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. Are the images from a specific domain?
Context 1: Introduction
Automatically generating text to describe the content of images, also known as image captioning, is a multimodal task of considerable interest in both the computer vision and the NLP communities  Image captioning can be framed as a translation task from an image to a descriptive natural language statement  Many existing captioning models BIBREF0, BIBREF1, BIBREF2, BIBREF3 follow the typical encoder-decoder framework where a convolutional network is used to condense images into visual feature representations, combined with a recurrent network for language generation  While these models demonstrate promising results, quantifying image captioning performance remains a challenging problem, in a similar way to other generative tasks BIBREF4, BIBREF5 
Evaluating candidate captions for human preference is slow and laborious  To alleviate this problem, many automatic evaluation metrics have been proposed, such as BLEU BIBREF6, METEOR BIBREF7, ROUGE BIBREF8 and CIDEr BIBREF9  These n-gram-based metrics evaluate captioning performance based on surface similarity between a candidate caption and reference statements  A more recent evaluation metric for image captioning is SPICE BIBREF10, which takes into account semantic propositional content of generated captions by scoring a caption based upon a graph-based semantic representation transformed from reference captions 
The rationale behind these evaluation metrics is that human reference captions serve as an approximate target and comparing model outputs to this target is a proxy for how well a system performs  Thus, a candidate caption is not directly evaluated with respect to image content, but compared to a set of human statements about that image 
However, in image captioning, visual scenes with multiple objects and relations correspond to a diversity of valid descriptions  Consider the example image and captions from the ShapeWorld framework BIBREF11 shown in Figure FIGREF1  The first three captions are true statements about the image and express relevant ideas, but describe different objects, attributes and spatial relationships, while the fourth caption is wrong despite referring to the same objects as in the third caption  This casts doubt on the sufficiency of using a set of reference captions to approximate the content of an image  We argue that, while existing metrics have undeniably been useful for real-world captioning evaluation, their focus on approximate surface comparison limits deeper insights into the learning process and eventual behavior of captioning models 
To address this problem, we propose a set of principled evaluation criteria which evaluate image captioning models for grammaticality, truthfulness and diversity (GTD)  These criteria correspond to necessary requirements for image captioning systems: (a) that the output is grammatical, (b) that the output statement is true with respect to the image, and (c) that outputs are diverse and mirror the variability of training captions 
Practical evaluation of GTD is currently only possible on synthetic data  We construct a range of datasets designed for image captioning evaluation  We call this diagnostic evaluation benchmark ShapeWorldICE (ShapeWorld for Image Captioning Evaluation)  We illustrate the evaluation of specific image captioning models on ShapeWorldICE  We empirically demonstrate that the existing metrics BLEU and SPICE do not capture true caption-image agreement in all scenarios, while the GTD framework allows a fine-grained investigation of how well existing models cope with varied visual situations and linguistic constructions 
We believe that as a supplementary evaluation method to real-world metrics, the GTD framework provides evaluation insights that are sufficiently interesting to motivate future work 
Related work ::: Existing evaluation of image captioning
As a natural language generation task, image captioning frequently uses evaluation metrics such as BLEU BIBREF6, METEOR BIBREF7, ROUGE BIBREF8 and CIDEr BIBREF9  These metrics use n-gram similarity between the candidate caption and reference captions to approximate the correlation between a candidate caption and the associated ground truth  SPICE BIBREF10 is a more recent metric specifically designed for image captioning  For SPICE, both the candidate caption and reference captions are parsed to scene graphs, and the agreement between tuples extracted from these scene graphs is examined  SPICE more closely relates to our truthfulness evaluation than the other metrics, but it still uses overlap comparison to reference captions as a proxy to ground truth  In contrast, our truthfulness metric directly evaluates a candidate caption against a model of the actual visual content 
Many researchers have pointed out problems with existing reference-based metrics including low correlations with human judgment BIBREF12, BIBREF10, BIBREF13 and strong baselines using nearest-neighbor methods BIBREF14 or relying solely on object detection BIBREF15  Fundamental concerns have been raised with respect to BLEU, including variability in parameterization and precise score calculation leading to significantly different results BIBREF16  Its validity as a metric for tasks other than machine translation has been questioned BIBREF17, particularly for tasks for which the output content is not narrowly constrained, like dialogue BIBREF18 
Some recent work focuses on increasing the diversity of generated captions, for which various measures are proposed  Devlin et al  BIBREF19 explored the concept of caption diversity by evaluating performance on compositionally novel images  van Miltenburg et al BIBREF20 framed image captioning as a word recall task and proposed several metrics, predominantly focusing on diversity at the word level  However, this direction is still relatively new and lacks standardized benchmarks and metrics 
Related work ::: Synthetic datasets
Recently, many synthetic datasets have been proposed as diagnostic tools for deep learning models, such as CLEVR BIBREF21 for visual question answering (VQA), the bAbI tasks BIBREF22 for text understanding and reasoning, and ShapeWorld BIBREF11 for visually grounded language understanding  The primary motivation is to reduce complexity which is considered irrelevant to the evaluation focus, to enable better control over the data, and to provide more detailed insights into strengths and limitations of existing models 
In this work, we develop the evaluation datasets within the ShapeWorld framework  ShapeWorld is a controlled data generation framework consisting of abstract colored shapes (see Figure FIGREF1 for an example)  We use ShapeWorld to generate training and evaluation data for two major reasons  ShapeWorld supports customized data generation according to user specification, which enables a variety of model inspections in terms of language construction, visual complexity and reasoning ability  Another benefit is that each training and test instance generated in ShapeWorld is returned as a triplet of $<$image, caption, world model$>$  The world model stores information about the underlying microworld used to generate an image and a descriptive caption, internally represented as a list of entities with their attributes, such as shape, color, position  During data generation, ShapeWorld randomly samples a world model from a set of available entities and attributes  The generated world model is then used to realize a corresponding instance consisting of image and caption  The world model gives the actual semantic information contained in an image, which allows evaluation of caption truthfulness 
GTD Evaluation Framework
In the following we introduce GTD in more detail, consider it as an evaluation protocol covering necessary aspects of the multifaceted captioning task, rather than a specific metric 
GTD Evaluation Framework ::: Grammaticality
An essential criterion for an image captioning model is that the captions generated are grammatically well-formed  Fully accurate assessment of grammaticality in a general context is itself a difficult task, but becomes more feasible in a very constrained context like our diagnostic language data  We take parseability with the English Resource Grammar BIBREF23 as a surrogate for grammaticality, meaning that a sentence is considered grammatically well-formed if we obtain a parse using the ERG 
The ERG is a broad-coverage grammar based on the head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) framework  It is linguistically precise: sentences only parse if they are valid according to its hand-built rules  It is designed to be general-purpose: verified coverage is around 80% for Wikipedia, and over 90% for corpora with shorter sentences and more limited vocabulary (for details see BIBREF24 flickinger2011accuracy)  Since the ShapeWorld training data – the only language source for models to learn from – is generated using the same grammar, the ERG has $\sim $100% coverage of grammaticality in the model output space 
GTD Evaluation Framework ::: Truthfulness
The second aspect we investigate is truthfulness, that is, whether a candidate caption is compatible with the content of the image it is supposed to describe  We evaluate caption truthfulness on the basis of a linguistically-motivated approach using formal semantics  We convert the output of the ERG parse for a grammatical caption to a Dependency Minimal Recursion Semantics (DMRS) graph using the pydmrs tool BIBREF25  Each converted DMRS is a logical semantic graph representation corresponding to the caption  We construct a logical proposition from the DMRS graph, and evaluate it against the actual world model of the corresponding image  A caption can be said to agree with an image only if the proposition evaluates as true on the basis of the world model  By examining the logical agreement between a caption representation and a world model, we can check whether the semantics of this caption agrees with the visual content which the world model represents  Thus we do not rely on a set of captions as a surrogate for the content of an image, but instead leverage the fact that we have the ground truth, thus enabling the evaluation of true image-caption agreement 
GTD Evaluation Framework ::: Diversity
While grammaticality and truthfulness are essential requirements for image captions, these criteria alone can easily be “gamed” by specializing on a small set of generic statements which are true most of the time  In the context of abstract shapes, such captions include examples like “There is a shape” or “At least zero shapes are blue” (which is technically true even if there is no blue shape)  This motivates the third fundamental requirement of captioning output to be diverse 
As ShapeWorldICE exploits a limited size of open-class words, we emphasize the diversity in ShapeWorldICE at the sentence level rather than the word level  Since the ground-truth reference captions in ShapeWorld are randomly sampled, we take the sampled captions accompanying the test images as a proxy for optimal caption diversity, and compare it with the empirical output diversity of the evaluated model on these test images  Practically, we look at language constructions used and compute the corresponding diversity score as the ratio of observed number versus optimal number:
Language constructions here correspond to reduced caption representations which only record whether an object is described by shape (e g , “square”), color (e g , “red shape”) or color-shape combination (e g , “red square”)  So the statement “A square is red” and “A circle is blue” are considered the same, while “A shape is red” is different 
Experimental Setup ::: Datasets
