vague, and a further 7% have unknown sources of error  2% still contain false presuppositions (e g , `what is the only fruit that does not have seeds?') and the remaining 42% do not have an answer within the document  This reinforces our belief that though they have been understudied in past work, any question answering system interacting with real users should expect to receive such unanticipated and unanswerable questions 
Conclusion
We present PrivacyQA, the first significant corpus of privacy policy questions and more than 3500 expert annotations of relevant answers  The goal of this work is to promote question-answering research in the specialized privacy domain, where it can have large real-world impact  Strong neural baselines on PrivacyQA achieve a performance of only 39 8 F1 on this corpus, indicating considerable room for future research  Further, we shed light on several important considerations that affect the answerability of questions  We hope this contribution leads to multidisciplinary efforts to precisely understand user intent and reconcile it with information in policy documents, from both the privacy and NLP communities 
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation Secure and Trustworthy Computing program (CNS-1330596, CNS-1330214, CNS-15-13957, CNS-1801316, CNS-1914486, CNS-1914444) and a DARPA Brandeis grant on Personalized Privacy Assistants (FA8750-15-2-0277)  The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes not withstanding any copyright notation  The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the NSF, DARPA, or the US Government  The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Elias Wright, Gian Mascioli, Kiara Pillay, Harrison Kay, Eliel Talo, Alexander Fagella and N  Cameron Russell for providing their valuable expertise and insight to this effort  The authors are also grateful to Eduard Hovy, Lorrie Cranor, Florian Schaub, Joel Reidenberg, Aditya Potukuchi and Igor Shalyminov for helpful discussions related to this work, and to the three anonymous reviewers of this draft for their constructive feedback  Finally, the authors would like to thank all crowdworkers who consented to participate in this study 
Context 2: Introduction
Stance detection (also called stance identification or stance classification) is one of the considerably recent research topics in natural language processing (NLP)  It is usually defined as a classification problem where for a text and target pair, the stance of the author of the text for that target is expected as a classification output from the set: {Favor, Against, Neither} BIBREF0  
Stance detection is usually considered as a subtask of sentiment analysis (opinion mining) BIBREF1 topic in NLP  Both are mostly performed on social media texts, particularly on tweets, hence both are important components of social media analysis  Nevertheless, in sentiment analysis, the sentiment of the author of a piece of text usually as Positive, Negative, and Neutral is explored while in stance detection, the stance of the author of the text for a particular target (an entity, event, etc ) either explicitly or implicitly referred to in the text is considered  Like sentiment analysis, stance detection systems can be valuable components of information retrieval and other text analysis systems BIBREF0  
Previous work on stance detection include BIBREF2 where a stance classifier based on sentiment and arguing features is proposed in addition to an arguing lexicon automatically compiled  The ultimate approach performs better than distribution-based and uni-gram-based baseline systems BIBREF2   In BIBREF3 , the authors show that the use of dialogue structure improves stance detection in on-line debates  In BIBREF4 , Hasan and Ng carry out stance detection experiments using different machine learning algorithms, training data sets, features, and inter-post constraints in on-line debates, and draw insightful conclusions based on these experiments  For instance, they find that sequence models like HMMs perform better at stance detection when compared with non-sequence models like Naive Bayes (NB) BIBREF4   In another related study BIBREF5 , the authors conclude that topic-independent features can be exploited for disagreement detection in on-line dialogues  The employed features include agreement, cue words, denial, hedges, duration, polarity, and punctuation BIBREF5   Stance detection on a corpus of student essays is considered in BIBREF6   After using linguistically-motivated feature sets together with multivalued NB and SVM as the learning models, the authors conclude that they outperform two baseline approaches BIBREF6   In BIBREF7 , the author claims that Wikipedia can be used to determine stances about controversial topics based on their previous work regarding controversy extraction on the Web 
