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 is the improvement in performance for Estonian in the NER task?
Context 1: Introduction
Word embeddings are representations of words in numerical form, as vectors of typically several hundred dimensions  The vectors are used as an input to machine learning models; for complex language processing tasks these are typically deep neural networks  The embedding vectors are obtained from specialized learning tasks, based on neural networks, e g , word2vec BIBREF0, GloVe BIBREF1, FastText BIBREF2, ELMo BIBREF3, and BERT BIBREF4  For training, the embeddings algorithms use large monolingual corpora that encode important information about word meaning as distances between vectors  In order to enable downstream machine learning on text understanding tasks, the embeddings shall preserve semantic relations between words, and this is true even across languages 
Probably the best known word embeddings are produced by the word2vec method BIBREF5  The problem with word2vec embeddings is their failure to express polysemous words  During training of an embedding, all senses of a given word (e g , paper as a material, as a newspaper, as a scientific work, and as an exam) contribute relevant information in proportion to their frequency in the training corpus  This causes the final vector to be placed somewhere in the weighted middle of all words' meanings  Consequently, rare meanings of words are poorly expressed with word2vec and the resulting vectors do not offer good semantic representations  For example, none of the 50 closest vectors of the word paper is related to science 
The idea of contextual embeddings is to generate a different vector for each context a word appears in and the context is typically defined sentence-wise  To a large extent, this solves the problems with word polysemy, i e  the context of a sentence is typically enough to disambiguate different meanings of a word for humans and so it is for the learning algorithms  In this work, we describe high-quality models for contextual embeddings, called ELMo BIBREF3, precomputed for seven morphologically rich, less-resourced languages: Slovenian, Croatian, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Swedish  ELMo is one of the most successful approaches to contextual word embeddings  At time of its creation, ELMo has been shown to outperform previous word embeddings BIBREF3 like word2vec and GloVe on many NLP tasks, e g , question answering, named entity extraction, sentiment analysis, textual entailment, semantic role labeling, and coreference resolution 
This report is split into further five sections  In section SECREF2, we describe the contextual embeddings ELMo  In Section SECREF3, we describe the datasets used and in Section SECREF4 we describe preprocessing and training of the embeddings  We describe the methodology for evaluation of created vectors and results in Section SECREF5  We present conclusion in Section SECREF6 where we also outline plans for further work 
ELMo
Typical word embeddings models or representations, such as word2vec BIBREF0, GloVe BIBREF1, or FastText BIBREF2, are fast to train and have been pre-trained for a number of different languages  They do not capture the context, though, so each word is always given the same vector, regardless of its context or meaning  This is especially problematic for polysemous words  ELMo (Embeddings from Language Models) embedding BIBREF3 is one of the state-of-the-art pretrained transfer learning models, that remedies the problem and introduces a contextual component 
ELMo model`s architecture consists of three neural network layers  The output of the model after each layer gives one set of embeddings, altogether three sets  The first layer is a CNN layer, which operates on a character level  It is context independent, so each word always gets the same embedding, regardless of its context  It is followed by two biLM layers  A biLM layer consists of two concatenated LSTMs  In the first LSTM, we try to predict the following word, based on the given past words, where each word is represented by the embeddings from the CNN layer  In the second LSTM, we try to predict the preceding word, based on the given following words  It is equivalent to the first LSTM, just reading the text in reverse 
In NLP tasks, any set of these embeddings may be used; however, a weighted average is usually used  The weights of the average are learned during the training of the model for the specific task  Additionally, an entire ELMo model can be fine-tuned on a specific end task 
Although ELMo is trained on character level and is able to handle out-of-vocabulary words, a vocabulary file containing most common tokens is used for efficiency during training and embedding generation  The original ELMo model was trained on a one billion word large English corpus, with a given vocabulary file of about 800,000 words  Later, ELMo models for other languages were trained as well, but limited to larger languages with many resources, like German and Japanese 
ELMo ::: ELMoForManyLangs