We develop a variety of ShapeWorldICE datasets, with a similar idea to the “skill tasks” in the bAbI framework BIBREF22  Table TABREF4 gives an overview for different ShapeWorldICE datasets we use in this paper  We consider three different types of captioning tasks, each of which focuses on a distinct aspect of reasoning abilities  Existential descriptions examine whether a certain object is present in an image  Spatial descriptions identify spatial relationships among visual objects  Quantification descriptions involve count-based and ratio-based statements, with an explicit focus on inspecting models for their counting ability  We develop two variants for each type of dataset to enable different levels of visual complexity or specific aspects of the same reasoning type  All the training and test captions sampled in this work are in English 
Each dataset variant consists of around 200k training instances and 4,096 validation instances, plus 4,096 test instances  Each training instance consists of an image and a reference caption  At test time, only the test images are available to the evaluated models  Underlying world models are kept from the models and are used for later GTD evaluation  For each test instance, we sample ten reference captions of the same distribution as the training captions to enable the comparison of our proposed metrics to BLEU and SPICE  We fine-tune our model hyperparameters based on the performance on the validation set  All reported results are measured on the test split with the parameters yielding the best validation performance 
Experimental Setup ::: Models
We experiment with two image captioning models: the Show&Tell model BIBREF0 and the LRCN1u model BIBREF1  Both models follow the basic encoder-decoder architecture design that uses a CNN encoder to condense the visual information into an image embedding, which in turn conditions an LSTM decoder to generate a natural language caption  The main difference between the two models is the way they condition the decoder  The Show&Tell model feeds the image embedding as the “predecessor word embedding” to the first produced word, while the LRCN1u model concatenates the image features with the embedded previous word as the input to the sequence model at each time step 
We follow the common practice in image captioning to use a CNN component pretrained on object detection and fine-tune its parameters on the image captioning task  The encoder and decoder components are jointly optimized with respect to the standard cross-entropy sequence loss on the respective ShapeWorldICE dataset  For all our experiments, we train models end-to-end for a fixed number of 100k iterations with a batch size of 64  We use Adam optimization BIBREF26 with a learning rate of 0 001  Word embeddings are randomly initialized and jointly trained during the training 
Results
We train and evaluate the Show&Tell and LRCN1u models on the ShapeWorldICE datasets  Here we discuss in detail the diagnostic results of these experiments  During training, we periodically record model output on the test images, to be able to analyze the development of our evaluation metrics throughout the process  We also compute BLEU-4 scores and SPICE scores of generated captions for comparison, using 10 reference captions per test image 
LRCN1u exhibits clearly superior performance in terms of truthfulness  We start off by comparing performance of the Show&Tell model and the LRCN1u model, see Figure FIGREF8  While both models learn to produce grammatical sentences early on, it can be seen that LRCN1u is clearly superior in terms of truthfulness, achieving 100% halfway through training, whereas Show&Tell only slowly reaches around 90% by the end of 100k iterations  This indicates that incorporating visual features at every generation step is beneficial for producing true captions  The diversity ratios of captions generated by two models both increase substantially as the training progresses, with LRCN1u exhibiting a slightly greater caption diversity at the end of training 
We observed similar results on other ShapeWorldICE datasets that we experimented with, validating the superiority of LRCN1u over Show&Tell on ShapeWorldICE  Consequently, we decided to focus on the LRCN1u architecture in subsequent evaluations, where we report detailed results with respect to the GTD framework on a variety of datasets 
Correlation between the BLEU/SPICE scores and the ground truth  From the learning curves shown in Figure FIGREF9, we find low or no correlation between the BLEU/SPICE scores and caption truthfulness 
On Existential-OneShape, the BLEU curve follows the trend of the truthfulness curve in general, indicating that BLEU is able to capture caption truthfulness well in this simple scenario  However, while BLEU reports equivalent model performance on Existential-MultiShapes and Spatial-MultiShapes, the truthfulness metric demonstrates very different results  The BLEU score for generated Existential-MultiShapes captions increases rapidly at the beginning of training and then plateaus despite the continuous increase in truthfulness ratio  Captions generated on Spatial-MultiShapes attain a relatively high BLEU score from an early stage of training, but exhibit low agreement ($<$0 6 truthfulness ratio) with ground-truth visual scenes  In the case of Spatial-MultiShapes, spatial descriptors for two objects are chosen from a fixed set (“above”, “below”, “to the left of” and “to the right of”)  It is very likely for a generated spatial descriptor to match one of the descriptors mentioned in reference captions  In this particular case, the model is apt to infer a caption which has high n-gram overlaps with reference captions, resulting in a relatively high BLEU score  Thus an increased BLEU score does not necessarily indicate improved performance 
While the truthfulness and BLEU scores in Figure FIGREF9 both increase rapidly early on and then stay stable at a high rate after training for 20k iterations, the SPICE curve instead shows a downward trend in the later stage of training  We examined the output SPICE score for each test instance  SPICE reports a precision score of 1 0 for most test instances after 20k iterations, which is consistent with the truthfulness and BLEU scores  However, SPICE forms the reference scene graph as the union of the scene graphs extracted from individual reference captions, thus introducing redundancies  SPICE uses the F1 score of scene graph matching between the candidate and reference and hence is lowered by imperfect recall 
Comparing SPICE curves for three datasets shown in Figure FIGREF9-FIGREF9, they suggest an increase in task complexity, but they do not reflect the successively closing gap of caption truthfulness scores between two Existential datasets, or the substantial difference in caption truthfulness between captions on Existential-MultiShapes and Spatial-MultiShapes 
In the remainder of the paper we discuss in detail the diagnostic results of the LRCN1u model demonstrated by the GTD evaluation framework 
Perfect grammaticality for all caption types  As shown in Figure FIGREF15, generated captions for all types of ShapeWorldICE datasets attain quasi-perfect grammaticality scores in fewer than 5,000 iterations, suggesting that the model quickly learns to generate grammatically well-formed sentences 
Failure to learn complex spatial relationships  While CNNs can produce rich visual representations that can be used for a variety of vision tasks BIBREF27, it remains an open question whether these condensed visual representations are rich enough for multimodal tasks that require higher-level abilities of scene understanding and visual reasoning  From Figure FIGREF16, we can see that while the model performs rather well on Existential datasets, it exhibits a worse performance on Spatial data  The caption agreement ratio in the simple Spatial-TwoShapes scenario is relatively high, but drops significantly on Spatial-MultiShapes, demonstrating the deficiencies of the model in learning spatial relationships from complex visual scenes 
The counting task is non-trivial  Counting has long been considered to be a challenging task in multimodal reasoning BIBREF28, BIBREF29  To explore how well the LRCN1u model copes with counting tasks, we generated two Quantification datasets  The Quant-Count captions describe the number of objects with certain attributes that appear in an image (e g  “Exactly four shapes are crosses”), while the Quant-Ratio captions describe the ratio of certain objects (e g  “A third of the shapes are blue squares”) 
From Figure FIGREF16, we notice that the LRCN1u model performs poorly on these datasets in terms of truthfulness, reflected in the 0 50 and 0 46 scores achieved by the model on the Quant-Count and Quant-Ratio tasks respectively  The learning curve for Quant-Ratio exhibits a more gradual rise as the training progresses, suggesting a greater complexity for the ratio-based task 
Caption diversity benefits from varied language constructions in the training data  The diversity ratios of generated captions for different ShapeWorldICE datasets are illustrated in Figure FIGREF17  We can see that the diversity of inferred captions is largely sensitive to the caption variability in the dataset itself  For simple datasets (such as Existential-OneShape) where language constructions in the training set are less diverse, the output captions tend to have uniform sentence structures  The high diversity ratios of generated Spatial and Quantification captions suggest that caption diversity benefits from heterogeneous language constructions in complex datasets 
Discussions and Conclusions
Evaluation metrics are required as a proxy for performance in real applications  As such, they should, as far as possible, allow measurement of fundamental aspects of the performance of models on tasks  In this work, we propose the GTD evaluation framework as a supplement to standard image captioning evaluation which explicitly focuses on grammaticality, truthfulness and diversity  We developed the ShapeWorldICE evaluation suite to allow in-depth and fine-grained inspection of model behaviors  We have empirically verified that GTD captures different aspects of performance to existing metrics by evaluating image captioning models on the ShapeWorldICE suite  We hope that this framework will shed light on important aspects of model behaviour and that this will help guide future research efforts 
While performing the evaluation experiments on the LRCN1u model, we noticed that caption agreement does not always improve as the training loss decreases  Ideally, the training objective should be in accordance with how a model is eventually evaluated  In future work, we plan to investigate the feasibility of deliberately encoding the GTD signal in the training process, for instance, by implementing a GTD-aware loss  We also plan to extend the existing ShapeWorldICE benchmark to include more linguistic constructions (such as relative clauses, compound sentences and coreference)  By doing so, we hope to reveal how well existing image captioning models cope with complex generation tasks 
Acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback  HX is grateful for being supported by the CSC Cambridge Scholarship  TS is supported in part by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Data Science, funded by the EPSRC (grant EP/L016427/1) and the University of Edinburgh  AK is grateful for being supported by a Qualcomm Research Studentship and an EPSRC Doctoral Training Studentship 
Context 2: Introduction
There exists a class of language construction known as pun in natural language texts and utterances, where a certain word or other lexical items are used to exploit two or more separate meanings  It has been shown that understanding of puns is an important research question with various real-world applications, such as human-computer interaction BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 and machine translation BIBREF2   Recently, many researchers show their interests in studying puns, like detecting pun sentences BIBREF3 , locating puns in the text BIBREF4 , interpreting pun sentences BIBREF5 and generating sentences containing puns BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   A pun is a wordplay in which a certain word suggests two or more meanings by exploiting polysemy, homonymy, or phonological similarity to another sign, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect  Puns can be generally categorized into two groups, namely heterographic puns (where the pun and its latent target are phonologically similar) and homographic puns (where the two meanings of the pun reflect its two distinct senses) BIBREF9   Consider the following two examples:
