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. How much data is needed to train the task-specific encoder?
Context 1: Introduction
Assembling training corpora of annotated natural language examples in specialized domains such as biomedicine poses considerable challenges  Experts with the requisite domain knowledge to perform high-quality annotation tend to be expensive, while lay annotators may not have the necessary knowledge to provide high-quality annotations  A practical approach for collecting a sufficiently large corpus would be to use crowdsourcing platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)  However, crowd workers in general are likely to provide noisy annotations BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , an issue exacerbated by the technical nature of specialized content  Some of this noise may reflect worker quality and can be modeled BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , but for some instances lay people may simply lack the domain knowledge to provide useful annotation 
In this paper we report experiments on the EBM-NLP corpus comprising crowdsourced annotations of medical literature BIBREF5   We operationalize the concept of annotation difficulty and show how it can be exploited during training to improve information extraction models  We then obtain expert annotations for the abstracts predicted to be most difficult, as well as for a similar number of randomly selected abstracts  The annotation of highly specialized data and the use of lay and expert annotators allow us to examine the following key questions related to lay and expert annotations in specialized domains:
Can we predict item difficulty? We define a training instance as difficult if a lay annotator or an automated model disagree on its labeling  We show that difficulty can be predicted, and that it is distinct from inter-annotator agreement  Further, such predictions can be used during training to improve information extraction models 
Are there systematic differences between expert and lay annotations? We observe decidedly lower agreement between lay workers as compared to domain experts  Lay annotations have high precision but low recall with respect to expert annotations in the new data that we collected  More generally, we expect lay annotations to be lower quality, which may translate to lower precision, recall, or both, compared to expert annotations  Can one rely solely on lay annotations? Reasonable models can be trained using lay annotations alone, but similar performance can be achieved using markedly less expert data  This suggests that the optimal ratio of expert to crowd annotations for specialized tasks will depend on the cost and availability of domain experts  Expert annotations are preferable whenever its collection is practical  But in real-world settings, a combination of expert and lay annotations is better than using lay data alone 
Does it matter what data is annotated by experts? We demonstrate that a system trained on combined data achieves better predictive performance when experts annotate difficult examples rather than instances selected at i i d  random 
Our contributions in this work are summarized as follows  We define a task difficulty prediction task and show how this is related to, but distinct from, inter-worker agreement  We introduce a new model for difficulty prediction combining learned representations induced via a pre-trained `universal' sentence encoder BIBREF6 , and a sentence encoder learned from scratch for this task  We show that predicting annotation difficulty can be used to improve the task routing and model performance for a biomedical information extraction task  Our results open up a new direction for ensuring corpus quality  We believe that item difficulty prediction will likely be useful in other, non-specialized tasks as well, and that the most effective data collection in specialized domains requires research addressing the fundamental questions we examine here 
Related Work
Crowdsourcing annotation is now a well-studied problem BIBREF7 , BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Due to the noise inherent in such annotations, there have also been considerable efforts to develop aggregation models that minimize noise BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4  
There are also several surveys of crowdsourcing in biomedicine specifically BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   Some work in this space has contrasted model performance achieved using expert vs  crowd annotated training data BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 , BIBREF13   Dumitrache et al  Dumitrache:2018:CGT:3232718 3152889 concluded that performance is similar under these supervision types, finding no clear advantage from using expert annotators  This differs from our findings, perhaps owing to differences in design  The experts we used already hold advanced medical degrees, for instance, while those in prior work were medical students  Furthermore, the task considered here would appear to be of greater difficulty: even a system trained on $\sim $ 5k instances performs reasonably, but far from perfect  By contrast, in some of the prior work where experts and crowd annotations were deemed equivalent, a classifier trained on 300 examples can achieve very high accuracy BIBREF12  
More relevant to this paper, prior work has investigated methods for `task routing' in active learning scenarios in which supervision is provided by heterogeneous labelers with varying levels of expertise BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF14   The related question of whether effort is better spent collecting additional annotations for already labeled (but potentially noisily so) examples or novel instances has also been addressed BIBREF18   What distinguishes the work here is our focus on providing an operational definition of instance difficulty, showing that this can be predicted, and then using this to inform task routing 
Application Domain
Our specific application concerns annotating abstracts of articles that describe the conduct and results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)  Experimentation in this domain has become easy with the recent release of the EBM-NLP BIBREF5 corpus, which includes a reasonably large training dataset annotated via crowdsourcing, and a modest test set labeled by individuals with advanced medical training  More specifically, the training set comprises 4,741 medical article abstracts with crowdsourced annotations indicating snippets (sequences) that describe the Participants (p), Interventions (i), and Outcome (o) elements of the respective RCT, and the test set is composed of 191 abstracts with p, i, o sequence annotations from three medical experts 
Table 1 shows an example of difficult and easy examples according to our definition of difficulty  The underlined text demarcates the (consensus) reference label provided by domain experts  In the difficult examples, crowd workers marked text distinct from these reference annotations; whereas in the easy cases they reproduced them with reasonable fidelity  The difficult sentences usually exhibit complicated structure and feature jargon 
An abstract may contain some `easy' and some `difficult' sentences  We thus perform our analysis at the sentence level  We split abstracts into sentences using spaCy  We excluded sentences that comprise fewer than two tokens, as these are likely an artifact of errors in sentence splitting  In total, this resulted in 57,505 and 2,428 sentences in the train and test set abstracts, respectively 
Quantifying Task Difficulty
The test set includes annotations from both crowd workers and domain experts  We treat the latter as ground truth and then define the difficulty of sentences in terms of the observed agreement between expert and lay annotators  Formally, for annotation task $t$ and instance $i$ :
$$\text{Difficulty}_{ti} = \frac{\sum _{j=1}^n{f(\text{label}_{ij}, y_i})}{n}$$   (Eq  3)
where $f$ is a scoring function that measures the quality of the label from worker $j$ for sentence $i$ , as compared to a ground truth annotation, $y_i$   The difficulty score of sentence $i$ is taken as an average over the scores for all $n$ layworkers  We use Spearmans' correlation coefficient as a scoring function  Specifically, for each sentence we create two vectors comprising counts of how many times each token was annotated by crowd and expert workers, respectively, and calculate the correlation between these  Sentences with no labels are treated as maximally easy; those with only either crowd worker or expert label(s) are assumed maximally difficult 