Among more recent related work, in BIBREF8 stance detection for unseen targets is studied and bidirectional conditional encoding is employed  The authors state that their approach achieves state-of-the art performance rates BIBREF8 on SemEval 2016 Twitter Stance Detection corpus BIBREF0   In BIBREF9 , a stance-community detection approach called SCIFNET is proposed  SCIFNET creates networks of people who are stance targets, automatically from the related document collections BIBREF9 using stance expansion and refinement techniques to arrive at stance-coherent networks  A tweet data set annotated with stance information regarding six predefined targets is proposed in BIBREF10 where this data set is annotated through crowdsourcing  The authors indicate that the data set is also annotated with sentiment information in addition to stance, so it can help reveal associations between stance and sentiment BIBREF10   Lastly, in BIBREF0 , SemEval 2016's aforementioned shared task on Twitter Stance Detection is described  Also provided are the results of the evaluations of 19 systems participating in two subtasks (one with training data set provided and the other without an annotated data set) of the shared task BIBREF0  
In this paper, we present a tweet data set in Turkish annotated with stance information, where the corresponding annotations are made publicly available  The domain of the tweets comprises two popular football clubs which constitute the targets of the tweets included  We also provide the evaluation results of SVM classifiers (for each target) on this data set using unigram, bigram, and hashtag features 
To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the first one to target at stance detection in Turkish tweets  Together with the provided annotated data set and the corresponding evaluations with the aforementioned SVM classifiers which can be used as baseline systems, our study will hopefully help increase social media analysis studies on Turkish content 
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section SECREF2 , we describe our tweet data set annotated with the target and stance information  Section SECREF3 includes the details of our SVM-based stance classifiers and their evaluation results with discussions  Section SECREF4 includes future research topics based on the current study, and finally Section SECREF5 concludes the paper with a summary 
A Stance Detection Data Set
We have decided to consider tweets about popular sports clubs as our domain for stance detection  Considerable amounts of tweets are being published for sports-related events at every instant  Hence we have determined our targets as Galatasaray (namely Target-1) and Fenerbahçe (namely, Target-2) which are two of the most popular football clubs in Turkey  As is the case for the sentiment analysis tools, the outputs of the stance detection systems on a stream of tweets about these clubs can facilitate the use of the opinions of the football followers by these clubs 
In a previous study on the identification of public health-related tweets, two tweet data sets in Turkish (each set containing 1 million random tweets) have been compiled where these sets belong to two different periods of 20 consecutive days BIBREF11   We have decided to use one of these sets (corresponding to the period between August 18 and September 6, 2015) and firstly filtered the tweets using the possible names used to refer to the target clubs  Then, we have annotated the stance information in the tweets for these targets as Favor or Against  Within the course of this study, we have not considered those tweets in which the target is not explicitly mentioned, as our initial filtering process reveals 
For the purposes of the current study, we have not annotated any tweets with the Neither class  This stance class and even finer-grained classes can be considered in further annotation studies  We should also note that in a few tweets, the target of the stance was the management of the club while in some others a particular footballer of the club is praised or criticised  Still, we have considered the club as the target of the stance in all of the cases and carried out our annotations accordingly 
At the end of the annotation process, we have annotated 700 tweets, where 175 tweets are in favor of and 175 tweets are against Target-1, and similarly 175 tweets are in favor of and 175 are against Target-2  Hence, our data set is a balanced one although it is currently limited in size  The corresponding stance annotations are made publicly available at http://ceng
Context 3: Introduction
Ancient Chinese is the writing language in ancient China  It is a treasure of Chinese culture which brings together the wisdom and ideas of the Chinese nation and chronicles the ancient cultural heritage of China  Learning ancient Chinese not only helps people to understand and inherit the wisdom of the ancients, but also promotes people to absorb and develop Chinese culture 
However, it is difficult for modern people to read ancient Chinese  Firstly, compared with modern Chinese, ancient Chinese is more concise and shorter  The grammatical order of modern Chinese is also quite different from that of ancient Chinese  Secondly, most modern Chinese words are double syllables, while the most of the ancient Chinese words are monosyllabic  Thirdly, there is more than one polysemous phenomenon in ancient Chinese  In addition, manual translation has a high cost  Therefore, it is meaningful and useful to study the automatic translation from ancient Chinese to modern Chinese  Through ancient-modern Chinese translation, the wisdom, talent and accumulated experience of the predecessors can be passed on to more people 