The first punning joke exploits the sound similarity between the word “propane" and the latent target “profane", which can be categorized into the group of heterographic puns  Another categorization of English puns is homographic pun, exemplified by the second instance leveraging distinct senses of the word “gut" 
Pun detection is the task of detecting whether there is a pun residing in the given text  The goal of pun location is to find the exact word appearing in the text that implies more than one meanings  Most previous work addresses such two tasks separately and develop separate systems BIBREF10 , BIBREF5   Typically, a system for pun detection is built to make a binary prediction on whether a sentence contains a pun or not, where all instances (with or without puns) are taken into account during training  For the task of pun location, a separate system is used to make a single prediction as to which word in the given sentence in the text that trigger more than one semantic interpretations of the text, where the training data involves only sentences that contain a pun  Therefore, if one is interested in solving both problems at the same time, a pipeline approach that performs pun detection followed by pun location can be used 
Compared to the pipeline methods, joint learning has been shown effective BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 since it is able to reduce error propagation and allows information exchange between tasks which is potentially beneficial to all the tasks  In this work, we demonstrate that the detection and location of puns can be jointly addressed by a single model  The pun detection and location tasks can be combined as a sequence labeling problem, which allows us to jointly detect and locate a pun in a sentence by assigning each word a tag  Since each context contains a maximum of one pun BIBREF9 , we design a novel tagging scheme to capture this structural constraint  Statistics on the corpora also show that a pun tends to appear in the second half of a context  To capture such a structural property, we also incorporate word position knowledge into our structured prediction model  Experiments on the benchmark datasets show that detection and location tasks can reinforce each other, leading to new state-of-the-art performance on these two tasks  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that performs joint detection and location of English puns by using a sequence labeling approach 
Problem Definition
We first design a simple tagging scheme consisting of two tags { INLINEFORM0 }:
INLINEFORM0 tag means the current word is not a pun 
INLINEFORM0 tag means the current word is a pun 
If the tag sequence of a sentence contains a INLINEFORM0 tag, then the text contains a pun and the word corresponding to INLINEFORM1 is the pun 
The contexts have the characteristic that each context contains a maximum of one pun BIBREF9   In other words, there exists only one pun if the given sentence is detected as the one containing a pun  Otherwise, there is no pun residing in the text  To capture this interesting property, we propose a new tagging scheme consisting of three tags, namely { INLINEFORM0 } 
INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears before the pun in the given context 
INLINEFORM0 tag highlights the current word is a pun 
INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears after the pun 
We empirically show that the INLINEFORM0 scheme can guarantee the context property that there exists a maximum of one pun residing in the text 
Given a context from the training set, we will be able to generate its corresponding gold tag sequence using a deterministic procedure  Under the two schemes, if a sentence does not contain any puns, all words will be tagged with INLINEFORM0 or INLINEFORM1 , respectively  Exemplified by the second sentence “Some diets cause a gut reaction," the pun is given as “gut " Thus, under the INLINEFORM2 scheme, it should be tagged with INLINEFORM3 , while the words before it are assigned with the tag INLINEFORM4 and words after it are with INLINEFORM5 , as illustrated in Figure FIGREF8   Likewise, the INLINEFORM6 scheme tags the word “gut" with INLINEFORM7 , while other words are tagged with INLINEFORM8   Therefore, we can combine the pun detection and location tasks into one problem which can be solved by the sequence labeling approach 
Model
Neural models have shown their effectiveness on sequence labeling tasks BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   In this work, we adopt the bidirectional Long Short Term Memory (BiLSTM) BIBREF16 networks on top of the Conditional Random Fields BIBREF17 (CRF) architecture to make labeling decisions, which is one of the classical models for sequence labeling  Our model architecture is illustrated in Figure FIGREF8 with a running example  Given a context/sentence INLINEFORM0 where INLINEFORM1 is the length of the context, we generate the corresponding tag sequence INLINEFORM2 based on our designed tagging schemes and the original annotations for pun detection and location provided by the corpora  Our model is then trained on pairs of INLINEFORM3  
Input  The contexts in the pun corpus hold the property that each pun contains exactly one content word, which can be either a noun, a verb, an adjective, or an adverb  To capture this characteristic, we consider lexical features at the character level  Similar to the work of BIBREF15 , the character embeddings are trained by the character-level LSTM networks on the unannotated input sequences  Nonlinear transformations are then applied to the character embeddings by highway networks BIBREF18 , which map the character-level features into different semantic spaces 
We also observe that a pun tends to appear at the end of a sentence  Specifically, based on the statistics, we found that sentences with a pun that locate at the second half of the text account for around 88% and 92% in homographic and heterographic datasets, respectively  We thus introduce a binary feature that indicates if a word is located at the first or the second half of an input sentence to capture such positional information  A binary indicator can be mapped to a vector representation using a randomly initialized embedding table BIBREF19 , BIBREF20   In this work, we directly adopt the value of the binary indicator as part of the input 
The concatenation of the transformed character embeddings, the pre-trained word embeddings BIBREF21 , and the position indicators are taken as input of our model 
Tagging  The input is then fed into a BiLSTM network, which will be able to capture contextual information  For a training instance INLINEFORM0 , we suppose the output by the word-level BiLSTM is INLINEFORM1   The CRF layer is adopted to capture label dependencies and make final tagging decisions at each position, which has been included in many state-of-the-art sequence labeling models BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   The conditional probability is defined as:
where INLINEFORM0 is a set of all possible label sequences consisting of tags from INLINEFORM1 (or INLINEFORM2 ), INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 are weight and bias parameters corresponding to the label pair INLINEFORM5   During training, we minimize the negative log-likelihood summed over all training instances:
where INLINEFORM0 refers to the INLINEFORM1 -th instance in the training set  During testing, we aim to find the optimal label sequence for a new input INLINEFORM2 :
This search process can be done efficiently using the Viterbi algorithm 
Datasets and Settings
We evaluate our model on two benchmark datasets BIBREF9   The homographic dataset contains 2,250 contexts, 1,607 of which contain a pun  The heterographic dataset consists of 1,780 contexts with 1,271 containing a pun  We notice there is no standard splitting information provided for both datasets  Thus we apply 10-fold cross validation  To make direct comparisons with prior studies, following BIBREF4 , we accumulated the predictions for all ten folds and calculate the scores in the end 
For each fold, we randomly select 10% of the instances from the training set for development  Word embeddings are initialized with the 100-dimensional Glove BIBREF21   The dimension of character embeddings is 30 and they are randomly initialized, which can be fine tuned during training  The pre-trained word embeddings are not updated during training  The dimensions of hidden vectors for both char-level and word-level LSTM units are set to 300  We adopt stochastic gradient descent (SGD) BIBREF26 with a learning rate of 0
Context 3: Introduction
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International License  License details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/ Deep neural networks have been widely used in text classification and have achieved promising results BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Most focus on content information and use models such as convolutional neural networks (CNN) BIBREF3 or recursive neural networks BIBREF4   However, for user-generated posts on social media like Facebook or Twitter, there is more information that should not be ignored  On social media platforms, a user can act either as the author of a post or as a reader who expresses his or her comments about the post 
In this paper, we classify posts taking into account post authorship, likes, topics, and comments  In particular, users and their “likes” hold strong potential for text mining  For example, given a set of posts that are related to a specific topic, a user's likes and dislikes provide clues for stance labeling  From a user point of view, users with positive attitudes toward the issue leave positive comments on the posts with praise or even just the post's content; from a post point of view, positive posts attract users who hold positive stances  We also investigate the influence of topics: different topics are associated with different stance labeling tendencies and word usage  For example we discuss women's rights and unwanted babies on the topic of abortion, but we criticize medicine usage or crime when on the topic of marijuana BIBREF5   Even for posts on a specific topic like nuclear power, a variety of arguments are raised: green energy, radiation, air pollution, and so on  As for comments, we treat them as additional text information  The arguments in the comments and the commenters (the users who leave the comments) provide hints on the post's content and further facilitate stance classification 
In this paper, we propose the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN), a deep learning model that utilizes user, topic, and comment information  We attempt to learn user and topic representations which encode user interactions and topic influences to further enhance text classification, and we also incorporate comment information  We evaluate this model on a post stance classification task on forum-style social media platforms  The contributions of this paper are as follows: 1  We propose UTCNN, a neural network for text in modern social media channels as well as legacy social media, forums, and message boards — anywhere that reveals users, their tastes, as well as their replies to posts  2  When classifying social media post stances, we leverage users, including authors and likers  User embeddings can be generated even for users who have never posted anything  3  We incorporate a topic model to automatically assign topics to each post in a single topic dataset  4  We show that overall, the proposed method achieves the highest performance in all instances, and that all of the information extracted, whether users, topics, or comments, still has its contributions 