Recently, ELMoForManyLangs BIBREF6 project released pre-trained ELMo models for a number of different languages BIBREF7  These models, however, were trained on a significantly smaller datasets  They used 20-million-words data randomly sampled from the raw text released by the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task - Automatically Annotated Raw Texts and Word Embeddings BIBREF8, which is a combination of Wikipedia dump and common crawl  The quality of these models is questionable  For example, we compared the Latvian model by ELMoForManyLangs with a model we trained on a complete (wikidump + common crawl) Latvian corpus, which has about 280 million tokens  The difference of each model on the word analogy task is shown in Figure FIGREF16 in Section SECREF5  As the results of the ELMoForManyLangs embeddings are significantly worse than using the full corpus, we can conclude that these embeddings are not of sufficient quality  For that reason, we computed ELMo embeddings for seven languages on much larger corpora  As this effort requires access to large amount of textual data and considerable computational resources, we made the precomputed models publicly available by depositing them to Clarin repository 
Training Data
We trained ELMo models for seven languages: Slovenian, Croatian, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Swedish  To obtain high-quality embeddings, we used large monolingual corpora from various sources for each language  Some corpora are available online under permissive licences, others are available only for research purposes or have limited availability  The corpora used in training datasets are a mix of news articles and general web crawl, which we preprocessed and deduplicated  Below we shortly describe the used corpora in alphabetical order of the involved languages  Their names and sizes are summarized in Table TABREF3 
Croatian dataset include hrWaC 2 1 corpus BIBREF9, Riznica BIBREF10, and articles of Croatian branch of Styria media house, made available to us through partnership in a joint project  hrWaC was built by crawling the  hr internet domain in 2011 and 2014  Riznica is composed of Croatian fiction and non-fiction prose, poetry, drama, textbooks, manuals, etc  The Styria dataset consists of 570,219 news articles published on the Croatian 24sata news portal and niche portals related to 24sata 
Estonian dataset contains texts from two sources, CoNLL 2017 Shared Task - Automatically Annotated Raw Texts and Word Embeddings BIBREF8, and news articles made available to us by Ekspress Meedia due to partnership in the project  Ekspress Meedia dataset is composed of Estonian news articles between years 2009 and 2019  The CoNLL 2017 corpus is composed of Estonian Wikipedia and webcrawl 
Finnish dataset contains articles by Finnish news agency STT, Finnish part of the CoNLL 2017 dataset, and Ylilauta downloadable version BIBREF11  STT news articles were published between years 1992 and 2018  Ylilauta is a Finnish online discussion board; the corpus contains parts of the discussions from 2012 to 2014 
Latvian dataset consists only of the Latvian portion of the ConLL 2017 corpus 
Lithuanian dataset is composed of Lithuanian Wikipedia articles from 2018, DGT-UD corpus, and LtTenTen  DGT-UD is a parallel corpus of 23 official languages of the EU, composed of JRC DGT translation memory of European law, automatically annotated with UD-Pipe 1 2  LtTenTen is Lithuanian web corpus made up of texts collected from the internet in April 2014 BIBREF12 
Slovene dataset is formed from the Gigafida 2 0 corpus BIBREF13  It is a general language corpus composed of various sources, mostly newspapers, internet pages, and magazines, but also fiction and non-fiction prose, textbooks, etc 
Swedish dataset is composed of STT Swedish articles and Swedish part of CoNLL 2017  The Finnish news agency STT publishes some of its articles in Swedish language  They were made available to us through partnership in a joint project  The corpus contains those articles from 1992 to 2017 
Preprocessing and Training
Prior to training the ELMo models, we sentence and word tokenized all the datasets  The text was formatted in such a way that each sentence was in its own line with tokens separated by white spaces  CoNLL 2017, DGT-UD and LtTenTen14 corpora were already pre-tokenized  We tokenized the others using the NLTK library and its tokenizers for each of the languages  There is no tokenizer for Croatian in NLTK library, so we used Slovene tokenizer instead  After tokenization, we deduplicated the datasets for each language separately, using the Onion (ONe Instance ONly) tool for text deduplication  We applied the tool on paragraph level for corpora that did not have sentences shuffled and on sentence level for the rest  We considered 9-grams with duplicate content threshold of 0 9 
For each language we prepared a vocabulary file, containing roughly one million most common tokens, i e  tokens that appear at least $n$ times in the corpus, where $n$ is between 15 and 25, depending on the dataset size  We included the punctuation marks among the tokens  We trained each ELMo model using default values used to train the original English ELMo (large) model 
