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 are the three regularization terms?
Context 1: Introduction
We posses a wealth of prior knowledge about many natural language processing tasks  For example, in text categorization, we know that words such as NBA, player, and basketball are strong indicators of the sports category BIBREF0 , and words like terrible, boring, and messing indicate a negative polarity while words like perfect, exciting, and moving suggest a positive polarity in sentiment classification 
A key problem arisen here, is how to leverage such knowledge to guide the learning process, an interesting problem for both NLP and machine learning communities  Previous studies addressing the problem fall into several lines  First, to leverage prior knowledge to label data BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Second, to encode prior knowledge with a prior on parameters, which can be commonly seen in many Bayesian approaches BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   Third, to formalise prior knowledge with additional variables and dependencies BIBREF5   Last, to use prior knowledge to control the distributions over latent output variables BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , which makes the output variables easily interpretable 
However, a crucial problem, which has rarely been addressed, is the bias in the prior knowledge that we supply to the learning model  Would the model be robust or sensitive to the prior knowledge? Or, which kind of knowledge is appropriate for the task? Let's see an example: we may be a baseball fan but unfamiliar with hockey so that we can provide a few number of feature words of baseball, but much less of hockey for a baseball-hockey classification task  Such prior knowledge may mislead the model with heavy bias to baseball  If the model cannot handle this situation appropriately, the performance may be undesirable 
In this paper, we investigate into the problem in the framework of Generalized Expectation Criteria BIBREF7   The study aims to reveal the factors of reducing the sensibility of the prior knowledge and therefore to make the model more robust and practical  To this end, we introduce auxiliary regularization terms in which our prior knowledge is formalized as distribution over output variables  Recall the example just mentioned, though we do not have enough knowledge to provide features for class hockey, it is easy for us to provide some neutral words, namely words that are not strong indicators of any class, like player here  As one of the factors revealed in this paper, supplying neutral feature words can boost the performance remarkably, making the model more robust 
More attractively, we do not need manual annotation to label these neutral feature words in our proposed approach 
More specifically, we explore three regularization terms to address the problem: (1) a regularization term associated with neutral features; (2) the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term; and (3) the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution  For the first manner, we simply use the most common features as neutral features and assume the neutral features are distributed uniformly over class labels  For the second and third one, we assume we have some knowledge about the class distribution which will be detailed soon later 
To summarize, the main contributions of this work are as follows:
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we briefly describe the generalized expectation criteria and present the proposed regularization terms  In Section 3, we conduct extensive experiments to justify the proposed methods  We survey related work in Section 4, and summarize our work in Section 5 
Method
We address the robustness problem on top of GE-FL BIBREF0 , a GE method which leverages labeled features as prior knowledge  A labeled feature is a strong indicator of a specific class and is manually provided to the classifier  For example, words like amazing, exciting can be labeled features for class positive in sentiment classification 
Generalized Expectation Criteria
Generalized expectation (GE) criteria BIBREF7 provides us a natural way to directly constrain the model in the preferred direction  For example, when we know the proportion of each class of the dataset in a classification task, we can guide the model to predict out a pre-specified class distribution 
Formally, in a parameter estimation objective function, a GE term expresses preferences on the value of some constraint functions about the model's expectation  Given a constraint function $G({\rm x}, y)$ , a conditional model distribution $p_\theta (y|\rm x)$ , an empirical distribution $\tilde{p}({\rm x})$ over input samples and a score function $S$ , a GE term can be expressed as follows:
$$S(E_{\tilde{p}({\rm x})}[E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]])$$   (Eq  4)
Learning from Labeled Features
Druck et al  ge-fl proposed GE-FL to learn from labeled features using generalized expectation criteria  When given a set of labeled features $K$ , the reference distribution over classes of these features is denoted by $\hat{p}(y| x_k), k \in K$   GE-FL introduces the divergence between this reference distribution and the model predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ , as a term of the objective function:
$$\mathcal {O} = \sum _{k \in K} KL(\hat{p}(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) + \sum _{y,i} \frac{\theta _{yi}^2}{2 \sigma ^2}$$   (Eq  6)
where $\theta _{yi}$ is the model parameter which indicates the importance of word $i$ to class $y$   The predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ can be expressed as follows: $ p_\theta (y | x_k) = \frac{1}{C_k} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y|{\rm x})I(x_k) $
in which $I(x_k)$ is 1 if feature $k$ occurs in instance ${\rm x}$ and 0 otherwise, $C_k = \sum _{\rm x} I(x_k)$ is the number of instances with a non-zero value of feature $k$ , and $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ takes a softmax form as follows: $ p_\theta (y|{\rm x}) = \frac{1}{Z(\rm x)}\exp (\sum _i \theta _{yi}x_i)  $
To solve the optimization problem, L-BFGS can be used for parameter estimation 
In the framework of GE, this term can be obtained by setting the constraint function $G({\rm x}, y) = \frac{1}{C_k} \vec{I} (y)I(x_k)$ , where $\vec{I}(y)$ is an indicator vector with 1 at the index corresponding to label $y$ and 0 elsewhere 
Regularization Terms
GE-FL reduces the heavy load of instance annotation and performs well when we provide prior knowledge with no bias  In our experiments, we observe that comparable numbers of labeled features for each class have to be supplied  But as mentioned before, it is often the case that we are not able to provide enough knowledge for some of the classes  For the baseball-hockey classification task, as shown before, GE-FL will predict most of the instances as baseball  In this section, we will show three terms to make the model more robust 
Neutral features are features that are not informative indicator of any classes, for instance, word player to the baseball-hockey classification task  Such features are usually frequent words across all categories  When we set the preference distribution of the neutral features to be uniform distributed, these neutral features will prevent the model from biasing to the class that has a dominate number of labeled features 