Extra-Linguistic Features for Stance Classification
In this paper we aim to use text as well as other features to see how they complement each other in a deep learning model  In the stance classification domain, previous work has showed that text features are limited, suggesting that adding extra-linguistic constraints could improve performance BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   For example, Hasan and Ng as well as Thomas et al  require that posts written by the same author have the same stance BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   The addition of this constraint yields accuracy improvements of 1–7% for some models and datasets  Hasan and Ng later added user-interaction constraints and ideology constraints BIBREF7 : the former models the relationship among posts in a sequence of replies and the latter models inter-topic relationships, e g , users who oppose abortion could be conservative and thus are likely to oppose gay rights 
For work focusing on online forum text, since posts are linked through user replies, sequential labeling methods have been used to model relationships between posts  For example, Hasan and Ng use hidden Markov models (HMMs) to model dependent relationships to the preceding post BIBREF9 ; Burfoot et al  use iterative classification to repeatedly generate new estimates based on the current state of knowledge BIBREF11 ; Sridhar et al  use probabilistic soft logic (PSL) to model reply links via collaborative filtering BIBREF12   In the Facebook dataset we study, we use comments instead of reply links  However, as the ultimate goal in this paper is predicting not comment stance but post stance, we treat comments as extra information for use in predicting post stance 
Deep Learning on Extra-Linguistic Features
In recent years neural network models have been applied to document sentiment classification BIBREF13 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF2   Text features can be used in deep networks to capture text semantics or sentiment  For example, Dong et al  use an adaptive layer in a recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment analysis, where targets are topics such as windows 7 or taylor swift BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 ; recursive neural tensor networks (RNTNs) utilize sentence parse trees to capture sentence-level sentiment for movie reviews BIBREF4 ; Le and Mikolov predict sentiment by using paragraph vectors to model each paragraph as a continuous representation BIBREF18   They show that performance can thus be improved by more delicate text models 
Others have suggested using extra-linguistic features to improve the deep learning model  The user-word composition vector model (UWCVM) BIBREF19 is inspired by the possibility that the strength of sentiment words is user-specific; to capture this they add user embeddings in their model  In UPNN, a later extension, they further add a product-word composition as product embeddings, arguing that products can also show different tendencies of being rated or reviewed BIBREF20   Their addition of user information yielded 2–10% improvements in accuracy as compared to the above-mentioned RNTN and paragraph vector methods  We also seek to inject user information into the neural network model  In comparison to the research of Tang et al  on sentiment classification for product reviews, the difference is two-fold  First, we take into account multiple users (one author and potentially many likers) for one post, whereas only one user (the reviewer) is involved in a review  Second, we add comment information to provide more features for post stance classification  None of these two factors have been considered previously in a deep learning model for text stance classification  Therefore, we propose UTCNN, which generates and utilizes user embeddings for all users — even for those who have not authored any posts — and incorporates comments to further improve performance 
Method
In this section, we first describe CNN-based document composition, which captures user- and topic-dependent document-level semantic representation from word representations  Then we show how to add comment information to construct the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN) 
User- and Topic-dependent Document Composition
As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , we use a general CNN BIBREF3 and two semantic transformations for document composition   We are given a document with an engaged user INLINEFORM0 , a topic INLINEFORM1 , and its composite INLINEFORM2 words, each word INLINEFORM3 of which is associated with a word embedding INLINEFORM4 where INLINEFORM5 is the vector dimension  For each word embedding INLINEFORM6 , we apply two dot operations as shown in Equation EQREF6 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 models the user reading preference for certain semantics, and INLINEFORM1 models the topic semantics; INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 are the dimensions of transformed user and topic embeddings respectively  We use INLINEFORM4 to model semantically what each user prefers to read and/or write, and use INLINEFORM5 to model the semantics of each topic  The dot operation of INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7 transforms the global representation INLINEFORM8 to a user-dependent representation  Likewise, the dot operation of INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 transforms INLINEFORM11 to a topic-dependent representation 
After the two dot operations on INLINEFORM0 , we have user-dependent and topic-dependent word vectors INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 , which are concatenated to form a user- and topic-dependent word vector INLINEFORM3   Then the transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM4 are used as the CNN input  Here we apply three convolutional layers on the concatenated transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM5 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the index of words; INLINEFORM1 is a non-linear activation function (we use INLINEFORM2 ); INLINEFORM5 is the convolutional filter with input length INLINEFORM6 and output length INLINEFORM7 , where INLINEFORM8 is the window size of the convolutional operation; and INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 are the output and bias of the convolution layer INLINEFORM11 , respectively  In our experiments, the three window sizes INLINEFORM12 in the three convolution layers are one, two, and three, encoding unigram, bigram, and trigram semantics accordingly 
After the convolutional layer, we add a maximum pooling layer among convolutional outputs to obtain the unigram, bigram, and trigram n-gram representations  This is succeeded by an average pooling layer for an element-wise average of the three maximized convolution outputs 
UTCNN Model Description
Figure FIGREF10 illustrates the UTCNN model  As more than one user may interact with a given post, we first add a maximum pooling layer after the user matrix embedding layer and user vector embedding layer to form a moderator matrix embedding INLINEFORM0 and a moderator vector embedding INLINEFORM1 for moderator INLINEFORM2 respectively, where INLINEFORM3 is used for the semantic transformation in the document composition process, as mentioned in the previous section  The term moderator here is to denote the pseudo user who provides the overall semantic/sentiment of all the engaged users for one document  The embedding INLINEFORM4 models the moderator stance preference, that is, the pattern of the revealed user stance: whether a user is willing to show his preference, whether a user likes to show impartiality with neutral statements and reasonable arguments, or just wants to show strong support for one stance  Ideally, the latent user stance is modeled by INLINEFORM5 for each user  Likewise, for topic information, a maximum pooling layer is added after the topic matrix embedding layer and topic vector embedding layer to form a joint topic matrix embedding INLINEFORM6 and a joint topic vector embedding INLINEFORM7 for topic INLINEFORM8 respectively, where INLINEFORM9 models the semantic transformation of topic INLINEFORM10 as in users and INLINEFORM11 models the topic stance tendency  The latent topic stance is also modeled by INLINEFORM12 for each topic 
As for comments, we view them as short documents with authors only but without likers nor their own comments  Therefore we apply document composition on comments although here users are commenters (users who comment)  It is noticed that the word embeddings INLINEFORM0 for the same word in the posts and comments are the same, but after being transformed to INLINEFORM1 in the document composition process shown in Figure FIGREF4 , they might become different because of their different engaged users  The output comment representation together with the commenter vector embedding INLINEFORM2 and topic vector embedding INLINEFORM3 are concatenated and a maximum pooling layer is added to select the most important feature for comments  Instead of requiring that the comment stance agree with the post, UTCNN simply extracts the most important features of the comment contents; they could be helpful, whether they show obvious agreement or disagreement  Therefore when combining comment information here, the maximum pooling layer is more appropriate than other pooling or merging layers  Indeed, we believe this is one reason for UTCNN's performance gains 
Finally, the pooled comment representation, together with user vector embedding INLINEFORM0 , topic vector embedding INLINEFORM1 , and document representation are fed to a fully connected network, and softmax is applied to yield the final stance label prediction for the post 
Experiment
We start with the experimental dataset and then describe the training process as well as the implementation of the baselines  We also implement several variations to reveal the effects of features: authors, likers, comment, and commenters  In the results section we compare our model with related work 
Dataset
We tested the proposed UTCNN on two different datasets: FBFans and CreateDebate  FBFans is a privately-owned, single-topic, Chinese, unbalanced, social media dataset, and CreateDebate is a public, multiple-topic, English, balanced, forum dataset  Results using these two datasets show the applicability and superiority for different topics, languages, data distributions, and platforms 
The FBFans dataset contains data from anti-nuclear-power Chinese Facebook fan groups from September 2013 to August 2014, including posts and their author and liker IDs  There are a total of 2,496 authors, 505,137 likers, 33,686 commenters, and 505,412 unique users  Two annotators were asked to take into account only the post content to label the stance of the posts in the whole dataset as supportive, neutral, or unsupportive (hereafter denoted as Sup, Neu, and Uns)  Sup/Uns posts were those in support of or against anti-reconstruction; Neu posts were those evincing a neutral standpoint on the topic, or were irrelevant  Raw agreement between annotators is 0 91, indicating high agreement  Specifically, Cohen’s Kappa for Neu and not Neu labeling is 0 58 (moderate), and for Sup or Uns labeling is 0 84 (almost perfect)  Posts with inconsistent labels were filtered out, and the development and testing sets were randomly selected from what was left  Posts in the development and testing sets involved at least one user who appeared in the training set  The number of posts for each stance is shown on the left-hand side of Table TABREF12   About twenty percent of the posts were labeled with a stance, and the number of supportive (Sup) posts was much larger than that of the unsupportive (Uns) ones: this is thus highly skewed data, which complicates stance classification  On average, 161

ground_truth: Yes

Yes

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 baselines do they compare with?