The training set contains only crowdsourced annotations  To label the training data, we use a 10-fold validation like setting  We iteratively retrain the LSTM-CRF-Pattern sequence tagger of Patel et al  patel2018syntactic on 9 folds of the training data and use that trained model to predict labels for the 10th  In this way we obtain predictions on the full training set  We then use predicted spans as proxy `ground truth' annotations to calculate the difficulty score of sentences as described above; we normalize these to the [ $0, 1$ ] interval  We validate this approximation by comparing the proxy scores against reference scores over the test set, the Pearson's correlation coefficients are 0 57 for Population, 0 71 for Intervention and 0 68 for Outcome 
There exist many sentences that contain neither manual nor predicted annotations  We treat these as maximally easy sentences (with difficulty scores of 0)  Such sentences comprise 51%, 42% and 36% for Population, Interventions and Outcomes data respectively, indicating that it is easier to identify sentences that have no Population spans, but harder to identify sentences that have no Interventions or Outcomes spans  This is intuitive as descriptions of the latter two tend to be more technical and dense with medical jargon 
We show the distribution of the automatically labeled scores for sentences that do contain spans in Figure 1   The mean of the Population (p) sentence scores is significantly lower than that for other types of sentences (i and o), again indicating that they are easier on average to annotate  This aligns with a previous finding that annotating Interventions and Outcomes is more difficult than annotating Participants BIBREF5  
Many sentences contain spans tagged by the LSTM-CRF-Pattern model, but missed by all crowd workers, resulting in a maximally difficult score (1)  Inspection of such sentences revealed that some are truly difficult examples, but others are tagging model errors  In either case, such sentences have confused workers and/or the model, and so we retain them all as `difficult' sentences 
Content describing the p, i and o, respectively, is quite different  As such, one sentence usually contains (at most) only one of these three content types  We thus treat difficulty prediction for the respective label types as separate tasks 
Difficulty is not Worker Agreement
Our definition of difficulty is derived from agreement between expert and crowd annotations for the test data, and agreement between a predictive model and crowd annotations in the training data  It is reasonable to ask if these measures are related to inter-annotator agreement, a metric often used in language technology research to identify ambiguous or difficult items  Here we explicitly verify that our definition of difficulty only weakly correlates with inter-annotator agreement 
We calculate inter-worker agreement between crowd and expert annotators using Spearman's correlation coefficient  As shown in Table 2 , average agreement between domain experts are considerably higher than agreements between crowd workers for all three label types  This is a clear indication that the crowd annotations are noisier 
Furthermore, we compare the correlation between inter-annotator agreement and difficulty scores in the training data  Given that the majority of sentences do not contain a PICO span, we only include in these calculations those that contain a reference label  Pearson's r are 0 34, 0 30 and 0 31 for p, i and o, respectively, confirming that inter-worker agreement and our proposed difficulty score are quite distinct 
Predicting Annotation Difficulty
We treat difficulty prediction as a regression problem, and propose and evaluate neural model variants for the task  We first train RNN BIBREF19 and CNN BIBREF20 models 
We also use the universal sentence encoder (USE) BIBREF6 to induce sentence representations, and train a model using these as features  Following BIBREF6 , we then experiment with an ensemble model that combines the `universal' and task-specific representations to predict annotation difficulty  We expect these universal embeddings to capture general, high-level semantics, and the task specific representations to capture more granular information  Figure 2 depicts the model architecture  Sentences are fed into both the universal sentence encoder and, separately, a task specific neural encoder, yielding two representations  We concatenate these and pass the combined vector to the regression layer 
Experimental Setup and Results
We trained models for each label type separately  Word embeddings were initialized to 300d GloVe vectors BIBREF21 trained on common crawl data; these are fine-tuned during training  We used the Adam optimizer BIBREF22 with learning rate and decay set to 0 001 and 0 99, respectively  We used batch sizes of 16 
We used the large version of the universal sentence encoder with a transformer BIBREF23   We did not update the pretrained sentence encoder parameters during training  All hyperparamaters for all models (including hidden layers, hidden sizes, and dropout) were tuned using Vizier BIBREF24 via 10-fold cross validation on the training set maximizing for F1 
As a baseline, we also trained a linear Support-Vector Regression BIBREF25 model on $n$ -gram features ( $n$ ranges from 1 to 3) 
Table 3 reports Pearson correlation coefficients between the predictions with each of the neural models and the ground truth difficulty scores  Rows 1-4 correspond to individual models, and row 5 reports the ensemble performance  Columns correspond to label type  Results from all models outperform the baseline SVR model: Pearson's correlation coefficients range from 0 550 to 0 622  The regression correlations are the lowest 
The RNN model realizes the strongest performance among the stand-alone (non-ensemble) models, outperforming variants that exploit CNN and USE representations  Combining the RNN and USE further improves results  We hypothesize that this is due to complementary sentence information encoded in universal representations 
For all models, correlations for Intervention and Outcomes are higher than for Population, which is expected given the difficulty distributions in Figure 1   In these, the sentences are more uniformly distributed, with a fair number of difficult and easier sentences  By contrast, in Population there are a greater number of easy sentences and considerably fewer difficult sentences, which makes the difficulty ranking task particularly challenging 
Better IE with Difficulty Prediction
We next present experiments in which we attempt to use the predicted difficulty during training to improve models for information extraction of descriptions of Population, Interventions and Outcomes from medical article abstracts  We investigate two uses: (1) simply removing the most difficult sentences from the training set, and, (2) re-weighting the most difficult sentences 
We again use LSTM-CRF-Pattern as the base model and experimenting on the EBM-NLP corpus BIBREF5   This is trained on either (1) the training set with difficult sentences removed, or (2) the full training set but with instances re-weighted in proportion to their predicted difficulty score  Following BIBREF5 , we use the Adam optimizer with learning rate of 0 001, decay 0 9, batch size 20 and dropout 0 5  We use pretrained 200d GloVe vectors BIBREF21 to initialize word embeddings, and use 100d hidden char representations  Each word is thus represented with 300 dimensions in total  The hidden size is 100 for the LSTM in the character representation component, and 200 for the LSTM in the information extraction component  We train for 15 epochs, saving parameters that achieve the best F1 score on a nested development set 
Removing Difficult Examples
We first evaluate changes in performance induced by training the sequence labeling model using less data by removing difficult sentences prior to training  The hypothesis here is that these difficult instances are likely to introduce more noise than signal  We used a cross-fold approach to predict sentence difficulties, training on 9/10ths of the data and scoring the remaining 1/10th at a time  We then sorted sentences by predicted difficulty scores, and experimented with removing increasing numbers of these (in order of difficulty) prior to training the LSTM-CRF-Pattern model 