Formally, given a set of neutral features $K^{^{\prime }}$ , the uniform distribution is $\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) = \frac{1}{|C|}, k \in K^{^{\prime }}$ , where $|C|$ is the number of classes  The objective function with the new term becomes
$$\mathcal {O}_{NE} = \mathcal {O} + \sum _{k \in K^{^{\prime }}} KL(\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) $$   (Eq  9)
Note that we do not need manual annotation to provide neutral features  One simple way is to take the most common features as neutral features  Experimental results show that this strategy works successfully 
Another way to prevent the model from drifting from the desired direction is to constrain the predicted class distribution on unlabeled data  When lacking knowledge about the class distribution of the data, one feasible way is to take maximum entropy principle, as below:
$$\mathcal {O}_{ME} = \mathcal {O} + \lambda \sum _{y} p(y) \log p(y)$$   (Eq  11)
where $p(y)$ is the predicted class distribution, given by $ p(y) = \frac{1}{|X|} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y | \rm x)  $ To control the influence of this term on the overall objective function, we can tune $\lambda $ according to the difference in the number of labeled features of each class  In this paper, we simply set $\lambda $ to be proportional to the total number of labeled features, say $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This maximum entropy term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$   Therefore, $E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]$ is just the model distribution $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ and its expectation with the empirical distribution $\tilde{p}(\rm x)$ is simply the average over input samples, namely $p(y)$   When $S$ takes the maximum entropy form, we can derive the objective function as above 
Sometimes, we have already had much knowledge about the corpus, and can estimate the class distribution roughly without labeling instances  Therefore, we introduce the KL divergence between the predicted and reference class distributions into the objective function 
Given the preference class distribution $\hat{p}(y)$ , we modify the objective function as follows:
$$\mathcal {O}_{KL} &= \mathcal {O} + \lambda KL(\hat{p}(y) || p(y))$$   (Eq  13)
Similarly, we set $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This divergence term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$ and setting the score function to $S(\hat{p}, p) = \sum _i \hat{p}_i \log \frac{\hat{p}_i}{p_i}$ , where $p$ and $\hat{p}$ are distributions  Note that this regularization term involves the reference class distribution which will be discussed later 
Experiments
In this section, we first justify the approach when there exists unbalance in the number of labeled features or in class distribution  Then, to test the influence of $\lambda $ , we conduct some experiments with the method which incorporates the KL divergence of class distribution  Last, we evaluate our approaches in 9 commonly used text classification datasets  We set $\lambda = 5|K|$ by default in all experiments unless there is explicit declaration  The baseline we choose here is GE-FL BIBREF0 , a method based on generalization expectation criteria 
Data Preparation
We evaluate our methods on several commonly used datasets whose themes range from sentiment, web-page, science to medical and healthcare  We use bag-of-words feature and remove stopwords in the preprocess stage  Though we have labels of all documents, we do not use them during the learning process, instead, we use the label of features 
The movie dataset, in which the task is to classify the movie reviews as positive or negtive, is used for testing the proposed approaches with unbalanced labeled features, unbalanced datasets or different $\lambda $ parameters  All unbalanced datasets are constructed based on the movie dataset by randomly removing documents of the positive class  For each experiment, we conduct 10-fold cross validation 
As described in BIBREF0 , there are two ways to obtain labeled features  The first way is to use information gain  We first calculate the mutual information of all features according to the labels of the documents and select the top 20 as labeled features for each class as a feature pool  Note that using information gain requires the document label, but this is only to simulate how we human provide prior knowledge to the model  The second way is to use LDA BIBREF9 to select features  We use the same selection process as BIBREF0 , where they first train a LDA on the dataset, and then select the most probable features of each topic (sorted by $P(w_i|t_j)$ , the probability of word $w_i$ given topic $t_j$ ) 
Similar to BIBREF10 , BIBREF0 , we estimate the reference distribution of the labeled features using a heuristic strategy  If there are $|C|$ classes in total, and $n$ classes are associated with a feature $k$ , the probability that feature $k$ is related with any one of the $n$ classes is $\frac{0 9}{n}$ and with any other class is $\frac{0 1}{|C| - n}$  
Neutral features are the most frequent words after removing stop words, and their reference distributions are uniformly distributed  We use the top 10 frequent words as neutral features in all experiments 
With Unbalanced Labeled Features
In this section, we evaluate our approach when there is unbalanced knowledge on the categories to be classified  The labeled features are obtained through information gain  Two settings are chosen:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
As shown in Figure 1 , Maximum entropy principle shows improvement only on the balanced case  An obvious reason is that maximum entropy only favors uniform distribution 
Incorporating Neutral features performs similarly to maximum entropy since we assume that neutral words are uniformly distributed  Its accuracy decreases slowly when the number of labeled features becomes larger ( $t>4$ ) (Figure 1 (a)), suggesting that the model gradually biases to the class with more labeled features, just like GE-FL 
Incorporating the KL divergence of class distribution performs much better than GE-FL on both balanced and unbalanced datasets  This shows that it is effective to control the unbalance in labeled features and in the dataset 
With Balanced Labeled Features
We also compare with the baseline when the labeled features are balanced  Similar to the experiment above, the labeled features are obtained by information gain  Two settings are experimented with:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for each class, and conduct comparisons on the original balanced movie dataset (positive:negtive=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the class distribution is unbalanced, by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 2   When the dataset is balanced (Figure 2 (a)), there is little difference between GE-FL and our methods  The reason is that the proposed regularization terms provide no additional knowledge to the model and there is no bias in the labeled features  On the unbalanced dataset (Figure 2 (b)), incorporating KL divergence is much better than GE-FL since we provide additional knowledge(the true class distribution), but maximum entropy and neutral features are much worse because forcing the model to approach the uniform distribution misleads it 
With Unbalanced Class Distributions