Evaluation
We evaluated the produced ELMo models for all languages using two evaluation tasks: a word analogy task and named entity recognition (NER) task  Below, we first shortly describe each task, followed by the evaluation results 
Evaluation ::: Word Analogy Task
The word analogy task was popularized by mikolov2013distributed  The goal is to find a term $y$ for a given term $x$ so that the relationship between $x$ and $y$ best resembles the given relationship $a : b$  There are two main groups of categories: 5 semantic and 10 syntactic  To illustrate a semantic relationship, consider for example that the word pair $a : b$ is given as “Finland : Helsinki”  The task is to find the term $y$ corresponding to the relationship “Sweden : $y$”, with the expected answer being $y=$ Stockholm  In syntactic categories, the two words in a pair have a common stem (in some cases even same lemma), with all the pairs in a given category having the same morphological relationship  For example, given the word pair “long : longer”, we see that we have an adjective in its base form and the same adjective in a comparative form  That task is then to find the term $y$ corresponding to the relationship “dark : $y$”, with the expected answer being $y=$ darker, that is a comparative form of the adjective dark 
In the vector space, the analogy task is transformed into vector arithmetic and search for nearest neighbours, i e  we compute the distance between vectors: d(vec(Finland), vec(Helsinki)) and search for word $y$ which would give the closest result in distance d(vec(Sweden), vec($y$))  In the analogy dataset the analogies are already pre-specified, so we are measuring how close are the given pairs  In the evaluation below, we use analogy datasets for all tested languages based on the English dataset by BIBREF14   Due to English-centered bias of this dataset, we used a modified dataset which was first written in Slovene language and then translated into other languages BIBREF15 
As each instance of analogy contains only four words, without any context, the contextual models (such as ELMo) do not have enough context to generate sensible embeddings  We therefore used some additional text to form simple sentences using the four analogy words, while taking care that their noun case stays the same  For example, for the words "Rome", "Italy", "Paris" and "France" (forming the analogy Rome is to Italy as Paris is to $x$, where the correct answer is $x=$France), we formed the sentence "If the word Rome corresponds to the word Italy, then the word Paris corresponds to the word France"  We generated embeddings for those four words in the constructed sentence, substituted the last word with each word in our vocabulary and generated the embeddings again  As typical for non-contextual analogy task, we measure the cosine distance ($d$) between the last word ($w_4$) and the combination of the first three words ($w_2-w_1+w_3$)  We use the CSLS metric BIBREF16 to find the closest candidate word ($w_4$)  If we find the correct word among the five closest words, we consider that entry as successfully identified  The proportion of correctly identified words forms a statistic called accuracy@5, which we report as the result 
We first compare existing Latvian ELMo embeddings from ELMoForManyLangs project with our Latvian embeddings, followed by the detailed analysis of our ELMo embeddings  We trained Latvian ELMo using only CoNLL 2017 corpora  Since this is the only language, where we trained the embedding model on exactly the same corpora as ELMoForManyLangs models, we chose it for comparison between our ELMo model with ELMoForManyLangs  In other languages, additional or other corpora were used, so a direct comparison would also reflect the quality of the corpora used for training  In Latvian, however, only the size of the training dataset is different  ELMoForManyLangs uses only 20 million tokens and we use the whole corpus of 270 million tokens 
The Latvian ELMo model from ELMoForManyLangs project performs significantly worse than EMBEDDIA ELMo Latvian model on all categories of word analogy task (Figure FIGREF16)  We also include the comparison with our Estonian ELMo embeddings in the same figure  This comparison shows that while differences between our Latvian and Estonian embeddings can be significant for certain categories, the accuracy score of ELMoForManyLangs is always worse than either of our models  The comparison of Estonian and Latvian models leads us to believe that a few hundred million tokens is a sufficiently large corpus to train ELMo models (at least for word analogy task), but 20-million token corpora used in ELMoForManyLangs are too small 