Figure 3 shows the results achieved by the LSTM-CRF-Pattern model after discarding increasing amounts of the training data: the $x$ and $y$ axes correspond to the the percentage of data removed and F1 scores, respectively  We contrast removing sentences predicted to be difficult with removing them (a) randomly (i i d ), and, (b) in inverse order of predicted inter-annotator agreement  The agreement prediction model is trained exactly the same like difficult prediction model, with simply changing the difficult score to annotation agreement  F1 scores actually improve (marginally) when we remove the most difficult sentences, up until we drop 4% of the data for Population and Interventions, and 6% for Outcomes  Removing training points at i i d  random degrades performance, as expected  Removing sentences in order of disagreement seems to have similar effect as removing them by difficulty score when removing small amount of the data, but the F1 scores drop much faster when removing more data  These findings indicate that sentences predicted to be difficult are indeed noisy, to the extent that they do not seem to provide the model useful signal 
Re-weighting by Difficulty
We showed above that removing a small number of the most difficult sentences does not harm, and in fact modestly improves, medical IE model performance  However, using the available data we are unable to test if this will be useful in practice, as we would need additional data to determine how many difficult sentences should be dropped 
We instead explore an alternative, practical means of exploiting difficulty predictions: we re-weight sentences during training inversely to their predicted difficulty  Formally, we weight sentence $i$ with difficulty scores above $\tau $ according to: $1-a\cdot (d_i-\tau )/(1-\tau )$ , where $d_i$ is the difficulty score for sentence $i$ , and $a$ is a parameter codifying the minimum weight value  We set $\tau $ to 0 8 so as to only re-weight sentences with difficulty in the top 20th percentile, and we set $a$ to 0 5  The re-weighting is equivalent to down-sampling the difficult sentences  LSTM-CRF-Pattern is our base model 
Table 4 reports the precision, recall and F1 achieved both with and without sentence re-weighting  Re-weighting improves all metrics modestly but consistently  All F1 differences are statistically significant under a sign test ( $p<0 01$ )  The model with best precision is different for Patient, Intervention and Outcome labels  However re-weighting by difficulty does consistently yield the best recall for all three extraction types, with the most notable improvement for i and o, where recall improved by 10 percentage points  This performance increase translated to improvements in F1 across all types, as compared to the base model and to re-weighting by agreement 
Involving Expert Annotators
The preceding experiments demonstrate that re-weighting difficult sentences annotated by the crowd generally improves the extraction models  Presumably the performance is influenced by the annotation quality 
We now examine the possibility that the higher quality and more consistent annotations of domain experts on the difficult instances will benefit the extraction model  This simulates an annotation strategy in which we route difficult instances to domain experts and easier ones to crowd annotators  We also contrast the value of difficult data to that of an i i d  random sample of the same size, both annotated by experts 
Expert annotations of Random and Difficult Instances
We re-annotate by experts a subset of most difficult instances and the same number of random instances  As collecting annotations from experts is slow and expensive, we only re-annotate the difficult instances for the interventions extraction task  We re-annotate the abstracts which cover the sentences with predicted difficulty scores in the top 5 percentile  We rank the abstracts from the training set by the count of difficult sentences, and re-annotate the abstracts that contain the most difficult sentences  Constrained by time and budget, we select only 2000 abstracts for re-annotation; 1000 of these are top-ranked, and 1000 are randomly sampled  This re-annotation cost $3,000  We have released the new annotation data at: https://github com/bepnye/EBM-NLP 
Following BIBREF5 , we recruited five medical experts via Up-work with advanced medical training and strong technical reading/writing skills  The expert annotator were asked to read the entire abstract and highlight, using the BRAT toolkit BIBREF26 , all spans describing medical Interventions  Each abstract is only annotated by one expert  We examined 30 re-annotated abstracts to ensure the annotation quality before hiring the annotator 
Table 5 presents the results of LSTM-CRF-Pattern model trained on the reannotated difficult subset and the random subset  The first two rows show the results for models trained with expert annotations  The model trained on random data has a slightly better F1 than that trained on the same amount of difficult data  The model trained on random data has higher precision but lower recall 
Rows 3 and 4 list the results for models trained on the same data but with crowd annotation  Models trained with expert-annotated data are clearly superior to those trained with crowd labels with respect to F1, indicating that the experts produced higher quality annotations  For crowdsourced annotations, training the model with data sampled at i i d  random achieves 2% higher F1 than when difficult instances are used  When expert annotations are used, this difference is less than 1%  This trend in performance may be explained by differences in annotation quality: the randomly sampled set was more consistently annotated by both experts and crowd because the difficult set is harder  However, in both cases expert annotations are better, with a bigger difference between the expert and crowd models on the difficult set 
The last row is the model trained on all 5k abstracts with crowd annotations  Its F1 score is lower than either expert model trained on only 20% of data, suggesting that expert annotations should be collected whenever possible  Again the crowd model on complete data has higher precision than expert models but its recall is much lower 
Routing To Experts or Crowd
So far a system was trained on one type of data, either labeled by crowd or experts  We now examine the performance of a system trained on data that was routed to either experts or crowd annotators depending on their predicted difficult  Given the results presented so far mixing annotators may be beneficial given their respective trade-offs of precision and recall  We use the annotations from experts for an abstract if it exists otherwise use crowd annotations  The results are presented in Table 6  
Rows 1 and 2 repeat the performance of the models trained on difficult subset and random subset with expert annotations only respectively  The third row is the model trained by combining difficult and random subsets with expert annotations  There are around 250 abstracts in the overlap of these two sets, so there are total 1 75k abstracts used for training the D+R model  Rows 4 to 6 are the models trained on all 5k abstracts with mixed annotations, where Other means the rest of the abstracts with crowd annotation only 
The results show adding more training data with crowd annotation still improves at least 1 point F1 score in all three extraction tasks  The improvement when the difficult subset with expert annotations is mixed with the remaining crowd annotation is 3 5 F1 score, much larger than when a random set of expert annotations are added  The model trained with re-annotating the difficult subset (D+Other) also outperforms the model with re-annotating the random subset (R+Other) by 2 points in F1  The model trained with re-annotating both of difficult and random subsets (D+R+Other), however, achieves only marginally higher F1 than the model trained with the re-annotated difficult subset (D+Other)  In sum, the results clearly indicate that mixing expert and crowd annotations leads to better models than using solely crowd data, and better than using expert data alone  More importantly, there is greater gain in performance when instances are routed according to difficulty, as compared to randomly selecting the data for expert annotators  These findings align with our motivating hypothesis that annotation quality for difficult instances is important for final model performance  They also indicate that mixing annotations from expert and crowd could be an effective way to achieve acceptable model performance given a limited budget 
How Many Expert Annotations?