Context 2: 015 
For the pun detection task, if the predicted tag sequence contains at least one INLINEFORM0 tag, we regard the output (i e , the prediction of our pun detection model) for this task as true, otherwise false  For the pun location task, a predicted pun is regarded as correct if and only if it is labeled as the gold pun in the dataset  As to pun location, to make fair comparisons with prior studies, we only consider the instances that are labeled as the ones containing a pun  We report precision, recall and INLINEFORM1 score in Table TABREF11   A list of prior works that did not employ joint learning are also shown in the first block of Table TABREF11  
Results
We also implemented a baseline model based on conditional random fields (CRF), where features like POS tags produced by the Stanford POS tagger BIBREF27 , n-grams, label transitions, word suffixes and relative position to the end of the text are considered  We can see that our model with the INLINEFORM0 tagging scheme yields new state-of-the-art INLINEFORM1 scores on pun detection and competitive results on pun location, compared to baselines that do not adopt joint learning in the first block  For location on heterographic puns, our model's performance is slightly lower than the system of BIBREF25 , which is a rule-based locator  Compared to CRF, we can see that our model, either with the INLINEFORM2 or the INLINEFORM3 scheme, yields significantly higher recall on both detection and location tasks, while the precisions are relatively close  This demonstrates the effectiveness of BiLSTM, which learns the contextual features of given texts – such information appears to be helpful in recalling more puns 
Compared to the INLINEFORM0 scheme, the INLINEFORM1 tagging scheme is able to yield better performance on these two tasks  After studying outputs from these two approaches, we found that one leading source of error for the INLINEFORM2 approach is that there exist more than one words in a single instance that are assigned with the INLINEFORM3 tag  However, according to the description of pun in BIBREF9 , each context contains a maximum of one pun  Thus, such a useful structural constraint is not well captured by the simple approach based on the INLINEFORM4 tagging scheme  On the other hand, by applying the INLINEFORM5 tagging scheme, such a constraint is properly captured in the model  As a result, the results for such a approach are significantly better than the approach based on the INLINEFORM6 tagging scheme, as we can observe from the table  Under the same experimental setup, we also attempted to exclude word position features  Results are given by INLINEFORM7 - INLINEFORM8   It is expected that the performance of pun location drops, since such position features are able to capture the interesting property that a pun tends to appear in the second half of a sentence  While such knowledge is helpful for the location task, interestingly, a model without position knowledge yields improved performance on the pun detection task  One possible reason is that detecting whether a sentence contains a pun is not concerned with such word position information 
Additionally, we conduct experiments over sentences containing a pun only, namely 1,607 and 1,271 instances from homographic and heterographic pun corpora separately  It can be regarded as a “pipeline” method where the classifier for pun detection is regarded as perfect  Following the prior work of BIBREF4 , we apply 10-fold cross validation  Since we are given that all input sentences contain a pun, we only report accumulated results on pun location, denoted as Pipeline in Table TABREF11   Compared with our approaches, the performance of such an approach drops significantly  On the other hand, such a fact demonstrates that the two task, detection and location of puns, can reinforce each other  These figures demonstrate the effectiveness of our sequence labeling method to detect and locate English puns in a joint manner 
Error Analysis
We studied the outputs from our system and make some error analysis  We found the errors can be broadly categorized into several types, and we elaborate them here  1) Low word coverage: since the corpora are relatively small, there exist many unseen words in the test set  Learning the representations of such unseen words is challenging, which affects the model's performance  Such errors contribute around 40% of the total errors made by our system  2) Detection errors: we found many errors are due to the model's inability to make correct pun detection  Such inability harms both pun detection and pun location  Although our approach based on the INLINEFORM0 tagging scheme yields relatively higher scores on the detection task, we still found that 40% of the incorrectly predicted instances fall into this group  3) Short sentences: we found it was challenging for our model to make correct predictions when the given text is short  Consider the example “Superglue! Tom rejoined," here the word rejoined is the corresponding pun  However, it would be challenging to figure out the pun with such limited contextual information 
Related Work
Most existing systems address pun detection and location separately  BIBREF22 applied word sense knowledge to conduct pun detection  BIBREF24 trained a bidirectional RNN classifier for detecting homographic puns  Next, a knowledge-based approach is adopted to find the exact pun  Such a system is not applicable to heterographic puns  BIBREF28 applied Google n-gram and word2vec to make decisions  The phonetic distance via the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary is computed to detect heterographic puns  BIBREF10 used the hidden Markov model and a cyclic dependency network with rich features to detect and locate puns  BIBREF23 used a supervised approach to pun detection and a weakly supervised approach to pun location based on the position within the context and part of speech features  BIBREF25 proposed a rule-based system for pun location that scores candidate words according to eleven simple heuristics  Two systems are developed to conduct detection and location separately in the system known as UWAV BIBREF3   The pun detector combines predictions from three classifiers  The pun locator considers word2vec similarity between every pair of words in the context and position to pinpoint the pun  The state-of-the-art system for homographic pun location is a neural method BIBREF4 , where the word senses are incorporated into a bidirectional LSTM model  This method only supports the pun location task on homographic puns  Another line of research efforts related to this work is sequence labeling, such as POS tagging, chunking, word segmentation and NER  The neural methods have shown their effectiveness in this task, such as BiLSTM-CNN BIBREF13 , GRNN BIBREF29 , LSTM-CRF BIBREF30 , LSTM-CNN-CRF BIBREF14 , LM-LSTM-CRF BIBREF15  
In this work, we combine pun detection and location tasks as a single sequence labeling problem  Inspired by the work of BIBREF15 , we also adopt a LSTM-CRF with character embeddings to make labeling decisions 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose to perform pun detection and location tasks in a joint manner from a sequence labeling perspective  We observe that each text in our corpora contains a maximum of one pun  Hence, we design a novel tagging scheme to incorporate such a constraint  Such a scheme guarantees that there is a maximum of one word that will be tagged as a pun during the testing phase  We also found the interesting structural property such as the fact that most puns tend to appear at the second half of the sentences can be helpful for such a task, but was not explored in previous works  Furthermore, unlike many previous approaches, our approach, though simple, is generally applicable to both heterographic and homographic puns  Empirical results on the benchmark datasets prove the effectiveness of the proposed approach that the two tasks of pun detection and location can be addressed by a single model from a sequence labeling perspective 
Future research includes the investigations on how to make use of richer semantic and linguistic information for detection and location of puns  Research on puns for other languages such as Chinese is still under-explored, which could also be an interesting direction for our future studies 
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments  This work is supported by Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 2 Project MOE2017-T2-1-156, and is partially supported by SUTD project PIE-SGP-AI-2018-01 
Context 3: 1 users were involved in one post  The maximum was 23,297 and the minimum was one (the author)  For comments, on average there were 3 comments per post  The maximum was 1,092 and the minimum was zero 
To test whether the assumption of this paper – posts attract users who hold the same stance to like them – is reliable, we examine the likes from authors of different stances  Posts in FBFans dataset are used for this analysis  We calculate the like statistics of each distinct author from these 32,595 posts  As the numbers of authors in the Sup, Neu and Uns stances are largely imbalanced, these numbers are normalized by the number of users of each stance  Table TABREF13 shows the results  Posts with stances (i e , not neutral) attract users of the same stance  Neutral posts also attract both supportive and neutral users, like what we observe in supportive posts, but just the neutral posts can attract even more neutral likers  These results do suggest that users prefer posts of the same stance, or at least posts of no obvious stance which might cause annoyance when reading, and hence support the user modeling in our approach 
The CreateDebate dataset was collected from an English online debate forum discussing four topics: abortion (ABO), gay rights (GAY), Obama (OBA), and marijuana (MAR)  The posts are annotated as for (F) and against (A)  Replies to posts in this dataset are also labeled with stance and hence use the same data format as posts  The labeling results are shown in the right-hand side of Table TABREF12   We observe that the dataset is more balanced than the FBFans dataset  In addition, there are 977 unique users in the dataset  To compare with Hasan and Ng's work, we conducted five-fold cross-validation and present the annotation results as the average number of all folds BIBREF9 , BIBREF5  
The FBFans dataset has more integrated functions than the CreateDebate dataset; thus our model can utilize all linguistic and extra-linguistic features  For the CreateDebate dataset, on the other hand, the like and comment features are not available (as there is a stance label for each reply, replies are evaluated as posts as other previous work) but we still implemented our model using the content, author, and topic information 
Settings
In the UTCNN training process, cross-entropy was used as the loss function and AdaGrad as the optimizer  For FBFans dataset, we learned the 50-dimensional word embeddings on the whole dataset using GloVe BIBREF21 to capture the word semantics; for CreateDebate dataset we used the publicly available English 50-dimensional word embeddings, pre-trained also using GloVe  These word embeddings were fixed in the training process  The learning rate was set to 0 03  All user and topic embeddings were randomly initialized in the range of [-0 1 0 1]  Matrix embeddings for users and topics were sized at 250 ( INLINEFORM0 ); vector embeddings for users and topics were set to length 10 