Our methods are also evaluated on datasets with different unbalanced class distributions  We manually construct several movie datasets with class distributions of 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 by randomly removing 50%, 67%, 75% positive documents  The original balanced movie dataset is used as a control group  We test with both balanced and unbalanced labeled features  For the balanced case, we randomly select 10 features from the feature pool for each class, and for the unbalanced case, we select 10 features for one class, and 1 feature for the other  Results are shown in Figure 3  
Figure 3 (a) shows that when the dataset and the labeled features are both balanced, there is little difference between our methods and GE-FL(also see Figure 2 (a))  But when the class distribution becomes more unbalanced, the difference becomes more remarkable  Performance of neutral features and maximum entropy decrease significantly but incorporating KL divergence increases remarkably  This suggests if we have more accurate knowledge about class distribution, KL divergence can guide the model to the right direction 
Figure 3 (b) shows that when the labeled features are unbalanced, our methods significantly outperforms GE-FL  Incorporating KL divergence is robust enough to control unbalance both in the dataset and in labeled features while the other three methods are not so competitive 
The Influence of λ\lambda 
We present the influence of $\lambda $ on the method that incorporates KL divergence in this section  Since we simply set $\lambda = \beta |K|$ , we just tune $\beta $ here  Note that when $\beta = 0$ , the newly introduced regularization term is disappeared, and thus the model is actually GE-FL  Again, we test the method with different $\lambda $ in two settings:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other class  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 4   As expected, $\lambda $ reflects how strong the regularization is  The model tends to be closer to our preferences with the increasing of $\lambda $ on both cases 
Using LDA Selected Features
We compare our methods with GE-FL on all the 9 datasets in this section  Instead of using features obtained by information gain, we use LDA to select labeled features  Unlike information gain, LDA does not employ any instance labels to find labeled features  In this setting, we can build classification models without any instance annotation, but just with labeled features 
Table 1 shows that our three methods significantly outperform GE-FL  Incorporating neutral features performs better than GE-FL on 7 of the 9 datasets, maximum entropy is better on 8 datasets, and KL divergence better on 7 datasets 
LDA selects out the most predictive features as labeled features without considering the balance among classes  GE-FL does not exert any control on such an issue, so the performance is severely suffered  Our methods introduce auxiliary regularization terms to control such a bias problem and thus promote the model significantly 
Related Work
There have been much work that incorporate prior knowledge into learning, and two related lines are surveyed here  One is to use prior knowledge to label unlabeled instances and then apply a standard learning algorithm  The other is to constrain the model directly with prior knowledge 
Liu et al text manually labeled features which are highly predictive to unsupervised clustering assignments and use them to label unlabeled data  Chang et al guiding proposed constraint driven learning  They first used constraints and the learned model to annotate unlabeled instances, and then updated the model with the newly labeled data  Daumé daume2008cross proposed a self training method in which several models are trained on the same dataset, and only unlabeled instances that satisfy the cross task knowledge constraints are used in the self training process 
MaCallum et al gec proposed generalized expectation(GE) criteria which formalised the knowledge as constraint terms about the expectation of the model into the objective function Graça et al pr proposed posterior regularization(PR) framework which projects the model's posterior onto a set of distributions that satisfy the auxiliary constraints  Druck et al ge-fl explored constraints of labeled features in the framework of GE by forcing the model's predicted feature distribution to approach the reference distribution  Andrzejewski et al andrzejewski2011framework proposed a framework in which general domain knowledge can be easily incorporated into LDA  Altendorf et al altendorf2012learning explored monotonicity constraints to improve the accuracy while learning from sparse data  Chen et al chen2013leveraging tried to learn comprehensible topic models by leveraging multi-domain knowledge 
Mann and McCallum simple,generalized incorporated not only labeled features but also other knowledge like class distribution into the objective function of GE-FL  But they discussed only from the semi-supervised perspective and did not investigate into the robustness problem, unlike what we addressed in this paper 
There are also some active learning methods trying to use prior knowledge  Raghavan et al feedback proposed to use feedback on instances and features interlacedly, and demonstrated that feedback on features boosts the model much  Druck et al active proposed an active learning method which solicits labels on features rather than on instances and then used GE-FL to train the model 
Conclusion and Discussions
This paper investigates into the problem of how to leverage prior knowledge robustly in learning models  We propose three regularization terms on top of generalized expectation criteria  As demonstrated by the experimental results, the performance can be considerably improved when taking into account these factors  Comparative results show that our proposed methods is more effective and works more robustly against baselines  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to address the robustness problem of leveraging knowledge, and may inspire other research 
We then present more detailed discussions about the three regularization methods  Incorporating neutral features is the simplest way of regularization, which doesn't require any modification of GE-FL but just finding out some common features  But as Figure 1 (a) shows, only using neutral features are not strong enough to handle extremely unbalanced labeled features 
The maximum entropy regularization term shows the strong ability of controlling unbalance 
This method doesn't need any extra knowledge, and is thus suitable when we know nothing about the corpus  But this method assumes that the categories are uniformly distributed, which may not be the case in practice, and it will have a degraded performance if the assumption is violated (see Figure 1 (b), Figure 2 (b), Figure 3 (a)) 
The KL divergence performs much better on unbalanced corpora than other methods  The reason is that KL divergence utilizes the reference class distribution and doesn't make any assumptions  The fact suggests that additional knowledge does benefit the model 