We established that crowd annotation are still useful in supplementing expert annotations for medical IE  Obtaining expert annotations for the one thousand most difficult instances greatly improved the model performance  However the choice of how many difficult instances to annotate was an uninformed choice  Here we check if less expert data would have yielded similar gains  Future work will need to address how best to choose this parameter for a routing system 
We simulate a routing scenario in which we send consecutive batches of the most difficult examples to the experts for annotation  We track changes in performance as we increase the number of most-difficult-articles sent to domain experts  As shown in Figure 4 , adding expert annotations for difficult articles consistently increases F1 scores  The performance gain is mostly from increased recall; the precision changes only a bit with higher quality annotation  This observation implies that crowd workers often fail to mark target tokens, but do not tend to produce large numbers of false positives  We suspect such failures to identify relevant spans/tokens are due to insufficient domain knowledge possessed by crowd workers 
The F1 score achieved after re-annotating the 600 most-difficult articles reaches 68 1%, which is close to the performance when re-annotating 1000 random articles  This demonstrates the effectiveness of recognizing difficult instances  The trend when we use up all expert data is still upward, so adding even more expert data is likely to further improve performance  Unfortunately we exhausted our budget and were not able to obtain additional expert annotations  It is likely that as the size of the expert annotations increases, the value of crowd annotations will diminish  This investigation is left for future work 
Conclusions
We have introduced the task of predicting annotation difficulty for biomedical information extraction (IE)  We trained neural models using different learned representations to score texts in terms of their difficulty  Results from all models were strong with Pearson’s correlation coefficients higher than 0 45 in almost all evaluations, indicating the feasibility of this task  An ensemble model combining universal and task specific feature sentence vectors yielded the best results 
Experiments on biomedical IE tasks show that removing up to $\sim $ 10% of the sentences predicted to be most difficult did not decrease model performance, and that re-weighting sentences inversely to their difficulty score during training improves predictive performance  Simulations in which difficult examples are routed to experts and other instances to crowd annotators yields the best results, outperforming the strategy of randomly selecting data for expert annotation, and substantially improving upon the approach of relying exclusively on crowd annotations  In future work, routing strategies based on instance difficulty could be further investigated for budget-quality trade-off 
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially supported by NSF1748771 grant  Wallace was support in part by NIH/NLM R01LM012086 
Context 2: Introduction and Background
Task-oriented dialogue systems are primarily designed to search and interact with large databases which contain information pertaining to a certain dialogue domain: the main purpose of such systems is to assist the users in accomplishing a well-defined task such as flight booking BIBREF0, tourist information BIBREF1, restaurant search BIBREF2, or booking a taxi BIBREF3  These systems are typically constructed around rigid task-specific ontologies BIBREF1, BIBREF4 which enumerate the constraints the users can express using a collection of slots (e g , price range for restaurant search) and their slot values (e g , cheap, expensive for the aforementioned slots)  Conversations are then modelled as a sequence of actions that constrain slots to particular values  This explicit semantic space is manually engineered by the system designer  It serves as the output of the natural language understanding component as well as the input to the language generation component both in traditional modular systems BIBREF5, BIBREF6 and in more recent end-to-end task-oriented dialogue systems BIBREF7, BIBREF8, BIBREF9, BIBREF3 
Working with such explicit semantics for task-oriented dialogue systems poses several critical challenges on top of the manual time-consuming domain ontology design  First, it is difficult to collect domain-specific data labelled with explicit semantic representations  As a consequence, despite recent data collection efforts to enable training of task-oriented systems across multiple domains BIBREF0, BIBREF3, annotated datasets are still few and far between, as well as limited in size and the number of domains covered  Second, the current approach constrains the types of dialogue the system can support, resulting in artificial conversations, and breakdowns when the user does not understand what the system can and cannot support  In other words, training a task-based dialogue system for voice-controlled search in a new domain always implies the complex, expensive, and time-consuming process of collecting and annotating sufficient amounts of in-domain dialogue data 
In this paper, we present a demo system based on an alternative approach to task-oriented dialogue  Relying on non-generative response retrieval we describe the PolyResponse conversational search engine and its application in the task of restaurant search and booking  The engine is trained on hundreds of millions of real conversations from a general domain (i e , Reddit), using an implicit representation of semantics that directly optimizes the task at hand  It learns what responses are appropriate in different conversational contexts, and consequently ranks a large pool of responses according to their relevance to the current user utterance and previous dialogue history (i e , dialogue context) 
The technical aspects of the underlying conversational search engine are explained in detail in our recent work BIBREF11, while the details concerning the Reddit training data are also available in another recent publication BIBREF12  In this demo, we put focus on the actual practical usefulness of the search engine by demonstrating its potential in the task of restaurant search, and extending it to deal with multi-modal data  We describe a PolyReponse system that assists the users in finding a relevant restaurant according to their preference, and then additionally helps them to make a booking in the selected restaurant  Due to its retrieval-based design, with the PolyResponse engine there is no need to engineer a structured ontology, or to solve the difficult task of general language generation  This design also bypasses the construction of dedicated decision-making policy modules  The large ranking model already encapsulates a lot of knowledge about natural language and conversational flow 
Since retrieved system responses are presented visually to the user, the PolyResponse restaurant search engine is able to combine text responses with relevant visual information (e g , photos from social media associated with the current restaurant and related to the user utterance), effectively yielding a multi-modal response  This setup of using voice as input, and responding visually is becoming more and more prevalent with the rise of smart screens like Echo Show and even mixed reality  Finally, the PolyResponse restaurant search engine is multilingual: it is currently deployed in 8 languages enabling search over restaurants in 8 cities around the world  System snapshots in four different languages are presented in Figure FIGREF16, while screencast videos that illustrate the dialogue flow with the PolyResponse engine are available at: https://tinyurl com/y3evkcfz 