Neural machine translation (NMT) BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 has achieved remarkable performance on many bilingual translation tasks  It is an end-to-end learning approach for machine translation, with the potential to show great advantages over the statistic machine translation (SMT) systems  However, NMT approach has not been widely applied to the ancient-modern Chinese translation task  One of the main reasons is the limited high-quality parallel data resource 
The most popular method of acquiring translation examples is bilingual text alignment BIBREF5   This kind of method can be classified into two types: lexical-based and statistical-based  The lexical-based approaches BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 focus on lexical information, which utilize the bilingual dictionary BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 or lexical features  Meanwhile, the statistical-based approaches BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 rely on statistical information, such as sentence length ratio in two languages and align mode probability 
However, these methods are designed for other bilingual language pairs that are written in different language characters (e g  English-French, Chinese-Japanese)  The ancient-modern Chinese has some characteristics that are quite different from other language pairs  For example, ancient and modern Chinese are both written in Chinese characters, but ancient Chinese is highly concise and its syntactical structure is different from modern Chinese  The traditional methods do not take these characteristics into account  In this paper, we propose an effective ancient-modern Chinese text alignment method at the level of clause based on the characteristics of these two languages  The proposed method combines both lexical-based information and statistical-based information, which achieves 94 2 F1-score on Test set  Recently, a simple longest common subsequence based approach for ancient-modern Chinese sentence alignment is proposed in BIBREF12   Our experiments showed that our proposed alignment approach performs much better than their method 
We apply the proposed method to create a large translation parallel corpus which contains INLINEFORM0 1 24M bilingual sentence pairs  To our best knowledge, this is the first large high-quality ancient-modern Chinese dataset  Furthermore, we test SMT models and various NMT models on the created dataset and provide a strong baseline for this task 
Overview
There are four steps to build the ancient-modern Chinese translation dataset: (i) The parallel corpus crawling and cleaning  (ii) The paragraph alignment  (iii) The clause alignment based on aligned paragraphs  (iv) Augmenting data by merging aligned adjacent clauses  The most critical step is the third step 
Clause Alignment
In the clause alignment step, we combine both statistical-based and lexical-based information to measure the score for each possible clause alignment between ancient and modern Chinese strings  The dynamic programming is employed to further find overall optimal alignment paragraph by paragraph  According to the characteristics of the ancient and modern Chinese languages, we consider the following factors to measure the alignment score INLINEFORM0 between a bilingual clause pair:
Lexical Matching  The lexical matching score is used to calculate the matching coverage of the ancient clause INLINEFORM0   It contains two parts: exact matching and dictionary matching  An ancient Chinese character usually corresponds to one or more modern Chinese words  In the first part, we carry out Chinese Word segmentation to the modern Chinese clause INLINEFORM1   Then we match the ancient characters and modern words in the order from left to right  In further matching, the words that have been matched will be deleted from the original clauses 
However, some ancient characters do not appear in its corresponding modern Chinese words  An ancient Chinese dictionary is employed to address this issue  We preprocess the ancient Chinese dictionary and remove the stop words  In this dictionary matching step, we retrieve the dictionary definition of each unmatched ancient character and use it to match the remaining modern Chinese words  To reduce the impact of universal word matching, we use Inverse Document Frequency (IDF) to weight the matching words  The lexical matching score is calculated as: DISPLAYFORM0
The above equation is used to calculate the matching coverage of the ancient clause INLINEFORM0   The first term of equation ( EQREF8 ) represents exact matching score  INLINEFORM1 denotes the length of INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 denotes each ancient character in INLINEFORM4 , and the indicator function INLINEFORM5 indicates whether the character INLINEFORM6 can match the words in the clause INLINEFORM7   The second term is dictionary matching score  Here INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9 represent the remaining unmatched strings of INLINEFORM10 and INLINEFORM11 , respectively  INLINEFORM12 denotes the INLINEFORM13 -th character in the dictionary definition of the INLINEFORM14 and its IDF score is denoted as INLINEFORM15   The INLINEFORM16 is a predefined parameter which is used to normalize the IDF score  We tuned the value of this parameter on the Dev set 