The results for all languages and all ELMo layers, averaged over semantic and syntactic categories, are shown in Table TABREF17  The embeddings after the first LSTM layer perform best in semantic categories  In syntactic categories, the non-contextual CNN layer performs the best  Syntactic categories are less context dependent and much more morphology and syntax based, so it is not surprising that the non-contextual layer performs well  The second LSTM layer embeddings perform the worst in syntactic categories, though still outperforming CNN layer embeddings in semantic categories  Latvian ELMo performs worse compared to other languages we trained, especially in semantic categories, presumably due to smaller training data size  Surprisingly, the original English ELMo performs very poorly in syntactic categories and only outperforms Latvian in semantic categories  The low score can be partially explained by English model scoring $0 00$ in one syntactic category “opposite adjective”, which we have not been able to explain 
Evaluation ::: Named Entity Recognition
For evaluation of ELMo models on a relevant downstream task, we used named entity recognition (NER) task  NER is an information extraction task that seeks to locate and classify named entity mentions in unstructured text into pre-defined categories such as the person names, organizations, locations, medical codes, time expressions, quantities, monetary values, percentages, etc  To allow comparison of results between languages, we used an adapted version of this task, which uses a reduced set of labels, available in NER datasets for all processed languages  The labels in the used NER datasets are simplified to a common label set of three labels (person - PER, location - LOC, organization - ORG)  Each word in the NER dataset is labeled with one of the three mentioned labels or a label 'O' (other, i e  not a named entity) if it does not fit any of the other three labels  The number of words having each label is shown in Table TABREF19 
To measure the performance of ELMo embeddings on the NER task we proceeded as follows  We embedded the text in the datasets sentence by sentence, producing three vectors (one from each ELMo layer) for each token in a sentence  We calculated the average of the three vectors and used it as the input of our recognition model  The input layer was followed by a single LSTM layer with 128 LSTM cells and a dropout layer, randomly dropping 10% of the neurons on both the output and the recurrent branch  The final layer of our model was a time distributed softmax layer with 4 neurons 
We used ADAM optimiser BIBREF17 with the learning rate 0 01 and $10^{-5}$ learning rate decay  We used categorical cross-entropy as a loss function and trained the model for 3 epochs  We present the results using the Macro $F_1$ score, that is the average of $F_1$-scores for each of the three NE classes (the class Other is excluded) 
Since the differences between the tested languages depend more on the properties of the NER datasets than on the quality of embeddings, we can not directly compare ELMo models  For this reason, we take the non-contextual fastText embeddings as a baseline and predict named entities using them  The architecture of the model using fastText embeddings is the same as the one using ELMo embeddings, except that the input uses 300 dimensional fastText embedding vectors, and the model was trained for 5 epochs (instead of 3 as for ELMo)  In both cases (ELMo and fastText) we trained and evaluated the model five times, because there is some random component involved in initialization of the neural network model  By training and evaluating multiple times, we minimise this random component 
The results are presented in Table TABREF21  We included the evaluation of the original ELMo English model in the same table  NER models have little difficulty distinguishing between types of named entities, but recognizing whether a word is a named entity or not is more difficult  For languages with the smallest NER datasets, Croatian and Lithuanian, ELMo embeddings show the largest improvement over fastText embeddings  However, we can observe significant improvements with ELMo also on English and Finnish, which are among the largest datasets (English being by far the largest)  Only on Slovenian dataset did ELMo perform slightly worse than fastText, on all other EMBEDDIA languages, the ELMo embeddings improve the results 
Conclusion
We prepared precomputed ELMo contextual embeddings for seven languages: Croatian, Estonian, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Slovenian, and Swedish  We present the necessary background on embeddings and contextual embeddings, the details of training the embedding models, and their evaluation  We show that the size of used training sets importantly affects the quality of produced embeddings, and therefore the existing publicly available ELMo embeddings for the processed languages are inadequate  We trained new ELMo embeddings on larger training sets and analysed their properties on the analogy task and on the NER task  The results show that the newly produced contextual embeddings produce substantially better results compared to the non-contextual fastText baseline  In future work, we plan to use the produced contextual embeddings on the problems of news media industry  The pretrained ELMo models will be deposited to the CLARIN repository by the time of the final version of this paper 