PolyResponse: Conversational Search
The PolyResponse system is powered by a single large conversational search engine, trained on a large amount of conversational and image data, as shown in Figure FIGREF2  In simple words, it is a ranking model that learns to score conversational replies and images in a given conversational context  The highest-scoring responses are then retrieved as system outputs  The system computes two sets of similarity scores: 1) $S(r,c)$ is the score of a candidate reply $r$ given a conversational context $c$, and 2) $S(p,c)$ is the score of a candidate photo $p$ given a conversational context $c$  These scores are computed as a scaled cosine similarity of a vector that represents the context ($h_c$), and a vector that represents the candidate response: a text reply ($h_r$) or a photo ($h_p$)  For instance, $S(r,c)$ is computed as $S(r,c)=C cos(h_r,h_c)$, where $C$ is a learned constant  The part of the model dealing with text input (i e , obtaining the encodings $h_c$ and $h_r$) follows the architecture introduced recently by Henderson:2019acl  We provide only a brief recap here; see the original paper for further details 
PolyResponse: Conversational Search ::: Text Representation 
The model, implemented as a deep neural network, learns to respond by training on hundreds of millions context-reply $(c,r)$ pairs  First, similar to Henderson:2017arxiv, raw text from both $c$ and $r$ is converted to unigrams and bigrams  All input text is first lower-cased and tokenised, numbers with 5 or more digits get their digits replaced by a wildcard symbol #, while words longer than 16 characters are replaced by a wildcard token LONGWORD  Sentence boundary tokens are added to each sentence  The vocabulary consists of the unigrams that occur at least 10 times in a random 10M subset of the Reddit training set (see Figure FIGREF2) plus the 200K most frequent bigrams in the same random subset 
During training, we obtain $d$-dimensional feature representations ($d=320$) shared between contexts and replies for each unigram and bigram jointly with other neural net parameters  A state-of-the-art architecture based on transformers BIBREF13 is then applied to unigram and bigram vectors separately, which are then averaged to form the final 320-dimensional encoding  That encoding is then passed through three fully-connected non-linear hidden layers of dimensionality $1,024$  The final layer is linear and maps the text into the final $l$-dimensional ($l=512$) representation: $h_c$ and $h_r$  Other standard and more sophisticated encoder models can also be used to provide final encodings $h_c$ and $h_r$, but the current architecture shows a good trade-off between speed and efficacy with strong and robust performance in our empirical evaluations on the response retrieval task using Reddit BIBREF14, OpenSubtitles BIBREF15, and AmazonQA BIBREF16 conversational test data, see BIBREF12 for further details 
In training the constant $C$ is constrained to lie between 0 and $\sqrt{l}$  Following Henderson:2017arxiv, the scoring function in the training objective aims to maximise the similarity score of context-reply pairs that go together, while minimising the score of random pairings: negative examples  Training proceeds via SGD with batches comprising 500 pairs (1 positive and 499 negatives) 
PolyResponse: Conversational Search ::: Photo Representation 
Photos are represented using convolutional neural net (CNN) models pretrained on ImageNet BIBREF17  We use a MobileNet model with a depth multiplier of 1 4, and an input dimension of $224 \times 224$ pixels as in BIBREF18  This provides a $1,280 \times 1 4 = 1,792$-dimensional representation of a photo, which is then passed through a single hidden layer of dimensionality $1,024$ with ReLU activation, before being passed to a hidden layer of dimensionality 512 with no activation to provide the final representation $h_p$ 
PolyResponse: Conversational Search ::: Data Source 1: Reddit 
For training text representations we use a Reddit dataset similar to AlRfou:2016arxiv  Our dataset is large and provides natural conversational structure: all Reddit data from January 2015 to December 2018, available as a public BigQuery dataset, span almost 3 7B comments BIBREF12  We preprocess the dataset to remove uninformative and long comments by retaining only sentences containing more than 8 and less than 128 word tokens  After pairing all comments/contexts $c$ with their replies $r$, we obtain more than 727M context-reply $(c,r)$ pairs for training, see Figure FIGREF2 
PolyResponse: Conversational Search ::: Data Source 2: Yelp 
Once the text encoding sub-networks are trained, a photo encoder is learned on top of a pretrained MobileNet CNN, using data taken from the Yelp Open dataset: it contains around 200K photos and their captions  Training of the multi-modal sub-network then maximises the similarity of captions encoded with the response encoder $h_r$ to the photo representation $h_p$  As a result, we can compute the score of a photo given a context using the cosine similarity of the respective vectors
Context 3: Introduction
Microblogging such as Twitter and Weibo is a popular social networking service, which allows users to post messages up to 140 characters  There are millions of active users on the platform who stay connected with friends  Unfortunately, spammers also use it as a tool to post malicious links, send unsolicited messages to legitimate users, etc  A certain amount of spammers could sway the public opinion and cause distrust of the social platform  Despite the use of rigid anti-spam rules, human-like spammers whose homepages having photos, detailed profiles etc  have emerged  Unlike previous "simple" spammers, whose tweets contain only malicious links, those "smart" spammers are more difficult to distinguish from legitimate users via content-based features alone BIBREF0  
There is a considerable amount of previous work on spammer detection on social platforms  Researcher from Twitter Inc  BIBREF1 collect bot accounts and perform analysis on the user behavior and user profile features  Lee et al  lee2011seven use the so-called social honeypot by alluring social spammers' retweet to build a benchmark dataset, which has been extensively explored in our paper  Some researchers focus on the clustering of urls in tweets and network graph of social spammers BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , showing the power of social relationship features As for content information modeling, BIBREF6 apply improved sparse learning methods  However, few studies have adopted topic-based features  Some researchers BIBREF7 discuss topic characteristics of spamming posts, indicating that spammers are highly likely to dwell on some certain topics such as promotion  But this may not be applicable to the current scenario of smart spammers 
In this paper, we propose an efficient feature extraction method  In this method, two new topic-based features are extracted and used to discriminate human-like spammers from legitimate users  We consider the historical tweets of each user as a document and use the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model to compute the topic distribution for each user  Based on the calculated topic probability, two topic-based features, the Local Outlier Standard Score (LOSS) which captures the user's interests on different topics and the Global Outlier Standard Score (GOSS) which reveals the user's interests on specific topic in comparison with other users', are extracted  The two features contain both local and global information, and the combination of them can distinguish human-like spammers effectively 