Statistical Information  Similar to BIBREF11 and BIBREF6 , the statistical information contains alignment mode and length information  There are many alignment modes between ancient and modern Chinese languages  If one ancient Chinese clause aligns two adjacent modern Chinese clauses, we call this alignment as 1-2 alignment mode  We show some examples of different alignment modes in Figure FIGREF9   In this paper, we only consider 1-0, 0-1, 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2 alignment modes which account for INLINEFORM0 of the Dev set  We estimate the probability Pr INLINEFORM1 n-m INLINEFORM2 of each alignment mode n-m on the Dev set  To utilize length information, we make an investigation on length correlation between these two languages  Based on the assumption of BIBREF11 that each character in one language gives rise to a random number of characters in the other language and those random variables INLINEFORM3 are independent and identically distributed with a normal distribution, we estimate the mean INLINEFORM4 and standard deviation INLINEFORM5 from the paragraph aligned parallel corpus  Given a clause pair INLINEFORM6 , the statistical information score can be calculated by: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the normal distribution probability density function 
Edit Distance  Because ancient and modern Chinese are both written in Chinese characters, we also consider using the edit distance

ground_truth: SVM, No-Answer Baseline (NA) , Word Count Baseline, Human Performance

No-Answer Baseline (NA), Word Count Baseline, Human Performance

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. Which sports clubs are the targets?
Context 2: metu edu tr/ INLINEFORM0 e120329/ Turkish_Stance_Detection_Tweet_Dataset csv in Comma Separated Values (CSV) format  The file contains three columns with the corresponding headers  The first column is the tweet id of the corresponding tweet, the second column contains the name of the stance target, and the last column includes the stance of the tweet for the target as Favor or Against 
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first publicly-available stance-annotated data set for Turkish  Hence, it is a significant resource as there is a scarcity of annotated data sets, linguistic resources, and NLP tools available for Turkish  Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, it is also significant for being the first stance-annotated data set including sports-related tweets, as previous stance detection data sets mostly include on-line texts on political/ethical issues 
Stance Detection Experiments Using SVM Classifiers
It is emphasized in the related literature that unigram-based methods are reliable for the stance detection task BIBREF2 and similarly unigram-based models have been used as baseline models in studies such as BIBREF0   In order to be used as a baseline and reference system for further studies on stance detection in Turkish tweets, we have trained two SVM classifiers (one for each target) using unigrams as features  Before the extraction of unigrams, we have employed automated preprocessing to filter out the stopwords in our annotated data set of 700 tweets  The stopword list used is the list presented in BIBREF12 which, in turn, is the slightly extended version of the stopword list provided in BIBREF13  
We have used the SVM implementation available in the Weka data mining application BIBREF14 where this particular implementation employs the SMO algorithm BIBREF15 to train a classifier with a linear kernel  The 10-fold cross-validation results of the two classifiers are provided in Table TABREF1 using the metrics of precision, recall, and F-Measure 
The evaluation results are quite favorable for both targets and particularly higher for Target-1, considering the fact that they are the initial experiments on the data set  The performance of the classifiers is better for the Favor class for both targets when compared with the performance results for the Against class  This outcome may be due to the common use of some terms when expressing positive stance towards sports clubs in Turkish tweets  The same percentage of common terms may not have been observed in tweets during the expression of negative stances towards the targets  Yet, completely the opposite pattern is observed in stance detection results of baseline systems given in BIBREF0 , i e , better F-Measure rates have been obtained for the Against class when compared with the Favor class BIBREF0   Some of the baseline systems reported in BIBREF0 are SVM-based systems using unigrams and ngrams as features similar to our study, but their data sets include all three stance classes of Favor, Against, and Neither, while our data set comprises only tweets classified as belonging to Favor or Against classes  Another difference is that the data sets in BIBREF0 have been divided into training and test sets, while in our study we provide 10-fold cross-validation results on the whole data set  On the other hand, we should also note that SVM-based sentiment analysis systems (such as those given in BIBREF16 ) have been reported to achieve better F-Measure rates for the Positive sentiment class when compared with the results obtained for the Negative class  Therefore, our evaluation results for each stance class seem to be in line with such sentiment analysis systems  Yet, further experiments on the extended versions of our data set should be conducted and the results should again be compared with the stance detection results given in the literature 