Acknowledgments
The work was partially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) core research programme P6-0411  This paper is supported by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 825153, project EMBEDDIA (Cross-Lingual Embeddings for Less-Represented Languages in European News Media)  The results of this publication reflects only the authors' view and the EU Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains 
Context 2: Introduction
Users of photo-sharing websites such as Flickr often provide short textual descriptions in the form of tags to help others find the images  With the availability of GPS systems in current electronic devices such as smartphones, latitude and longitude coordinates are nowadays commonly made available as well  The tags associated with such georeferenced photos often describe the location where these photos were taken, and Flickr can thus be regarded as a source of environmental information  The use of Flickr for modelling urban environments has already received considerable attention  For instance, various approaches have been proposed for modelling urban regions BIBREF0 , and for identifying points-of-interest BIBREF1 and itineraries BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   However, the usefulness of Flickr for characterizing the natural environment, which is the focus of this paper, is less well-understood 
Many recent studies have highlighted that Flickr tags capture valuable ecological information, which can be used as a complementary source to more traditional sources  To date, however, ecologists have mostly used social media to conduct manual evaluations of image content with little automated exploitation of the associated tags BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6   One recent exception is BIBREF7 , where bag-of-words representations derived from Flickr tags were found to give promising result for predicting a range of different environemental phenomena 
Our main hypothesis in this paper is that by using vector space embeddings instead of bag-of-words representations, the ecological information which is implicitly captured by Flickr tags can be utilized in a more effective way  Vector space embeddings are representations in which the objects from a given domain are encoded using relatively low-dimensional vectors  They have proven useful in natural language processing, especially for encoding word meaning BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , and in machine learning more generally  In this paper, we are interested in the use of such representations for modelling geographic locations  Our main motivation for using vector space embeddings is that they allow us to integrate the textual information we get from Flickr with available structured information in a very natural way  To this end, we rely on an adaptation of the GloVe word embedding model BIBREF9 , but rather than learning word vectors, we learn vectors representing locations  Similar to how the representation of a word in GloVe is determined by the context words surrounding it, the representation of a location in our model is determined by the tags of the photos that have been taken near that location  To incorporate numerical features from structured environmental datasets (e g  average temperature), we associate with each such feature a linear mapping that can be used to predict that feature from a given location vector  This is inspired by the fact that salient properties of a given domain can often be modelled as directions in vector space embeddings BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12   Finally, evidence from categorical datasets (e g  land cover types) is taken into account by requiring that locations belonging to the same category are represented using similar vectors, similar to how semantic types are sometimes modelled in the context of knowledge graph embedding BIBREF13  
While our point-of-departure is a standard word embedding model, we found that the off-the-shelf GloVe model performed surprisingly poorly, meaning that a number of modifications are needed to achieve good results  Our main findings are as follows  First, given that the number of tags associated with a given location can be quite small, it is important to apply some kind of spatial smoothing, i e  the importance of a given tag for a given location should not only depend on the occurrences of the tag at that location, but also on its occurrences at nearby locations  To this end, we use a formulation which is based on spatially smoothed version of pointwise mutual information  Second, given the wide diversity in the kind of information that is covered by Flickr tags, we find that term selection is in some cases critical to obtain vector spaces that capture the relevant aspects of geographic locations  For instance, many tags on Flickr refer to photography related terms, which we would normally not want to affect the vector representation of a given location  Finally, even with these modifications, vector space embeddings learned from Flickr tags alone are sometimes outperformed by bag-of-words representations  However, our vector space embeddings lead to substantially better predictions in cases where structured (scientific) information is also taken into account  In this sense, the main value of using vector space embeddings in this context is not so much about abstracting away from specific tag usages, but rather about the fact that such representations allow us to integrate numerical and categorical features in a much more natural way than is possible with bag-of-words representations 