To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that features based on topic distributions are used in spammer classification  Experimental results on one public dataset and one self-collected dataset further validate that the two sets of extracted topic-based features get excellent performance on human-like spammer classification problem compared with other state-of-the-art methods  In addition, we build a Weibo dataset, which contains both legitimate users and spammers 
To summarize, our major contributions are two-fold:
In the following sections, we first propose the topic-based features extraction method in Section 2, and then introduce the two datasets in Section 3  Experimental results are discussed in Section 4, and we conclude the paper in Section 5  Future work is presented in Section 6 
Methodology
In this section, we first provide some observations we obtained after carefully exploring the social network, then the LDA model is introduced  Based on the LDA model, the ways to obtain the topic probability vector for each user and the two topic-based features are provided 
Observation
After exploring the homepages of a substantial number of spammers, we have two observations  1) social spammers can be divided into two categories  One is content polluters, and their tweets are all about certain kinds of advertisement and campaign  The other is fake accounts, and their tweets resemble legitimate users' but it seems they are simply random copies of others to avoid being detected by anti-spam rules  2) For legitimate users, content polluters and fake accounts, they show different patterns on topics which interest them 
Legitimate users mainly focus on limited topics which interest him  They seldom post contents unrelated to their concern 
Content polluters concentrate on certain topics 
Fake accounts focus on a wide range of topics due to random copying and retweeting of other users' tweets 
Spammers and legitimate users show different interests on some topics e g  commercial, weather, etc 
To better illustrate our observation, Figure  1 shows the topic distribution of spammers and legitimate users in two employed datasets(the Honeypot dataset and Weibo dataset)  We can see that on both topics (topic-3 and topic-11) there exists obvious difference between the red bars and green bars, representing spammers and legitimate users  On the Honeypot dataset, spammers have a narrower shape of distribution (the outliers on the red bar tail are not counted) than that of legitimate users  This is because there are more content polluters than fake accounts  In other word, spammers in this dataset tend to concentrate on limited topics  While on the Weibo dataset, fake accounts who are interested in different topics take large proportion of spammers  Their distribution is more flat (i e  red bars) than that of the legitimate users  Therefore we can detect spammers by means of the difference of their topic distribution patterns 
LDA model
Blei et al blei2003latent first presented Latent Dirichlet Allocation(LDA) as an example of topic model 
Each document $i$ is deemed as a bag of words $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $ and $M$ is the number of words

ground_truth: 57,505 sentences

57,505 sentences

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. Was PolyReponse evaluated against some baseline?
Context 2:  A photo will be scored highly if it looks like its caption would be a good response to the current context 
PolyResponse: Conversational Search ::: Index of Responses 
The Yelp dataset is used at inference time to provide text and photo candidates to display to the user at each step in the conversation  Our restaurant search is currently deployed separately for each city, and we limit the responses to a given city  For instance, for our English system for Edinburgh we work with 396 restaurants, 4,225 photos (these include additional photos obtained using the Google Places API without captions), 6,725 responses created from the structured information about restaurants that Yelp provides, converted using simple templates to sentences of the form such as “Restaurant X accepts credit cards ”, 125,830 sentences extracted from online reviews 
PolyResponse: Conversational Search ::: PolyResponse in a Nutshell 
The system jointly trains two encoding functions (with shared word embeddings) $f(context)$ and $g(reply)$ which produce encodings $h_c$ and $h_r$, so that the similarity $S(c,r)$ is high for all $(c,r)$ pairs from the Reddit training data and low for random pairs  The encoding function $g()$ is then frozen, and an encoding function $t(photo)$ is learnt which makes the similarity between a photo and its associated caption high for all (photo, caption) pairs from the Yelp dataset, and low for random pairs  $t$ is a CNN pretrained on ImageNet, with a shallow one-layer DNN on top  Given a new context/query, we then provide its encoding $h_c$ by applying $f()$, and find plausible text replies and photo responses according to functions $g()$ and $t()$, respectively  These should be responses that look like answers to the query, and photos that look like they would have captions that would be answers to the provided query 
At inference, finding relevant candidates given a context reduces to computing $h_c$ for the context $c$ , and finding nearby $h_r$ and $h_p$ vectors  The response vectors can all be pre-computed, and the nearest neighbour search can be further optimised using standard libraries such as Faiss BIBREF19 or approximate nearest neighbour retrieval BIBREF20, giving an efficient search that scales to billions of candidate responses 
The system offers both voice and text input and output  Speech-to-text and text-to-speech conversion in the PolyResponse system is currently supported by the off-the-shelf Google Cloud tools 
Dialogue Flow
The ranking model lends itself to the one-shot task of finding the most relevant responses in a given context  However, a restaurant-browsing system needs to support a dialogue flow where the user finds a restaurant, and then asks questions about it  The dialogue state for each search scenario is represented as the set of restaurants that are considered relevant  This starts off as all the restaurants in the given city, and is assumed to monotonically decrease in size as the conversation progresses until the user converges to a single restaurant  A restaurant is only considered valid in the context of a new user input if it has relevant responses corresponding to it  This flow is summarised here:
S1  Initialise $R$ as the set of all restaurants in the city  Given the user's input, rank all the responses in the response pool pertaining to restaurants in $R$ 
S2  Retrieve the top $N$ responses $r_1, r_2, \ldots , r_N$ with corresponding (sorted) cosine similarity scores: $s_1 \ge s_2 \ge \ldots \ge s_N$ 
S3  Compute probability scores $p_i \propto \exp (a \cdot s_i)$ with $\sum _{i=1}^N p_i$, where $a>0$ is a tunable constant 
S4  Compute a score $q_e$ for each restaurant/entity $e \in R$, $q_e = \sum _{i: r_i \in e} p_i$ 
S5  Update $R$ to the smallest set of restaurants with highest $q$ whose $q$-values sum up to more than a predefined threshold $t$ 
S6  Display the most relevant responses associated with the updated $R$, and return to S2 
If there are multiple relevant restaurants, one response is shown from each  When only one restaurant is relevant, the top $N$ responses are all shown, and relevant photos are also displayed  The system does not require dedicated understanding, decision-making, and generation modules, and this dialogue flow does not rely on explicit task-tailored semantics  The set of relevant restaurants is kept internally while the system narrows it down across multiple dialogue turns  A simple set of predefined rules is used to provide a templatic spoken system response: e g , an example rule is “One review of $e$ said $r$”, where $e$ refers to the restaurant, and $r$ to a relevant response associated with $e$  Note that while the demo is currently focused on the restaurant search task, the described “narrowing down” dialogue flow is generic and applicable to a variety of applications dealing with similar entity search 