However, the KL divergence term requires providing the true class distribution  Sometimes, we may have the exact knowledge about the true distribution, but sometimes we may not  Fortunately, the model is insensitive to the true distribution and therefore a rough estimation of the true distribution is sufficient  In our experiments, when the true class distribution is 1:2, where the reference class distribution is set to 1:1 5/1:2/1:2 5, the accuracy is 0 755/0 756/0 760 respectively  This provides us the possibility to perform simple computing on the corpus to obtain the distribution in reality  Or, we can set the distribution roughly with domain expertise 
Context 2: Introduction
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International Licence  Licence details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/
In the spirit of the brevity of social media's messages and reactions, people have got used to express feelings minimally and symbolically, as with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram  On Facebook, people tend to be more wordy, but posts normally receive more simple “likes” than longer comments  Since February 2016, Facebook users can express specific emotions in response to a post thanks to the newly introduced reaction feature (see Section SECREF2 ), so that now a post can be wordlessly marked with an expression of say “joy" or “surprise" rather than a generic “like” 
It has been observed that this new feature helps Facebook to know much more about their users and exploit this information for targeted advertising BIBREF0 , but interest in people's opinions and how they feel isn't limited to commercial reasons, as it invests social monitoring, too, including health care and education BIBREF1   However, emotions and opinions are not always expressed this explicitly, so that there is high interest in developing systems towards their automatic detection  Creating manually annotated datasets large enough to train supervised models is not only costly, but also—especially in the case of opinions and emotions—difficult, due to the intrinsic subjectivity of the task BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   Therefore, research has focused on unsupervised methods enriched with information derived from lexica, which are manually created BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   Since go2009twitter have shown that happy and sad emoticons can be successfully used as signals for sentiment labels, distant supervision, i e  using some reasonably safe signals as proxies for automatically labelling training data BIBREF5 , has been used also for emotion recognition, for example exploiting both emoticons and Twitter hashtags BIBREF6 , but mainly towards creating emotion lexica  mohammad2015using use hashtags, experimenting also with highly fine-grained emotion sets (up to almost 600 emotion labels), to create the large Hashtag Emotion Lexicon  Emoticons are used as proxies also by hallsmarmulti, who use distributed vector representations to find which words are interchangeable with emoticons but also which emoticons are used in a similar context 
We take advantage of distant supervision by using Facebook reactions as proxies for emotion labels, which to the best of our knowledge hasn't been done yet, and we train a set of Support Vector Machine models for emotion recognition  Our models, differently from existing ones, exploit information which is acquired entirely automatically, and achieve competitive or even state-of-the-art results for some of the emotion labels on existing, standard evaluation datasets  For explanatory purposes, related work is discussed further and more in detail when we describe the benchmarks for evaluation (Section SECREF3 ) and when we compare our models to existing ones (Section SECREF5 )  We also explore and discuss how choosing different sets of Facebook pages as training data provides an intrinsic domain-adaptation method 
Facebook reactions as labels
For years, on Facebook people could leave comments to posts, and also “like” them, by using a thumbs-up feature to explicitly express a generic, rather underspecified, approval  A “like” could thus mean “I like what you said", but also “I like that you bring up such topic (though I find the content of the article you linked annoying)" 
In February 2016, after a short trial, Facebook made a more explicit reaction feature available world-wide  Rather than allowing for the underspecified “like” as the only wordless response to a post, a set of six more specific reactions was introduced, as shown in Figure FIGREF1 : Like, Love, Haha, Wow, Sad and Angry  We use such reactions as proxies for emotion labels associated to posts 
We collected Facebook posts and their corresponding reactions from public pages using the Facebook API, which we accessed via the Facebook-sdk python library  We chose different pages (and therefore domains and stances), aiming at a balanced and varied dataset, but we did so mainly based on intuition (see Section SECREF4 ) and with an eye to the nature of the datasets available for evaluation (see Section SECREF5 )  The choice of which pages to select posts from is far from trivial, and we believe this is actually an interesting aspect of our approach, as by using different Facebook pages one can intrinsically tackle the domain-adaptation problem (See Section SECREF6 for further discussion on this)  The final collection of Facebook pages for the experiments described in this paper is as follows: FoxNews, CNN, ESPN, New York Times, Time magazine, Huffington Post Weird News, The Guardian, Cartoon Network, Cooking Light, Home Cooking Adventure, Justin Bieber, Nickelodeon, Spongebob, Disney 
Note that thankful was only available during specific time spans related to certain events, as Mother's Day in May 2016 
For each page, we downloaded the latest 1000 posts, or the maximum available if there are fewer, from February 2016, retrieving the counts of reactions for each post  The output is a JSON file containing a list of dictionaries with a timestamp, the post and a reaction vector with frequency values, which indicate how many users used that reaction in response to the post (Figure FIGREF3 )  The resulting emotion vectors must then be turned into an emotion label 
In the context of this experiment, we made the simple decision of associating to each post the emotion with the highest count, ignoring like as it is the default and most generic reaction people tend to use  Therefore, for example, to the first post in Figure FIGREF3 , we would associate the label sad, as it has the highest score (284) among the meaningful emotions we consider, though it also has non-zero scores for other emotions  At this stage, we didn't perform any other entropy-based selection of posts, to be investigated in future work 
Emotion datasets
Three datasets annotated with emotions are commonly used for the development and evaluation of emotion detection systems, namely the Affective Text dataset, the Fairy Tales dataset, and the ISEAR dataset  In order to compare our performance to state-of-the-art results, we have used them as well  In this Section, in addition to a description of each dataset, we provide an overview of the emotions used, their distribution, and how we mapped them to those we obtained from Facebook posts in Section SECREF7   A summary is provided in Table TABREF8 , which also shows, in the bottom row, what role each dataset has in our experiments: apart from the development portion of the Affective Text, which we used to develop our models (Section SECREF4 ), all three have been used as benchmarks for our evaluation 
Affective Text dataset