We have also evaluated SVM classifiers which use only bigrams as features, as ngram-based classifiers have been reported to perform better for the stance detection problem BIBREF0   However, we have observed that using bigrams as the sole features of the SVM classifiers leads to quite poor results  This observation may be due to the relatively limited size of the tweet data set employed  Still, we can conclude that unigram-based features lead to superior results compared to the results obtained using bigrams as features, based on our experiments on our data set  Yet, ngram-based features may be employed on the extended versions of the data set to verify this conclusion within the course of future work 
With an intention to exploit the contribution of hashtag use to stance detection, we have also used the existence of hashtags in tweets as an additional feature to unigrams  The corresponding evaluation results of the SVM classifiers using unigrams together the existence of hashtags as features are provided in Table TABREF2  
When the results given in Table TABREF2 are compared with the results in Table TABREF1 , a slight decrease in F-Measure (0 5%) for Target-1 is observed, while the overall F-Measure value for Target-2 has increased by 1 8%  Although we could not derive sound conclusions mainly due to the relatively small size of our data set, the increase in the performance of the SVM classifier Target-2 is an encouraging evidence for the exploitation of hashtags in a stance detection system  We leave other ways of exploiting hashtags for stance detection as a future work 
To sum up, our evaluation results are significant as reference results to be used for comparison purposes and provides evidence for the utility of unigram-based and hashtag-related features in SVM classifiers for the stance detection problem in Turkish tweets 
Future Prospects
Future work based on the current study includes the following:
Conclusion
Stance detection is a considerably new research area in natural language processing and is considered within the scope of the well-studied topic of sentiment analysis  It is the detection of stance within text towards a target which may be explicitly specified in the text or not  In this study, we present a stance-annotated tweet data set in Turkish where the targets of the annotated stances are two popular sports clubs in Turkey  The corresponding annotations are made publicly-available for research purposes  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first stance detection data set for the Turkish language and also the first sports-related stance-annotated data set  Also presented in this study are SVM classifiers (one for each target) utilizing unigram and bigram features in addition to using the existence of hashtags as another feature  10-fold cross validation results of these classifiers are presented which can be used as reference results by prospective systems  Both the annotated data set and the classifiers with evaluations are significant since they are the initial contributions to stance detection problem in Turkish tweets 
Context 3:  It is a way of quantifying the dissimilarity between two strings by counting the minimum number of operations (insertion, deletion, and substitution) required to transform one string into the other  Here we define the edit distance score as: DISPLAYFORM0
Dynamic Programming  The overall alignment score for each possible clause alignment is as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
Here INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are pre-defined interpolation factors  We use dynamic programming to find the overall optimal alignment paragraph by paragraph  Let INLINEFORM2 be total alignment scores of aligning the first to INLINEFORM3 -th ancient Chinese clauses with the first to to INLINEFORM4 -th modern Chinese clauses, and the recurrence then can be described as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
Where INLINEFORM0 denotes concatenate clause INLINEFORM1 to clause INLINEFORM2   As we discussed above, here we only consider 1-0, 0-1, 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2 alignment modes 
Ancient-Modern Chinese Dataset
Data Collection  To build the large ancient-modern Chinese dataset, we collected 1 7K bilingual ancient-modern Chinese articles from the internet  More specifically, a large part of the ancient Chinese data we used come from ancient Chinese history records in several dynasties (about 1000BC-200BC) and articles written by celebrities of that era  They used plain and accurate words to express what happened at that time, and thus ensure the generality of the translated materials 
Paragraph Alignment  To further ensure the quality of the new dataset, the work of paragraph alignment is manually completed  After data cleaning and manual paragraph alignment, we obtained 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs 
Clause Alignment  We applied our clause alignment algorithm on the 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs and obtained 517K aligned bilingual clauses  The reason we use clause alignment algorithm instead of sentence alignment is because we can construct more aligned sentences more flexibly and conveniently  To be specific, we can get multiple additional sentence level bilingual pairs by “data augmentation” 