The system can use a set of intent classifiers to allow resetting the dialogue state, or to activate the separate restaurant booking dialogue flow  These classifiers are briefly discussed in §SECREF4 
Other Functionality ::: Multilinguality 
The PolyResponse restaurant search is currently available in 8 languages and for 8 cities around the world: English (Edinburgh), German (Berlin), Spanish (Madrid), Mandarin (Taipei), Polish (Warsaw), Russian (Moscow), Korean (Seoul), and Serbian (Belgrade)  Selected snapshots are shown in Figure FIGREF16, while we also provide videos demonstrating the use and behaviour of the systems at: https://tinyurl com/y3evkcfz  A simple MT-based translate-to-source approach at inference time is currently used to enable the deployment of the system in other languages: 1) the pool of responses in each language is translated to English by Google Translate beforehand, and pre-computed encodings of their English translations are used as representations of each foreign language response; 2) a provided user utterance (i e , context) is translated to English on-the-fly and its encoding $h_c$ is then learned  We plan to experiment with more sophisticated multilingual models in future work 
Other Functionality ::: Voice-Controlled Menu Search 
An additional functionality enables the user to get parts of the restaurant menu relevant to the current user utterance as responses  This is achieved by performing an additional ranking step of available menu items and retrieving the ones that are semantically relevant to the user utterance using exactly the same methodology as with ranking other responses  An example of this functionality is shown in Figure FIGREF21 
Other Functionality ::: Resetting and Switching to Booking 
The restaurant search system needs to support the discrete actions of restarting the conversation (i e , resetting the set $R$), and should enable transferring to the slot-based table booking flow  This is achieved using two binary intent classifiers, that are run at each step in the dialogue  These classifiers make use of the already-computed $h_c$ vector that represents the user's latest text  A single-layer neural net is learned on top of the 512-dimensional encoding, with a ReLU activation and 100 hidden nodes  To train the classifiers, sets of 20 relevant paraphrases (e g , “Start again”) are provided as positive examples  Finally, when the system successfully switches to the booking scenario, it proceeds to the slot filling task: it aims to extract all the relevant booking information from the user (e g , date, time, number of people to dine)  The entire flow of the system illustrating both the search phase and the booking phase is provided as the supplemental video material 
Conclusion and Future Work
This paper has presented a general approach to search-based dialogue that does not rely on explicit semantic representations such as dialogue acts or slot-value ontologies, and allows for multi-modal responses  In future work, we will extend the current demo system to more tasks and languages, and work with more sophisticated encoders and ranking functions  Besides the initial dialogue flow from this work (§SECREF3), we will also work with more complex flows dealing, e g , with user intent shifts 
Context 3:  Each word is attributable to one of the document's topics $Z=\left\lbrace  z_{i1},z_{i2},   ,z_{iK}\right\rbrace $ and $K$ is the number of topics  $\psi _{k}$ is a multinomial distribution over words for topic $k$   $\theta _i$ is another multinomial distribution over topics for document $i$   The smoothed generative model is illustrated in Figure  2   $\alpha $ and $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $0 are hyper parameter that affect scarcity of the document-topic and topic-word distributions  In this paper, $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $1 , $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $2 and $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $3 are empirically set to 0 3, 0 01 and 15  The entire content of each Twitter user is regarded as one document  We adopt Gibbs Sampling BIBREF8 to speed up the inference of LDA  Based on LDA, we can get the topic probabilities for all users in the employed dataset as: $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $4 , where $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $5 is the number of users  Each element $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $6 is a topic probability vector for the $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $7 document  $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $8 is the raw topic probability vector and our features are developed on top of it 
Topic-based Features
Using the LDA model, each person in the dataset is with a topic probability vector $X_i$   Assume $x_{ik}\in X_{i}$ denotes the likelihood that the $\emph {i}^{th}$ tweet account favors $\emph {k}^{th}$ topic in the dataset  Our topic based features can be calculated as below 
Global Outlier Standard Score measures the degree that a user's tweet content is related to a certain topic compared to the other users  Specifically, the "GOSS" score of user $i$ on topic $k$ can be calculated as Eq ( 12 ):
$$\centering \begin{array}{ll} \mu \left(x_{k}\right)=\frac{\sum _{i=1}^{n} x_{ik}}{n},\\ GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)=\frac{x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_k\right)}{\sqrt{\underset{i}{\sum }\left(x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_{k}\right)\right)^{2}}}  \end{array}$$   (Eq  12)
The value of $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ indicates the interesting degree of this person to the $\emph {k}^{th}$ topic  Specifically, if $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ > $GOSS\left(x_{jk}\right)$ , it means that the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person has more interest in topic $k$ than the $\emph {j}^{th}$ person  If the value $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ is extremely high or low, the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person showing extreme interest or no interest on topic $k$ which will probably be a distinctive pattern in the fowllowing classfication  Therefore, the topics interested or disliked by the $\emph {k}^{th}$0 person can be manifested by $\emph {k}^{th}$1 , from which the pattern of the interested topics with regarding to this person is found  Denote $\emph {k}^{th}$2 our first topic-based feature, and it hopefully can get good performance on spammer detection 
Local Outlier Standard Score measures the degree of interest someone shows to a certain topic by considering his own homepage content only  For instance, the "LOSS" score of account $i$ on topic $k$ can be calculated as Eq ( 13 ):
$$\centering \begin{array}{ll} \mu \left(x_{i}\right)=\frac{\sum _{k=1}^{K} x_{ik}}{K},\\ LOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)=\frac{x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_i\right)}{\sqrt{\underset{k}{\sum }\left(x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_{i}\right)\right)^{2}}}

ground_truth: No

No

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. LDA is an unsupervised method; is this paper introducing an unsupervised approach to spam detection?