We applied the LDA topic model BIBREF22 on the FBFans dataset to determine the latent topics with which to build topic embeddings, as there is only one general known topic: nuclear power plants  We learned 100 latent topics and assigned the top three topics for each post  For the CreateDebate dataset, which itself constitutes four topics, the topic labels for posts were used directly without additionally applying LDA 
For the FBFans data we report class-based f-scores as well as the macro-average f-score ( INLINEFORM0 ) shown in equation EQREF19   DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are the average precision and recall of the three class  We adopted the macro-average f-score as the evaluation metric for the overall performance because (1) the experimental dataset is severely imbalanced, which is common for contentious issues; and (2) for stance classification, content in minor-class posts is usually more important for further applications  For the CreateDebate dataset, accuracy was adopted as the evaluation metric to compare the results with related work BIBREF7 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF12  
Baselines
We pit our model against the following baselines: 1) SVM with unigram, bigram, and trigram features, which is a standard yet rather strong classifier for text features; 2) SVM with average word embedding, where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the embeddings of the composite words; 3) SVM with average transformed word embeddings (the INLINEFORM0 in equation EQREF6 ), where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the transformed embeddings of the composite words; 4) two mature deep learning models on text classification, CNN BIBREF3 and Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks (RCNN) BIBREF0 , where the hyperparameters are based on their work; 5) the above SVM and deep learning models with comment information; 6) UTCNN without user information, representing a pure-text CNN model where we use the same user matrix and user embeddings INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 for each user; 7) UTCNN without the LDA model, representing how UTCNN works with a single-topic dataset; 8) UTCNN without comments, in which the model predicts the stance label given only user and topic information  All these models were trained on the training set, and parameters as well as the SVM kernel selections (linear or RBF) were fine-tuned on the development set  Also, we adopt oversampling on SVMs, CNN and RCNN because the FBFans dataset is highly imbalanced 
Results on FBFans Dataset
In Table TABREF22 we show the results of UTCNN and the baselines on the FBFans dataset  Here Majority yields good performance on Neu since FBFans is highly biased to the neutral class  The SVM models perform well on Sup and Neu but perform poorly for Uns, showing that content information in itself is insufficient to predict stance labels, especially for the minor class  With the transformed word embedding feature, SVM can achieve comparable performance as SVM with n-gram feature  However, the much fewer feature dimension of the transformed word embedding makes SVM with word embeddings a more efficient choice for modeling the large scale social media dataset  For the CNN and RCNN models, they perform slightly better than most of the SVM models but still, the content information is insufficient to achieve a good performance on the Uns posts  As to adding comment information to these models, since the commenters do not always hold the same stance as the author, simply adding comments and post contents together merely adds noise to the model 
Among all UTCNN variations, we find that user information is most important, followed by topic and comment information  UTCNN without user information shows results similar to SVMs — it does well for Sup and Neu but detects no Uns  Its best f-scores on both Sup and Neu among all methods show that with enough training data, content-based models can perform well; at the same time, the lack of user information results in too few clues for minor-class posts to either predict their stance directly or link them to other users and posts for improved performance  The 17 5% improvement when adding user information suggests that user information is especially useful when the dataset is highly imbalanced  All models that consider user information predict the minority class successfully  UCTNN without topic information works well but achieves lower performance than the full UTCNN model  The 4 9% performance gain brought by LDA shows that although it is satisfactory for single topic datasets, adding that latent topics still benefits performance: even when we are discussing the same topic, we use different arguments and supporting evidence  Lastly, we get 4 8% improvement when adding comment information and it achieves comparable performance to UTCNN without topic information, which shows that comments also benefit performance  For platforms where user IDs are pixelated or otherwise hidden, adding comments to a text model still improves performance  In its integration of user, content, and comment information, the full UTCNN produces the highest f-scores on all Sup, Neu, and Uns stances among models that predict the Uns class, and the highest macro-average f-score overall  This shows its ability to balance a biased dataset and supports our claim that UTCNN successfully bridges content and user, topic, and comment information for stance classification on social media text  Another merit of UTCNN is that it does not require a balanced training data  This is supported by its outperforming other models though no oversampling technique is applied to the UTCNN related experiments as shown in this paper  Thus we can conclude that the user information provides strong clues and it is still rich even in the minority class 
We also investigate the semantic difference when a user acts as an author/liker or a commenter  We evaluated a variation in which all embeddings from the same user were forced to be identical (this is the UTCNN shared user embedding setting in Table TABREF22 )  This setting yielded only a 2 5% improvement over the model without comments, which is not statistically significant  However, when separating authors/likers and commenters embeddings (i e , the UTCNN full model), we achieved much greater improvements (4 8%)  We attribute this result to the tendency of users to use different wording for different roles (for instance author vs commenter)  This is observed when the user, acting as an author, attempts to support her argument against nuclear power by using improvements in solar power; when acting as a commenter, though, she interacts with post contents by criticizing past politicians who supported nuclear power or by arguing that the proposed evacuation plan in case of a nuclear accident is ridiculous  Based on this finding, in the final UTCNN setting we train two user matrix embeddings for one user: one for the author/liker role and the other for the commenter role 
Results on CreateDebate Dataset
Table TABREF24 shows the results of UTCNN, baselines as we implemented on the FBFans datset and related work on the CreateDebate dataset  We do not adopt oversampling on these models because the CreateDebate dataset is almost balanced  In previous work, integer linear programming (ILP) or linear-chain conditional random fields (CRFs) were proposed to integrate text features, author, ideology, and user-interaction constraints, where text features are unigram, bigram, and POS-dependencies; the author constraint tends to require that posts from the same author for the same topic hold the same stance; the ideology constraint aims to capture inferences between topics for the same author; the user-interaction constraint models relationships among posts via user interactions such as replies BIBREF7 , BIBREF9  
The SVM with n-gram or average word embedding feature performs just similar to the majority  However, with the transformed word embedding, it achieves superior results  It shows that the learned user and topic embeddings really capture the user and topic semantics  This finding is not so obvious in the FBFans dataset and it might be due to the unfavorable data skewness for SVM  As for CNN and RCNN, they perform slightly better than most SVMs as we found in Table TABREF22 for FBFans 
Compared to the ILP BIBREF7 and CRF BIBREF9 methods, the UTCNN user embeddings encode author and user-interaction constraints, where the ideology constraint is modeled by the topic embeddings and text features are modeled by the CNN  The significant improvement achieved by UTCNN suggests the latent representations are more effective than overt model constraints 
The PSL model BIBREF12 jointly labels both author and post stance using probabilistic soft logic (PSL) BIBREF23 by considering text features and reply links between authors and posts as in Hasan and Ng's work  Table TABREF24 reports the result of their best AD setting, which represents the full joint stance/disagreement collective model on posts and is hence more relevant to UTCNN  In contrast to their model, the UTCNN user embeddings represent relationships between authors, but UTCNN models do not utilize link information between posts  Though the PSL model has the advantage of being able to jointly label the stances of authors and posts, its performance on posts is lower than the that for the ILP or CRF models  UTCNN significantly outperforms these models on posts and has the potential to predict user stances through the generated user embeddings 
For the CreateDebate dataset, we also evaluated performance when not using topic embeddings or user embeddings; as replies in this dataset are viewed as posts, the setting without comment embeddings is not available  Table TABREF24 shows the same findings as Table TABREF22 : the 21% improvement in accuracy demonstrates that user information is the most vital  This finding also supports the results in the related work: user constraints are useful and can yield 11 2% improvement in accuracy BIBREF7   Further considering topic information yields 3 4% improvement, suggesting that knowing the subject of debates provides useful information  In sum, Table TABREF22 together with Table TABREF24 show that UTCNN achieves promising performance regardless of topic, language, data distribution, and platform 
Conclusion
We have proposed UTCNN, a neural network model that incorporates user, topic, content and comment information for stance classification on social media texts  UTCNN learns user embeddings for all users with minimum active degree, i e , one post or one like  Topic information obtained from the topic model or the pre-defined labels further improves the UTCNN model  In addition, comment information provides additional clues for stance classification  We have shown that UTCNN achieves promising and balanced results  In the future we plan to explore the effectiveness of the UTCNN user embeddings for author stance classification 
Acknowledgements
Research of this paper was partially supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under the contract MOST 104-2221-E-001-024-MY2 

ground_truth: They compare with the following models: by Pedersen (2017), by Pramanick and Das (2017), by Mikhalkova and Karyakin (2017),  by Vadehra (2017), Indurthi and Oota (2017), by Vechtomova (2017), by (Cai et al., 2018), and CRF.

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 baselines?