Data Augmentation  We augmented the data in the following way: Given an aligned clause pair, we merged its adjacent clause pairs as a new sample pair  For example, suppose we have three adjacent clause level bilingual pairs: ( INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 ), ( INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 ), and ( INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 )  We can get some additional sentence level bilingual pairs, such as: ( INLINEFORM6 , INLINEFORM7 ) and ( INLINEFORM8 , INLINEFORM9 )  Here INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , and INLINEFORM12 are adjacent clauses in the original paragraph, and INLINEFORM13 denotes concatenate clause INLINEFORM14 to clause INLINEFORM15   The advantage of using this data augmentation method is that compared with only using ( INLINEFORM16 , INLINEFORM17 ) as the training data, we can also use ( INLINEFORM18 , INLINEFORM19 ) and ( INLINEFORM20 , INLINEFORM21 ) as the training data, which can provide richer supervision information for the model and make the model learn the align information between the source language and the target language better  After the data augmentation, we filtered the sentences which are longer than 50 or contain more than four clause pairs 
Dataset Creation  Finally, we split the dataset into three sets: training (Train), development (Dev) and testing (Test)  Note that the unaugmented dataset contains 517K aligned bilingual clause pairs from 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs  To keep all the sentences in different sets come from different articles, we split the 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs into Train, Dev and Test sets following these ratios respectively: 80%, 10%, 10%  Before data augmentation, the unaugmented Train set contains INLINEFORM0 aligned bilingual clause pairs from 28K aligned bilingual paragraphs  Then we augmented the Train, Dev and Test sets respectively  Note that the augmented Train, Dev and Test sets also contain the unaugmented data  The statistical information of the three data sets is shown in Table TABREF17   We show some examples of data in Figure FIGREF14  
RNN-based NMT model
We first briefly introduce the RNN based Neural Machine Translation (RNN-based NMT) model  The RNN-based NMT with attention mechanism BIBREF0 has achieved remarkable performance on many translation tasks  It consists of encoder and decoder part 
We firstly introduce the encoder part  The input word sequence of source language are individually mapped into a INLINEFORM0 -dimensional vector space INLINEFORM1   Then a bi-directional RNN BIBREF15 with GRU BIBREF16 or LSTM BIBREF17 cell converts these vectors into a sequences of hidden states INLINEFORM2  
For the decoder part, another RNN is used to generate target sequence INLINEFORM0   The attention mechanism BIBREF0 , BIBREF18 is employed to allow the decoder to refer back to the hidden state sequence and focus on a particular segment  The INLINEFORM1 -th hidden state INLINEFORM2 of decoder part is calculated as: DISPLAYFORM0
Here g INLINEFORM0 is a linear combination of attended context vector c INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 is the word embedding of (i-1)-th target word: DISPLAYFORM0
The attended context vector c INLINEFORM0 is computed as a weighted sum of the hidden states of the encoder: DISPLAYFORM0
The probability distribution vector of the next word INLINEFORM0 is generated according to the following: DISPLAYFORM0
We take this model as the basic RNN-based NMT model in the following experiments 
Transformer-NMT
Recently, the Transformer model BIBREF4 has made remarkable progress in machine translation  This model contains a multi-head self-attention encoder and a multi-head self-attention decoder 
As proposed by BIBREF4 , an attention function maps a query and a set of key-value pairs to an output, where the queries INLINEFORM0 , keys INLINEFORM1 , and values INLINEFORM2 are all vectors  The input consists of queries and keys of dimension INLINEFORM3 , and values of dimension INLINEFORM4   The attention function is given by: DISPLAYFORM0
Multi-head attention mechanism projects queries, keys and values to INLINEFORM0 different representation subspaces and calculates corresponding attention  The attention function outputs are concatenated and projected again before giving the final output  Multi-head attention allows the model to attend to multiple features at different positions 
The encoder is composed of a stack of INLINEFORM0 identical layers  Each layer has two sub-layers: multi-head self-attention mechanism and position-wise fully connected feed-forward network  Similarly, the decoder is also composed of a stack of INLINEFORM1 identical layers  In addition to the two sub-layers in each encoder layer, the decoder contains a third sub-layer which performs multi-head attention over the output of the encoder stack (see more details in BIBREF4 ) 
Experiments
Our experiments revolve around the following questions: Q1: As we consider three factors for clause alignment, do all these factors help? How does our method compare with previous methods? Q2: How does the NMT and SMT models perform on this new dataset we build?