Task 14 at SemEval 2007 BIBREF7 was concerned with the classification of emotions and valence in news headlines  The headlines where collected from several news websites including Google news, The New York Times, BBC News and CNN  The used emotion labels were Anger, Disgust, Fear, Joy, Sadness, Surprise, in line with the six basic emotions of Ekman's standard model BIBREF8   Valence was to be determined as positive or negative  Classification of emotion and valence were treated as separate tasks  Emotion labels were not considered as mututally exclusive, and each emotion was assigned a score from 0 to 100  Training/developing data amounted to 250 annotated headlines (Affective development), while systems were evaluated on another 1000 (Affective test)  Evaluation was done using two different methods: a fine-grained evaluation using Pearson's r to measure the correlation between the system scores and the gold standard; and a coarse-grained method where each emotion score was converted to a binary label, and precision, recall, and f-score were computed to assess performance  As it is done in most works that use this dataset BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF9 , we also treat this as a classification problem (coarse-grained)  This dataset has been extensively used for the evaluation of various unsupervised methods BIBREF2 , but also for testing different supervised learning techniques and feature portability BIBREF10  
Fairy Tales dataset
This is a dataset collected by alm2008affect, where about 1,000 sentences from fairy tales (by B  Potter, H C  Andersen and Grimm) were annotated with the same six emotions of the Affective Text dataset, though with different names: Angry, Disgusted, Fearful, Happy, Sad, and Surprised  In most works that use this dataset BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF9 , only sentences where all annotators agreed are used, and the labels angry and disgusted are merged  We adopt the same choices 
ISEAR
The ISEAR (International Survey on Emotion Antecedents and Reactions BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 ) is a dataset created in the context of a psychology project of the 1990s, by collecting questionnaires answered by people with different cultural backgrounds  The main aim of this project was to gather insights in cross-cultural aspects of emotional reactions  Student respondents, both psychologists and non-psychologists, were asked to report situations in which they had experienced all of seven major emotions (joy, fear, anger, sadness, disgust, shame and guilt)  In each case, the questions covered the way they had appraised a given situation and how they reacted  The final dataset contains reports by approximately 3000 respondents from all over the world, for a total of 7665 sentences labelled with an emotion, making this the largest dataset out of the three we use 
Overview of datasets and emotions
We summarise datasets and emotion distribution from two viewpoints  First, because there are different sets of emotions labels in the datasets and Facebook data, we need to provide a mapping and derive a subset of emotions that we are going to use for the experiments  This is shown in Table TABREF8 , where in the “Mapped” column we report the final emotions we use in this paper: anger, joy, sadness, surprise  All labels in each dataset are mapped to these final emotions, which are therefore the labels we use for training and testing our models 
Second, the distribution of the emotions for each dataset is different, as can be seen in Figure FIGREF9  
In Figure FIGREF9 we also provide the distribution of the emotions anger, joy, sadness, surprise per Facebook page, in terms of number of posts (recall that we assign to a post the label corresponding to the majority emotion associated to it, see Section SECREF2 )
Context 3: Introduction
Abusive language refers to any type of insult, vulgarity, or profanity that debases the target; it also can be anything that causes aggravation BIBREF0 , BIBREF1   Abusive language is often reframed as, but not limited to, offensive language BIBREF2 , cyberbullying BIBREF3 , othering language BIBREF4 , and hate speech BIBREF5  
Recently, an increasing number of users have been subjected to harassment, or have witnessed offensive behaviors online BIBREF6   Major social media companies (i e  Facebook, Twitter) have utilized multiple resources—artificial intelligence, human reviewers, user reporting processes, etc —in effort to censor offensive language, yet it seems nearly impossible to successfully resolve the issue BIBREF7 , BIBREF8  
The major reason of the failure in abusive language detection comes from its subjectivity and context-dependent characteristics BIBREF9   For instance, a message can be regarded as harmless on its own, but when taking previous threads into account it may be seen as abusive, and vice versa  This aspect makes detecting abusive language extremely laborious even for human annotators; therefore it is difficult to build a large and reliable dataset BIBREF10  
Previously, datasets openly available in abusive language detection research on Twitter ranged from 10K to 35K in size BIBREF9 , BIBREF11   This quantity is not sufficient to train the significant number of parameters in deep learning models  Due to this reason, these datasets have been mainly studied by traditional machine learning methods  Most recently, Founta et al  founta2018large introduced Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter, a dataset containing 100K tweets with cross-validated labels  Although this corpus has great potential in training deep models with its significant size, there are no baseline reports to date 
This paper investigates the efficacy of different learning models in detecting abusive language  We compare accuracy using the most frequently studied machine learning classifiers as well as recent neural network models  Reliable baseline results are presented with the first comparative study on this dataset  Additionally, we demonstrate the effect of different features and variants, and describe the possibility for further improvements with the use of ensemble models 
Related Work
The research community introduced various approaches on abusive language detection  Razavi et al  razavi2010offensive applied Naïve Bayes, and Warner and Hirschberg warner2012detecting used Support Vector Machine (SVM), both with word-level features to classify offensive language  Xiang et al  xiang2012detecting generated topic distributions with Latent Dirichlet Allocation BIBREF12 , also using word-level features in order to classify offensive tweets 
More recently, distributed word representations and neural network models have been widely applied for abusive language detection  Djuric et al  djuric2015hate used the Continuous Bag Of Words model with paragraph2vec algorithm BIBREF13 to more accurately detect hate speech than that of the plain Bag Of Words models  Badjatiya et al  badjatiya2017deep implemented Gradient Boosted Decision Trees classifiers using word representations trained by deep learning models  Other researchers have investigated character-level representations and their effectiveness compared to word-level representations BIBREF14 , BIBREF15  
As traditional machine learning methods have relied on feature engineering, (i e  n-grams, POS tags, user information) BIBREF1 , researchers have proposed neural-based models with the advent of larger datasets  Convolutional Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks have been applied to detect abusive language, and they have outperformed traditional machine learning classifiers such as Logistic Regression and SVM BIBREF15 , BIBREF16   However, there are no studies investigating the efficiency of neural models with large-scale datasets over 100K 