Context 4:  Usually settling on an annotation scheme requires several iterations, in which the guidelines are updated and annotation examples are added  For example, a political scientist could use a mixed deductive-inductive strategy for developing a codebook  She starts by laying out a set of theory-driven deductive coding rules, which means that the broad principles of the coding rules are laid out without examining examples first  These are then tested (and possibly adjusted) based on a sample of the data  In line with Adcock and Collier's notion of “content validity” BIBREF13 , the goal is to assess whether the codebook adequately captures the systematized concept  By looking at the data themselves, she gains a better sense of whether some things have been left out of the coding rules and whether anything is superfluous, misleading, or confusing  Adjustments are made and the process is repeated, often with another researcher involved 
The final annotations can be collected using a crowdsourcing platform, a smaller number of highly-trained annotators, or a group of experts  Which type of annotator to use should be informed by the complexity and specificity of the concept  For more complex concepts, highly-trained or expert annotators tend to produce more reliable results  However, complex concepts can sometimes be broken down into micro-tasks that can be performed independently in parallel by crowdsourced annotators  Concepts from highly specialized domains may require expert annotators  In all cases, however, some training will be required, and the training phase should involve continual checks of inter-annotator agreement (i e  intercoder reliability) or checks against a gold standard (e g  quizzes in crowdsourcing platforms) 
We also need to decide how inter-annotator agreement will be measured and what an acceptable level of agreement would be  Krippendorff's alpha is frequently used in the social sciences, but the right measure depends on the type of data and task  For manual coding, we can continually check inter-annotator agreement and begin introducing checks of intra-annotator agreement, too  For most communication scholars using only manual content analysis, an acceptable rate of agreement is achieved when Krippendorf's alpha reaches 0 80 or above  When human-coded data are used to validate machine learning algorithms, the reliability of the human-coded data is even more important  Disagreement between annotators can signal weaknesses of the annotation scheme, or highlight the inherent ambiguity in what we are trying to measure  Disagreement itself can be meaningful and can be integrated in subsequent analyses BIBREF28 , BIBREF29  
Data pre-processing
Preparing the data can be a complex and time-consuming process, often involving working with partially or wholly unstructured data  The pre-processing steps have a big impact on the operationalizations, subsequent analyses and reproducibility efforts BIBREF30 , and they are usually tightly linked to what we intend to measure  Unfortunately, these steps tend to be underreported, but documenting the pre-processing choices made is essential and is analogous to recording the decisions taken during the production of a scholarly edition or protocols in biomedical research  Data may also vary enormously in quality, depending on how it has been generated  Many historians, for example, work with text produced from an analogue original using Optical Character Recognition (OCR)  Often, there will be limited information available regarding the accuracy of the OCR, and the degree of accuracy may even vary within a single corpus (e g  where digitized text has been produced over a period of years, and the software has gradually improved)  The first step, then, is to try to correct for common OCR errors  These will vary depending on the type of text, the date at which the `original' was produced, and the nature of the font and typesetting 
One step that almost everyone takes is to tokenize the original character sequence into the words and word-like units  Tokenization is a more subtle and more powerful process than people expect  It is often done using regular expressions or scripts that have been circulating within the NLP community  Tokenization heuristics, however, can be badly confused by emoticons, creative orthography (e g , U$A, sh!t), and missing whitespace  Multi-word terms are also challenging  Treating them as a single unit can dramatically alter the patterns in text  Many words that are individually ambiguous have clear, unmistakable meanings as terms, like “black hole" or “European Union"  However, deciding what constitutes a multi-word term is a difficult problem  In writing systems like Chinese, tokenization is a research problem in its own right 
Beyond tokenization, common steps include lowercasing, removing punctuation, stemming (removing suffixes), lemmatization (converting inflections to a base lemma), and normalization, which has never been clearly defined, but often includes grouping abbreviations like “U S A " and “USA", ordinals like “1st" and “first", and variant spellings like “noooooo"  The main goal of these steps is to improve the ratio of tokens (individual occurrences) to types (the distinct things in a corpus)  Each step requires making additional assumptions about which distinctions are relevant: is “apple” different from “Apple”? Is “burnt” different from “burned”? Is “cool" different from “coooool"? Sometimes these steps can actively hide useful patterns, like social meaning BIBREF32   Some of us therefore try do as little modification as possible 
From a multilingual perspective, English and Chinese have an unusually simple inflectional system, and so it is statistically reasonable to treat each inflection as a unique word type  Romance languages have considerably more inflections than English; many indigenous North American languages have still more  For these languages, unseen data is far more likely to include previously-unseen inflections, and therefore, dealing with inflections is more important  On the other hand, the resources for handling inflections vary greatly by language, with European languages dominating the attention of the computational linguistics community thus far 
We sometimes also remove words that are not relevant to our goals, for example by calculating vocabulary frequencies  We construct a “stoplist” of words that we are not interested in  If we are looking for semantic themes we might remove function words like determiners and prepositions  If we are looking for author-specific styles, we might remove all words except function words  Some words are generally meaningful but too frequent to be useful within a specific collection  We sometimes also remove very infrequent words  Their occurrences are too low for robust patterns and removing them helps reducing the vocabulary size 
The choice of processing steps can be guided by theory or knowledge about the domain as well as experimental investigation  When we have labels, predictive accuracy of a model is a way to assess the effect of the processing steps  In unsupervised settings, it is more challenging to understand the effects of different steps  Inferences drawn from unsupervised settings can be sensitive to pre-processing choices BIBREF33   Stemming has been found to provide little measurable benefits for topic modeling and can sometimes even be harmful BIBREF34   All in all, this again highlights the need to document these steps 
Finally, we can also mark up the data, e g , by identifying entities (people, places, organizations, etc ) or parts of speech  Although many NLP tools are available for such tasks, they are often challenged by linguistic variation, such as orthographic variation in historical texts BIBREF35 and social media BIBREF32   Moreover, the performance of NLP tools often drops when applying them outside the training domain, such as applying tools developed on newswire texts to texts written by younger authors BIBREF36   Problems (e g , disambiguation in named entity recognition) are sometimes resolved using considerable manual intervention  This combination of the automated and the manual, however, becomes more difficult as the scale of the data increases, and the `certainty' brought by the latter may have to be abandoned 
Dictionary-based approaches
Dictionaries are frequently used to code texts in content analyses BIBREF37   Dictionaries consist of one or more categories (i e  word lists)  Sometimes the output is simply the number of category occurrences (e g , positive sentiment), thus weighting words within a category equally  In some other cases, words are assigned continuous scores  The high transparency of dictionaries makes them sometimes more suitable than supervised machine learning models  However, dictionaries should only be used if the scores assigned to words match how the words are used in the data (see BIBREF38 for a detailed discussion on limitations)  There are many off-the-shelf dictionaries available (e g , LIWC BIBREF39 )  These are often well-validated, but applying them on a new domain may not be appropriate without additional validation  Corpus- or domain-specific dictionaries can overcome limitations of general-purpose dictionaries 
The dictionaries are often manually compiled, but increasingly they are constructed semi-automatically (e g , BIBREF40 )  When we semi-automatically create a word list, we use automation to identify an initial word list, and human insight to filter it  By automatically generating the initial words lists, words can be identified that human annotators might have difficulty intuiting  By manually filtering the lists, we use our theoretical understanding of the target concept to remove spurious features 
In the introduction study, SAGE BIBREF41 was used to obtain a list of words that distinguished the text in the treatment group (subreddits that were closed by Reddit) from text in the control group (similar subreddits that were not closed)  The researchers then returned to the hate speech definition provided by the European Court of Human Rights, and manually filtered the top SAGE words based on this definition  Not all identified words fitted the definition  The others included: the names of the subreddits themselves, names of related subreddits, community-specific jargon that was not directly related to hate speech, and terms such as IQ and welfare, which were frequently used in discourses of hate speech, but had significant other uses  The word lists provided the measurement instrument for their main result, which is that the use of hate speech throughout Reddit declined after the two treatment subreddits were closed 
Supervised models
Supervised learning is frequently used to scale up analyses  For example, BIBREF42 wanted to analyze the motivations of Movember campaign participants  By developing a classifier based on a small set of annotations, they were able to expand the analysis to over 90k participants 
The choice of supervised learning model is often guided by the task definition and the label types  For example, to identify stance towards rumors based on sequential annotations, an algorithm for learning from sequential BIBREF43 or time series data BIBREF44 could be used  The features (sometimes called variables or predictors) are used by the model to make the predictions  They may vary from content-based features such as single words, sequences of words, or information about their syntactic structure, to meta-information such as user or network information  Deciding on the features requires experimentation and expert insight and is often called feature engineering  For insight-driven analysis, we are often interested in why a prediction has been made and features that can be interpreted by humans may be preferred  Recent neural network approaches often use simple features as input (such as word embeddings or character sequences), which requires less feature engineering but make interpretation more difficult 
Supervised models are powerful, but they can latch on to spurious features of the dataset  This is particularly true for datasets that are not well-balanced, and for annotations that are noisy  In our introductory example on hate speech in Reddit BIBREF0 , the annotations are automatically derived from the forum in which each post appears, and indeed, many of the posts in the forums (subreddits) that were banned by Reddit would be perceived by many as hate speech  But even in banned subreddits, not all of the content is hate speech (e g , some of the top features were self-referential like the name of the subreddit) but a classifier would learn a high weight for these features 