Clause Alignment Results (Q1)
In order to evaluate our clause alignment algorithm, we manually aligned bilingual clauses from 37 bilingual ancient-modern Chinese articles, and finally got 4K aligned bilingual clauses as the Test set and 2K clauses as the Dev set 
Metrics  We used F1-score and precision score as the evaluation metrics  Suppose that we get INLINEFORM0 bilingual clause pairs after running the algorithm on the Test set, and there are INLINEFORM1 bilingual clause pairs of these INLINEFORM2 pairs are in the ground truth of the Test set, the precision score is defined as INLINEFORM3 (the algorithm gives INLINEFORM4 outputs, INLINEFORM5 of which are correct)  And suppose that the ground truth of the Test set contains INLINEFORM6 bilingual clause pairs, the recall score is INLINEFORM7 (there are INLINEFORM8 ground truth samples, INLINEFORM9 of which are output by the algorithm), then the F1-score is INLINEFORM10  
Baselines  Since the related work BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 can be seen as the ablation cases of our method (only statistical score INLINEFORM0 with dynamic programming), we compared the full proposed method with its variants on the Test set for ablation study  In addition, we also compared our method with the longest common subsequence (LCS) based approach proposed by BIBREF12   To the best of our knowledge, BIBREF12 is the latest related work which are designed for Ancient-Modern Chinese alignment 
Hyper-parameters  For the proposed method, we estimated INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 on all aligned paragraphs  The probability Pr INLINEFORM2 n-m INLINEFORM3 of each alignment mode n-m was estimated on the Dev set  For the hyper-parameters INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 , the grid search was applied to tune them on the Dev set  In order to show the effect of hyper-parameters INLINEFORM7 , INLINEFORM8 , and INLINEFORM9 , we reported the results of various hyper-parameters on the Dev set in Table TABREF26   Based on the results of grid search on the Dev set, we set INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , and INLINEFORM12 in the following experiment  The Jieba Chinese text segmentation is employed for modern Chinese word segmentation 
Results  The results on the Test set are shown in Table TABREF28 , the abbreviation w/o means removing a particular part from the setting  From the results, we can see that the lexical matching score is the most important among these three factors, and statistical information score is more important than edit distance score

ground_truth: Galatasaray, Fenerbahçe

Galatasaray , Fenerbahçe 

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. what NMT models did they compare with?
Context 3:  Moreover, the dictionary term in lexical matching score significantly improves the performance  From these results, we obtain the best setting that involves all these three factors  We used this setting for dataset creation  Furthermore, the proposed method performs much better than LCS BIBREF12  
Translation Results (Q2)
In this experiment, we analyzed and compared the performance of the SMT and various NMT models on our built dataset  To verify the effectiveness of our data augmented method  We trained the NMT and SMT models on both unaugmented dataset (including 0 46M training pairs) and augmented dataset, and test all the models on the same Test set which is augmented  The models to be tested and their configurations are as follows:
SMT  The state-of-art Moses toolkit BIBREF19 was used to train SMT model  We used KenLM BIBREF20 to train a 5-gram language model, and the GIZA++ toolkit to align the data 
RNN-based NMT  The basic RNN-based NMT model is based on BIBREF0 which is introduced above  Both the encoder and decoder used 2-layer RNN with 1024 LSTM cells, and the encoder is a bi-directional RNN  The batch size, threshold of element-wise gradient clipping and initial learning rate of Adam optimizer BIBREF21 were set to 128, 5 0 and 0 001  When trained the model on augmented dataset, we used 4-layer RNN  Several techniques were investigated to train the model, including layer-normalization BIBREF22 , RNN-dropout BIBREF23 , and learning rate decay BIBREF1   The hyper-parameters were chosen empirically and adjusted in the Dev set  Furthermore, we tested the basic NMT model with several techniques, such as target language reversal BIBREF24 (reversing the order of the words in all target sentences, but not source sentences), residual connection BIBREF25 and pre-trained word2vec BIBREF26   For word embedding pre-training, we collected an external ancient corpus which contains INLINEFORM0 134M tokens 