Methodology
This section illustrates our implementations on traditional machine learning classifiers and neural network based models in detail  Furthermore, we describe additional features and variant models investigated 
Traditional Machine Learning Models
We implement five feature engineering based machine learning classifiers that are most often used for abusive language detection  In data preprocessing, text sequences are converted into Bag Of Words (BOW) representations, and normalized with Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) values  We experiment with word-level features using n-grams ranging from 1 to 3, and character-level features from 3 to 8-grams  Each classifier is implemented with the following specifications:
Naïve Bayes (NB): Multinomial NB with additive smoothing constant 1
Logistic Regression (LR): Linear LR with L2 regularization constant 1 and limited-memory BFGS optimization
Support Vector Machine (SVM): Linear SVM with L2 regularization constant 1 and logistic loss function
Random Forests (RF): Averaging probabilistic predictions of 10 randomized decision trees
Gradient Boosted Trees (GBT): Tree boosting with learning rate 1 and logistic loss function
Neural Network based Models
Along with traditional machine learning approaches, we investigate neural network based models to evaluate their efficacy within a larger dataset  In particular, we explore Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and their variant models  A pre-trained GloVe BIBREF17 representation is used for word-level features 
CNN: We adopt Kim's kim2014convolutional implementation as the baseline  The word-level CNN models have 3 convolutional filters of different sizes [1,2,3] with ReLU activation, and a max-pooling layer  For the character-level CNN, we use 6 convolutional filters of various sizes [3,4,5,6,7,8], then add max-pooling layers followed by 1 fully-connected layer with a dimension of 1024 
Park and Fung park2017one proposed a HybridCNN model which outperformed both word-level and character-level CNNs in abusive language detection  In order to evaluate the HybridCNN for this dataset, we concatenate the output of max-pooled layers from word-level and character-level CNN, and feed this vector to a fully-connected layer in order to predict the output 
All three CNN models (word-level, character-level, and hybrid) use cross entropy with softmax as their loss function and Adam BIBREF18 as the optimizer 
RNN: We use bidirectional RNN BIBREF19 as the baseline, implementing a GRU BIBREF20 cell for each recurrent unit  From extensive parameter-search experiments, we chose 1 encoding layer with 50 dimensional hidden states and an input dropout probability of 0 3  The RNN models use cross entropy with sigmoid as their loss function and Adam as the optimizer 
For a possible improvement, we apply a self-matching attention mechanism on RNN baseline models BIBREF21 so that they may better understand the data by retrieving text sequences twice  We also investigate a recently introduced method, Latent Topic Clustering (LTC) BIBREF22   The LTC method extracts latent topic information from the hidden states of RNN, and uses it for additional information in classifying the text data 
Feature Extension
While manually analyzing the raw dataset, we noticed that looking at the tweet one has replied to or has quoted, provides significant contextual information  We call these, “context tweets"

ground_truth: a regularization term associated with neutral features, the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term, the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution

a regularization term associated with neutral features,  the maximum entropy of class distribution, KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution

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 was their performance on emotion detection?
Context 2:  We can observe that for example pages about news tend to have more sadness and anger posts, while pages about cooking and tv-shows have a high percentage of joy posts  We will use this information to find the best set of pages for a given target domain (see Section SECREF5 ) 
Model
There are two main decisions to be taken in developing our model: (i) which Facebook pages to select as training data, and (ii) which features to use to train the model, which we discuss below  Specifically, we first set on a subset of pages and then experiment with features  Further exploration of the interaction between choice of pages and choice of features is left to future work, and partly discussed in Section SECREF6   For development, we use a small portion of the Affective data set described in Section SECREF4 , that is the portion that had been released as development set for SemEval's 2007 Task 14 BIBREF7 , which contains 250 annotated sentences (Affective development, Section SECREF4 )  All results reported in this section are on this dataset  The test set of Task 14 as well as the other two datasets described in Section SECREF3 will be used to evaluate the final models (Section SECREF4 ) 
Selecting Facebook pages
Although page selection is a crucial ingredient of this approach, which we believe calls for further and deeper, dedicated investigation, for the experiments described here we took a rather simple approach  First, we selected the pages that would provide training data based on intuition and availability, then chose different combinations according to results of a basic model run on development data, and eventually tested feature combinations, still on the development set 
For the sake of simplicity and transparency, we first trained an SVM with a simple bag-of-words model and default parameters as per the Scikit-learn implementation BIBREF13 on different combinations of pages  Based on results of the attempted combinations as well as on the distribution of emotions in the development dataset (Figure FIGREF9 ), we selected a best model (B-M), namely the combined set of Time, The Guardian and Disney, which yields the highest results on development data  Time and The Guardian perform well on most emotions but Disney helps to boost the performance for the Joy class 
Features
In selecting appropriate features, we mainly relied on previous work and intuition  We experimented with different combinations, and all tests were still done on Affective development, using the pages for the best model (B-M) described above as training data  Results are in Table TABREF20   Future work will further explore the simultaneous selection of features and page combinations 
We use a set of basic text-based features to capture the emotion class  These include a tf-idf bag-of-words feature, word (2-3) and character (2-5) ngrams, and features related to the presence of negation words, and to the usage of punctuation 
This feature is used in all unsupervised models as a source of information, and we mainly include it to assess its contribution, but eventually do not use it in our final model 