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows  In the next section, we provide a discussion of existing work  Section SECREF3 then presents our model for embedding geographic locations from Flickr tags and structured data  Next, in Section SECREF4 we provide a detailed discussion about the experimental results  Finally, Section SECREF5 summarizes our conclusions 
Vector space embeddings
The use of low-dimensional vector space embeddings for representing objects has already proven effective in a large number of applications, including natural language processing (NLP), image processing, and pattern recognition  In the context of NLP, the most prominent example is that of word embeddings, which represent word meaning using vectors of typically around 300 dimensions  A large number of different methods for learning such word embeddings have already been proposed, including Skip-gram and the Continuous Bag-of-Words (CBOW) model BIBREF8 , GloVe BIBREF9 , and fastText BIBREF14   They have been applied effectively in many downstream NLP tasks such as sentiment analysis BIBREF15 , part of speech tagging BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , and text classification BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   The model we consider in this paper builds on GloVe, which was designed to capture linear regularities of word-word co-occurrence  In GloVe, there are two word vectors INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 for each word in the vocabulary, which are learned by minimizing the following objective: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the number of times that word INLINEFORM1 appears in the context of word INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 is the vocabulary size, INLINEFORM4 is the target word bias, INLINEFORM5 is the context word bias  The weighting function INLINEFORM6 is used to limit the impact of rare terms  It is defined as 1 if INLINEFORM7 and as INLINEFORM8 otherwise, where INLINEFORM9 is usually fixed to 100 and INLINEFORM10 to 0 75  Intuitively, the target word vectors INLINEFORM11 correspond to the actual word representations which we would like to find, while the context word vectors INLINEFORM12 model how occurrences of INLINEFORM13 in the context of a given word INLINEFORM14 affect the representation of this latter word  In this paper we will use a similar model, which will however be aimed at learning location vectors instead of the target word vectors 
Beyond word embeddings, various methods have been proposed for learning vector space representations from structured data such as knowledge graphs BIBREF20 , BIBREF21 , BIBREF22 , social networks BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 and taxonomies BIBREF25 , BIBREF26   The idea of combining a word embedding model with structured information has also been explored by several authors, for example to improve the word embeddings based on information coming from knowledge graphs BIBREF27 , BIBREF28   Along similar lines, various lexicons have been used to obtain word embeddings that are better suited at modelling sentiment BIBREF15 and antonymy BIBREF29 , among others  The method proposed by BIBREF30 imposes the condition that words that belong to the same semantic category are closer together than words from different categories, which is somewhat similar in spirit to how we will model categorical datasets in our model 
Embeddings for geographic information
The problem of representing geographic locations using embeddings has also attracted some attention  An early example is BIBREF31 , which used principal component analysis and stacked autoencoders to learn low-dimensional vector representations of city neighbourhoods based on census data  They use these representations to predict attributes such as crime, which is not included in the given census data, and find that in most of the considered evaluation tasks, the low-dimensional vector representations lead to more faithful predictions than the original high-dimensional census data 
Some existing works combine word embedding models with geographic coordinates  For example, in BIBREF32 an approach is proposed to learn word embeddings based on the assumption that words which tend to be used in the same geographic locations are likely to be similar  Note that their aim is dual to our aim in this paper: while they use geographic location to learn word vectors, we use textual descriptions to learn vectors representing geographic locations 