Transformer-NMT  We also trained the Transformer model BIBREF4 which is a strong baseline of NMT on both augmented and unaugmented parallel corpus  The training configuration of the Transformer model is shown in Table TABREF32   The hyper-parameters are set based on the settings in the paper BIBREF4 and the sizes of our training sets 
For the evaluation, we used the average of 1 to 4 gram BLEUs multiplied by a brevity penalty BIBREF27 which computed by multi-bleu perl in Moses as metrics  The results are reported in Table TABREF34   For RNN-based NMT, we can see that target language reversal, residual connection, and word2vec can further improve the performance of the basic RNN-based NMT model  However, we find that word2vec and reversal tricks seem no obvious improvement when trained the RNN-based NMT and Transformer models on augmented parallel corpus  For SMT, it performs better than NMT models when they were trained on the unaugmented dataset  Nevertheless, when trained on the augmented dataset, both the RNN-based NMT model and Transformer based NMT model outperform the SMT model  In addition, as with other translation tasks BIBREF4 , the Transformer also performs better than RNN-based NMT 
Because the Test set contains both augmented and unaugmented data, it is not surprising that the RNN-based NMT model and Transformer based NMT model trained on unaugmented data would perform poorly  In order to further verify the effect of data augmentation, we report the test results of the models on only unaugmented test data (including 48K test pairs) in Table TABREF35   From the results, it can be seen that the data augmentation can still improve the models 
Analysis
The generated samples of various models are shown in Figure FIGREF36   Besides BLEU scores, we analyze these examples from a human perspective and draw some conclusions  At the same time, we design different metrics and evaluate on the whole Test set to support our conclusions as follows:
On the one hand, we further compare the translation results from the perspective of people  We find that although the original meaning can be basically translated by SMT, its translation results are less smooth when compared with the other two NMT models (RNN-based NMT and Transformer)  For example, the translations of SMT are usually lack of auxiliary words, conjunctions and function words, which is not consistent with human translation habits  To further confirm this conclusion, the average length of the translation results of the three models are measured (RNN-based NMT:17 12, SMT:15 50, Transformer:16 78, Reference:16 47)  We can see that the average length of the SMT outputs is shortest, and the length gaps between the SMT outputs and the references are largest  Meanwhile, the average length of the sentences translated by Transformer is closest to the average length of references  These results indirectly verify our point of view, and show that the NMT models perform better than SMT in this task 
On the other hand, there still exists some problems to be solved  We observe that translating proper nouns and personal pronouns (such as names, place names and ancient-specific appellations) is very difficult for all of these models  For instance, the ancient Chinese appellation `Zhen' should be translated into `Wo' in modern Chinese  Unfortunately, we calculate the accurate rate of some special words (such as `Zhen',`Chen' and `Gua'), and find that this rate is very low (the accurate rate of translating `Zhen' are: RNN-based NMT:0 14, SMT:0 16, Transformer:0 05)  We will focus on this issue in the future 
Conclusion and Future Work
We propose an effective ancient-modern Chinese clause alignment method which achieves 94 2 F1-score on Test set  Based on it, we build a large scale parallel corpus which contains INLINEFORM0 1 24M bilingual sentence pairs  To our best knowledge, this is the first large high-quality ancient-modern Chinese dataset  In addition, we test the performance of the SMT and various NMT models on our built dataset and provide a strong NMT baseline for this task which achieves 27 16 BLEU score (4-gram)  We further analyze the performance of the SMT and various NMT models and summarize some specific problems that machine translation models will encounter when translating ancient Chinese 
For the future work, firstly, we are going to expand the dataset using the proposed method continually  Secondly, we will focus on solving the problem of proper noun translation and improve the translation system according to the features of ancient Chinese translation  Finally, we plan to introduce some techniques of statistical translation into neural machine translation to improve the performance 
This work is supported by National Natural Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholar (Grant No  61625204) and partially supported by the State Key Program of National Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos  61836006 and 61432014) 

ground_truth: RNN-based NMT model, Transformer-NMT