We used the NRC10 Lexicon because it performed best in the experiments by BIBREF10 , which is built around the emotions anger, anticipation, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise, and the valence values positive and negative  For each word in the lexicon, a boolean value indicating presence or absence is associated to each emotion  For a whole sentence, a global score per emotion can be obtained by summing the vectors for all content words of that sentence included in the lexicon, and used as feature 
As additional feature, we also included Word Embeddings, namely distributed representations of words in a vector space, which have been exceptionally successful in boosting performance in a plethora of NLP tasks  We use three different embeddings:
Google embeddings: pre-trained embeddings trained on Google News and obtained with the skip-gram architecture described in BIBREF14   This model contains 300-dimensional vectors for 3 million words and phrases 
Facebook embeddings: embeddings that we trained on our scraped Facebook pages for a total of 20,000 sentences  Using the gensim library BIBREF15 , we trained the embeddings with the following parameters: window size of 5, learning rate of 0 01 and dimensionality of 100  We filtered out words with frequency lower than 2 occurrences 
Retrofitted embeddings: Retrofitting BIBREF16 has been shown as a simple but efficient way of informing trained embeddings with additional information derived from some lexical resource, rather than including it directly at the training stage, as it's done for example to create sense-aware BIBREF17 or sentiment-aware BIBREF18 embeddings  In this work, we retrofit general embeddings to include information about emotions, so that emotion-similar words can get closer in space  Both the Google as well as our Facebook embeddings were retrofitted with lexical information obtained from the NRC10 Lexicon mentioned above, which provides emotion-similarity for each token  Note that differently from the previous two types of embeddings, the retrofitted ones do rely on handcrafted information in the form of a lexical resource 
Results on development set
We report precision, recall, and f-score on the development set  The average f-score is reported as micro-average, to better account for the skewed distribution of the classes as well as in accordance to what is usually reported for this task BIBREF19  
From Table TABREF20 we draw three main observations  First, a simple tf-idf bag-of-word mode works already very well, to the point that the other textual and lexicon-based features don't seem to contribute to the overall f-score (0 368), although there is a rather substantial variation of scores per class  Second, Google embeddings perform a lot better than Facebook embeddings, and this is likely due to the size of the corpus used for training  Retrofitting doesn't seem to help at all for the Google embeddings, but it does boost the Facebook embeddings, leading to think that with little data, more accurate task-related information is helping, but corpus size matters most  Third, in combination with embeddings, all features work better than just using tf-idf, but removing the Lexicon feature, which is the only one based on hand-crafted resources, yields even better results  Then our best model (B-M) on development data relies entirely on automatically obtained information, both in terms of training data as well as features 
Results
In Table TABREF26 we report the results of our model on the three datasets standardly used for the evaluation of emotion classification, which we have described in Section SECREF3  
Our B-M model relies on subsets of Facebook pages for training, which were chosen according to their performance on the development set as well as on the observation of emotions distribution on different pages and in the different datasets, as described in Section SECREF4   The feature set we use is our best on the development set, namely all the features plus Google-based embeddings, but excluding the lexicon  This makes our approach completely independent of any manual annotation or handcrafted resource  Our model's performance is compared to the following systems, for which results are reported in the referred literature  Please note that no other existing model was re-implemented, and results are those reported in the respective papers 
Discussion, conclusions and future work
We have explored the potential of using Facebook reactions in a distant supervised setting to perform emotion classification  The evaluation on standard benchmarks shows that models trained as such, especially when enhanced with continuous vector representations, can achieve competitive results without relying on any handcrafted resource  An interesting aspect of our approach is the view to domain adaptation via the selection of Facebook pages to be used as training data 
We believe that this approach has a lot of potential, and we see the following directions for improvement  Feature-wise, we want to train emotion-aware embeddings, in the vein of work by tang:14, and iacobacci2015sensembed  Retrofitting FB-embeddings trained on a larger corpus might also be successful, but would rely on an external lexicon 
The largest room for yielding not only better results but also interesting insights on extensions of this approach lies in the choice of training instances, both in terms of Facebook pages to get posts from, as well as in which posts to select from the given pages  For the latter, one could for example only select posts that have a certain length, ignore posts that are only quotes or captions to images, or expand posts by including content from linked html pages, which might provide larger and better contexts BIBREF23   Additionally, and most importantly, one could use an entropy-based measure to select only posts that have a strong emotion rather than just considering the majority emotion as training label  For the former, namely the choice of Facebook pages, which we believe deserves the most investigation, one could explore several avenues, especially in relation to stance-based issues BIBREF24   In our dataset, for example, a post about Chile beating Colombia in a football match during the Copa America had very contradictory reactions, depending on which side readers would cheer for  Similarly, the very same political event, for example, would get very different reactions from readers if it was posted on Fox News or The Late Night Show, as the target audience is likely to feel very differently about the same issue  This also brings up theoretical issues related more generally to the definition of the emotion detection task, as it's strongly dependent on personal traits of the audience  Also, in this work, pages initially selected on availability and intuition were further grouped into sets to make training data according to performance on development data, and label distribution  Another criterion to be exploited would be vocabulary overlap between the pages and the datasets 
Lastly, we could develop single models for each emotion, treating the problem as a multi-label task  This would even better reflect the ambiguity and subjectivity intrinsic to assigning emotions to text, where content could be at same time joyful or sad, depending on the reader 
Acknowledgements
In addition to the anonymous reviewers, we want to thank Lucia Passaro and Barbara Plank for insightful discussions, and for providing comments on draft versions of this paper 

ground_truth: Answer with content missing: (Table 3) Best author's model B-M average micro f-score is 0.409, 0.459, 0.411 on Affective, Fairy Tales and ISEAR datasets respectively. 