Context 3:  \end{array}$$   (Eq  13)
$\mu (x_i)$ represents the averaged interesting degree for all topics with regarding to $\emph {i}^{th}$ user and his tweet content  Similarly to $GOSS$ , the topics interested or disliked by the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person via considering his single post information can be manifested by $f_{LOSS}^{i}=[LOSS(x_{i1})\cdots LOSS(x_{iK})]$ , and $LOSS$ becomes our second topic-based features for the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person 
Dataset
We use one public dataset Social Honeypot dataset and one self-collected dataset Weibo dataset to validate the effectiveness of our proposed features 
Social Honeypot Dataset: Lee et al  lee2010devils created and deployed 60 seed social accounts on Twitter to attract spammers by reporting back what accounts interact with them  They collected 19,276 legitimate users and 22,223 spammers in their datasets along with their tweet content in 7 months  This is our first test dataset 
Our Weibo Dataset: Sina Weibo is one of the most famous social platforms in China  It has implemented many features from Twitter  The 2197 legitimate user accounts in this dataset are provided by the Tianchi Competition held by Sina Weibo  The spammers are all purchased commercially from multiple vendors on the Internet  We checked them manually and collected 802 suitable "smart" spammers accounts 
Preprocessing: Before directly performing the experiments on the employed datasets, we first delete some accounts with few posts in the two employed since the number of tweets is highly indicative of spammers  For the English Honeypot dataset, we remove stopwords, punctuations, non-ASCII words and apply stemming  For the Chinese Weibo dataset, we perform segmentation with "Jieba", a Chinese text segmentation tool  After preprocessing steps, the Weibo dataset contains 2197 legitimate users and 802 spammers, and the honeypot dataset contains 2218 legitimate users and 2947 spammers  It is worth mentioning that the Honeypot dataset has been slashed because most of the Twitter accounts only have limited number of posts, which are not enough to show their interest inclination 
Evaluation Metrics
The evaluating indicators in our model are show in 2   We calculate precision, recall and F1-score (i e  F1 score) as in Eq  ( 19 )  Precision is the ratio of selected accounts that are spammers  Recall is the ratio of spammers that are detected so  F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall 
$$precision =\frac{TP}{TP+FP}, recall =\frac{TP}{TP+FN}\nonumber \\ F1-score = \frac{2\times precision \times recall}{precision + recall}$$   (Eq  19)
Performance Comparisons with Baseline
Three baseline classification methods: Support Vector Machines (SVM), Adaboost, and Random Forests are adopted to evaluate our extracted features  We test each classification algorithm with scikit-learn BIBREF9 and run a 10-fold cross validation  On each dataset, the employed classifiers are trained with individual feature first, and then with the combination of the two features  From 1 , we can see that GOSS+LOSS achieves the best performance on F1-score among all others  Besides, the classification by combination of LOSS and GOSS can increase accuracy by more than 3% compared with raw topic distribution probability 
Comparison with Other Features
To compare our extracted features with previously used features for spammer detection, we use three most discriminative feature sets according to Lee et al  lee2011seven( 4 )  Two classifiers (Adaboost and SVM) are selected to conduct feature performance comparisons  Using Adaboost, our LOSS+GOSS features outperform all other features except for UFN which is 2% higher than ours with regard to precision on the Honeypot dataset  It is caused by the incorrectly classified spammers who are mostly news source after our manual check  They keep posting all kinds of news pieces covering diverse topics, which is similar to the behavior of fake accounts  However, UFN based on friendship networks is more useful for public accounts who possess large number of followers  The best recall value of our LOSS+GOSS features using SVM is up to 6% higher than the results by other feature groups  Regarding F1-score, our features outperform all other features  To further show the advantages of our proposed features, we compare our combined LOSS+GOSS with the combination of all the features from Lee et al  lee2011seven (UFN+UC+UH)  It's obvious that LOSS+GOSS have a great advantage over UFN+UC+UH in terms of recall and F1-score  Moreover, by combining our LOSS+GOSS features and UFN+UC+UH features together, we obtained another 7 1% and 2 3% performance gain with regard to precision and F1-score by Adaboost  Though there is a slight decline in terms of recall  By SVM, we get comparative results on recall and F1-score but about 3 5% improvement on precision 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a novel feature extraction method to effectively detect "smart" spammers who post seemingly legitimate tweets and are thus difficult to identify by existing spammer classification methods  Using the LDA model, we obtain the topic probability for each Twitter user  By utilizing the topic probability result, we extract our two topic-based features: GOSS and LOSS which represent the account with global and local information  Experimental results on a public dataset and a self-built Chinese microblog dataset validate the effectiveness of the proposed features 
Future Work
In future work, the combination method of local and global information can be further improved to maximize their individual strengths  We will also apply decision theory to enhancing the performance of our proposed features  Moreover, we are also building larger datasets on both Twitter and Weibo to validate our method  Moreover, larger datasets on both Twitter and Weibo will be built to further validate our method 

ground_truth: No

No