Even when expert annotations are available on the level of individual posts, spurious features may remain  BIBREF45 produced expert annotations of hate speech on Twitter  They found that one of the strongest features for sexism is the name of an Australian TV show, because people like to post sexist comments about the contestants  If we are trying to make claims about what inhibits or encourages hate speech, we would not want those claims to be tied to the TV show's popularity  Such problems are inevitable when datasets are not well-balanced over time, across genres, topics, etc  Especially with social media data, we lack a clear and objective definition of `balance' at this time 
The risk of supervised models latching on to spurious features reinforces the need for interpretability  Although the development of supervised models is usually performance driven, placing more emphasis on interpretability could increase the adoption of these models in insight-driven analyses  One way would be to only use models that are already somewhat interpretable, for example models that use a small number of human-interpretable features  Rather than imposing such restrictions, there is also work on generating post-hoc explanations for individual predictions (e g , BIBREF46 ), even when the underlying model itself is very complex 
Topic modeling
Topic models (e g , LDA BIBREF47 ) are usually unsupervised and therefore less biased towards human-defined categories  They are especially suited for insight-driven analysis, because they are constrained in ways that make their output interpretable  Although there is no guarantee that a “topic” will correspond to a recognizable theme or event or discourse, they often do so in ways that other methods do not  Their easy applicability without supervision and ready interpretability make topic models good for exploration  Topic models are less successful for many performance-driven applications  Raw word features are almost always better than topics for search and document classification  LSTMs and other neural network models are better as language models  Continuous word embeddings have more expressive power to represent fine-grained semantic similarities between words 
A topic model provides a different perspective on a collection  It creates a set of probability distributions over the vocabulary of the collection, which, when combined together in different proportions, best match the content of the collection  We can sort the words in each of these distributions in descending order by probability, take some arbitrary number of most-probable words, and get a sense of what (if anything) the topic is “about”  Each of the text segments also has its own distribution over the topics, and we can sort these segments by their probability within a given topic to get a sense of how that topic is used 
One of the most common questions about topic models is how many topics to use, usually with the implicit assumption that there is a “right” number that is inherent in the collection  We prefer to think of this parameter as more like the scale of a map or the magnification of a microscope  The “right” number is determined by the needs of the user, not by the collection  If the analyst is looking for a broad overview, a relatively small number of topics may be best  If the analyst is looking for fine-grained phenomena, a larger number is better 
After fitting the model, it may be necessary to circle back to an earlier phase  Topic models find consistent patterns  When authors repeatedly use a particular theme or discourse, that repetition creates a consistent pattern  But other factors can also create similar patterns, which look as good to the algorithm  We might notice a topic that has highest probability on French stopwords, indicating that we need to do a better job of filtering by language  We might notice a topic of word fragments, such as “ing”, “tion”, “inter”, indicating that we are not handling end-of-line hyphenation correctly  We may need to add to our stoplist or change how we curate multi-word terms 
Validation
The output of our measurement procedures (in the social sciences often called the “scores”) must now be assessed in terms of their reliability and validity with regard to the (systemized) concept  Reliability aims to capture repeatability, i e  the extent to which a given tool provides consistent results 
Validity assesses the extent to which a given measurement tool measures what it is supposed to measure  In NLP and machine learning, most models are primarily evaluated by comparing the machine-generated labels against an annotated sample  This approach presumes that the human output is the “gold standard" against which performance should be tested  In contrast, when the reliability is measured based on the output of different annotators, no coder is taken as the standard and the likelihood of coders reaching agreement by chance (rather than because they are “correct") is factored into the resulting statistic  Comparing against a “gold standard” suggests that the threshold for human inter- and intra-coder reliability should be particularly high 
Accuracy, as well as other measures such as precision, recall and F-score, are sometimes presented as a measure of validity, but if we do not have a genuinely objective determination of what something is supposed measure—as is often the case in text analysis—then accuracy is perhaps a better indication of reliability than of validity  In that case, validity needs to be assessed based on other techniques like those we discuss later in this section  It is also worth asking what level of accuracy is sufficient for our analysis and to what extent there may be an upper bound, especially when the labels are native to the data or when the notion of a “gold standard” is not appropriate 
For some in the humanities, validation takes the form of close reading, not designed to confirm whether the model output is correct, but to present what BIBREF48 refers to as a form of “further discovery in two directions”  Model outputs tell us something about the texts, while a close reading of the texts alongside those outputs tells us something about the models that can be used for more effective model building  Applying this circular, iterative process to 450 18th-century novels written in three languages, Piper was able to uncover a new form of “conversional novel” that was not previously captured in “literary history's received critical categories” BIBREF48  
Along similar lines, we can subject both the machine-generated output and the human annotations to another round of content validation  That is, take a stratified random sample, selecting observations from the full range of scores, and ask: Do these make sense in light of the systematized concept? If not, what seems to be missing? Or is something extraneous being captured? This is primarily a qualitative process that requires returning to theory and interrogating the systematized concept, indicators, and scores together  This type of validation is rarely done in NLP, but it is especially important when it is difficult to assess what drives a given machine learning model  If there is a mismatch between the scores and systematized concept at this stage, the codebook may need to be adjusted, human coders retrained, more training data prepared, algorithms adjusted, or in some instances, even a new analytical method adopted 
Other types of validation are also possible, such as comparing with other approaches that aim to capture the same concept, or comparing the output with external measures (e g , public opinion polls, the occurrence of future events)  We can also go beyond only evaluating the labels (or point estimates)  BIBREF16 used human judgments to not only assess the positional estimates from a scaling method of latent political traits but also to assess uncertainty intervals  Using different types of validation can increase our confidence in the approach, especially when there is no clear notion of ground truth 
Besides focusing on rather abstract evaluation measures, we could also assess the models in task-based settings using human experts  Furthermore, for insight-driven analyses, it can be more useful to focus on improving explanatory power than making small improvements in predictive performance 
Analysis
In this phase, we use our models to explore or answer our research questions  For example, given a topic model we can look at the connection between topics and metadata elements  Tags such as “hate speech" or metadata information imply a certain way of organizing the collection  Computational models provide another organization, which may differ in ways that provide more insight into how these categories manifest themselves, or fail to do so 
Moreover, when using a supervised approach, the “errors”, i e  disagreement between the system output and human-provided labels, can point towards interesting cases for closer analysis and help us reflect on our conceptualizations  In the words of BIBREF2 , they can be “opportunities for interpretation”  Other types of “failures” can be insightful as well  Sometimes there is a “dog that didn't bark” BIBREF49 –i e , something that everyone thinks we should have found, but we did not  Or, sometimes the failures are telling us about the existence of something in the data that nobody noticed, or thought important, until then (e g , the large number of travel journals in Darwin's reading lists) 
Computational text analysis is not a replacement for but rather an addition to the approaches one can take to analyze social and cultural phenomena using textual data  By moving back and forth between large-scale computational analyses and small-scale qualitative analyses, we can combine their strengths so that we can identify large-scale and long-term trends, but also tell individual stories  For example, the Reddit study on hate speech BIBREF0 raised various follow-up questions: Can we distinguish hate speech from people talking about hate speech? Did people find new ways to express hate speech? If so, did the total amount of online hate speech decrease after all? As possible next steps, a qualitative discourse analyst might examine a smaller corpus to investigate whether commenters were indeed expressing hate speech in new ways; a specialist in interview methodologies might reach out to commenters to better understand the role of online hate speech in their lives  Computational text analysis represents a step towards better understanding social and cultural phenomena, and it is in many cases better suited towards opening questions rather than closing them 
Conclusion
Insight-driven computational analysis of text is becoming increasingly common  It not only helps us see more broadly, it helps us see subtle patterns more clearly and allows us to explore radical new questions about culture and society  In this article we have consolidated our experiences, as scholars from very different disciplines, in analyzing text as social and cultural data and described how the research process often unfolds  Each of the steps in the process is time-consuming and labor-intensive  Each presents challenges  And especially when working across disciplines, the research often involves a fair amount of discussion—even negotiation—about what means of operationalization and approaches to analysis are appropriate and feasible  And yet, with a bit of perseverance and mutual understanding, conceptually sound and meaningful work results so that we can truly make use of the exciting opportunities rich textual data offers 
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1  Dong Nguyen is supported with an Alan Turing Institute Fellowship (TU/A/000006)  Maria Liakata is a Turing fellow at 40%  We would also like to thank the participants of the “Bridging disciplines in analysing text as social and cultural data” workshop held at the Turing Institute (2017) for insightful discussions  The workshop was funded by a Turing Institute seed funding award to Nguyen and Liakata 

ground_truth: SVM with unigram, bigram, and trigram features, SVM with average word embedding, SVM with average transformed word embeddings, CNN, ecurrent Convolutional Neural Networks, SVM and deep learning models with comment information

SVM with unigram, bigram, trigram features, with average word embedding, with average transformed word embeddings, CNN and RCNN, SVM, CNN, RCNN with comment information