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 learning models are used on the dataset?
Context 3:  As humans can better understand a tweet with the reference of its context, our assumption is that computers also benefit from taking context tweets into account in detecting abusive language 
As shown in the examples below, (2) is labeled abusive due to the use of vulgar language  However, the intention of the user can be better understood with its context tweet (1) 
(1) I hate when I'm sitting in front of the bus and somebody with a wheelchair get on 
INLINEFORM0 (2) I hate it when I'm trying to board a bus and there's already an as**ole on it 
Similarly, context tweet (3) is important in understanding the abusive tweet (4), especially in identifying the target of the malice 
(3) Survivors of #Syria Gas Attack Recount `a Cruel Scene' 
INLINEFORM0 (4) Who the HELL is “LIKE" ING this post? Sick people    
Huang et al  huang2016modeling used several attributes of context tweets for sentiment analysis in order to improve the baseline LSTM model  However, their approach was limited because the meta-information they focused on—author information, conversation type, use of the same hashtags or emojis—are all highly dependent on data 
In order to avoid data dependency, text sequences of context tweets are directly used as an additional feature of neural network models  We use the same baseline model to convert context tweets to vectors, then concatenate these vectors with outputs of their corresponding labeled tweets  More specifically, we concatenate max-pooled layers of context and labeled tweets for the CNN baseline model  As for RNN, the last hidden states of context and labeled tweets are concatenated 
Dataset
Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter BIBREF10 classifies tweets into 4 labels, “normal", “spam", “hateful" and “abusive"  We were only able to crawl 70,904 tweets out of 99,996 tweet IDs, mainly because the tweet was deleted or the user account had been suspended  Table shows the distribution of labels of the crawled data 
Data Preprocessing
In the data preprocessing steps, user IDs, URLs, and frequently used emojis are replaced as special tokens  Since hashtags tend to have a high correlation with the content of the tweet BIBREF23 , we use a segmentation library BIBREF24 for hashtags to extract more information 
For character-level representations, we apply the method Zhang et al  zhang2015character proposed  Tweets are transformed into one-hot encoded vectors using 70 character dimensions—26 lower-cased alphabets, 10 digits, and 34 special characters including whitespace 
Training and Evaluation
In training the feature engineering based machine learning classifiers, we truncate vector representations according to the TF-IDF values (the top 14,000 and 53,000 for word-level and character-level representations, respectively) to avoid overfitting  For neural network models, words that appear only once are replaced as unknown tokens 
Since the dataset used is not split into train, development, and test sets, we perform 10-fold cross validation, obtaining the average of 5 tries; we divide the dataset randomly by a ratio of 85:5:10, respectively  In order to evaluate the overall performance, we calculate the weighted average of precision, recall, and F1 scores of all four labels, “normal”, “spam”, “hateful”, and “abusive” 
Empirical Results
As shown in Table , neural network models are more accurate than feature engineering based models (i e  NB, SVM, etc ) except for the LR model—the best LR model has the same F1 score as the best CNN model 
Among traditional machine learning models, the most accurate in classifying abusive language is the LR model followed by ensemble models such as GBT and RF  Character-level representations improve F1 scores of SVM and RF classifiers, but they have no positive effect on other models 
For neural network models, RNN with LTC modules have the highest accuracy score, but there are no significant improvements from its baseline model and its attention-added model  Similarly, HybridCNN does not improve the baseline CNN model  For both CNN and RNN models, character-level features significantly decrease the accuracy of classification 
The use of context tweets generally have little effect on baseline models, however they noticeably improve the scores of several metrics  For instance, CNN with context tweets score the highest recall and F1 for “hateful" labels, and RNN models with context tweets have the highest recall for “abusive" tweets 
Discussion and Conclusion
While character-level features are known to improve the accuracy of neural network models BIBREF16 , they reduce classification accuracy for Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter  We conclude this is because of the lack of labeled data as well as the significant imbalance among the different labels  Unlike neural network models, character-level features in traditional machine learning classifiers have positive results because we have trained the models only with the most significant character elements using TF-IDF values 
Variants of neural network models also suffer from data insufficiency  However, these models show positive performances on “spam" (14%) and “hateful" (4%) tweets—the lower distributed labels  The highest F1 score for “spam" is from the RNN-LTC model (0 551), and the highest for “hateful" is CNN with context tweets (0 309)  Since each variant model excels in different metrics, we expect to see additional improvements with the use of ensemble models of these variants in future works 
In this paper, we report the baseline accuracy of different learning models as well as their variants on the recently introduced dataset, Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter  Experimental results show that bidirectional GRU networks with LTC provide the most accurate results in detecting abusive language  Additionally, we present the possibility of using ensemble models of variant models and features for further improvements 
Acknowledgments
K  Jung is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, ASRI, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea  This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No  2016M3C4A7952632), the Technology Innovation Program (10073144) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) 
We would also like to thank Yongkeun Hwang and Ji Ho Park for helpful discussions and their valuable insights 

ground_truth: Naïve Bayes (NB), Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forests (RF), Gradient Boosted Trees (GBT),  Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN)

Naïve Bayes (NB), Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forests (RF), Gradient Boosted Trees (GBT), CNN, RNN