Several methods also use word embedding models to learn representations of Points-of-Interest (POIs) that can be used for predicting user visits BIBREF33 , BIBREF34 , BIBREF35   These works use the machinery of existing word embedding models to learn POI representations, intuitively by letting sequences of POI visits by a user play the role of sequences of words in a sentence  In other words, despite the use of word embedding models, many of these approaches do not actually consider any textual information  For example, in BIBREF34 the Skip-gram model is utilized to create a global pattern of users' POIs  Each location was treated as a word and the other locations visited before or after were treated as context words  They then use a pair-wise ranking loss BIBREF36 which takes into account the user's location visit frequency to personalize the location recommendations  The methods of BIBREF34 were extended in BIBREF35 to use a temporal embedding and to take more account of geographic context, in particular the distances between preferred and non-preferred neighboring POIs, to create a “geographically hierarchical pairwise preference ranking model”  Similarly, in BIBREF37 the CBOW model was trained with POI data  They ordered POIs spatially within the traffic-based zones of urban areas  The ordering was used to generate characteristic vectors of POI types  Zone vectors represented by averaging the vectors of the POIs contained in them, were then used as features to predict land use types  In the CrossMap method BIBREF38 they learned embeddings for spatio-temporal hotspots obtained from social media data of locations, times and text  In one form of embedding, intended to enable reconstruction of records, neighbourhood relations in space and time were encoded by averaging hotspots in a target location's spatial and temporal neighborhoods  They also proposed a graph-based embedding method with nodes of location, time and text  The concatenation of the location, time and text vectors were then used as features to predict peoples' activities in urban environments  Finally, in BIBREF39 , a method is proposed that uses the Skip-gram model to represent POI types, based on the intuition that the vector representing a given POI type should be predictive of the POI types that found near places of that type 
Our work is different from these studies, as our focus is on representing locations based on a given text description of that location (in the form of Flickr tags), along with numerical and categorical features from scientific datasets 
Analyzing Flickr tags
Many studies have focused on analyzing Flickr tags to extract useful information in domains such as linguistics BIBREF40 , geography BIBREF0 , BIBREF41 , and ecology BIBREF42 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF43   Most closely related to our work, BIBREF7 found that the tags of georeferenced Flickr photos can effectively supplement traditional scientific environmental data in tasks such as predicting climate features, land cover, species occurrence, and human assessments of scenicness  To encode locations, they simply combine a bag-of-words representation of geographically nearby tags with a feature vector that encodes associated structured scientific data  They found that the predictive value of Flickr tags is roughly on a par with that of the scientific datasets, and that combining both types of information leads to significantly better results than using either of them alone  As we show in this paper, however, their straightforward way of combining both information sources, by concatenating the two types of feature vectors, is far from optimal 
Despite the proven importance of Flickr tags, the problem of embedding Flickr tags has so far received very limited attention  To the best of our knowledge, BIBREF44 is the only work that generated embeddings for Flickr tags  However, their focus was on learning embeddings that capture word meaning (being evaluated on word similarity tasks), whereas we use such embeddings as part of our method for representing locations 
Model Description
In this section, we introduce our embedding model, which combines Flickr tags and structured scientific information to represent a set of locations INLINEFORM0   The proposed model has the following form: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are parameters to control the importance of each component in the model  Component INLINEFORM2 will be used to constrain the representation of the locations based on their textual description (i e  Flickr tags), INLINEFORM3 will be used to constrain the representation of the locations based on their numerical features, and INLINEFORM4 will impose the constraint that locations belonging to the same category should be close together in the space  We will discuss each of these components in more detail in the following sections 
Tag Based Location Embedding
Many of the tags associated with Flickr photos describe characteristics of the places where these photos were taken BIBREF45 , BIBREF46 , BIBREF47   For example, tags may correspond to place names (e g  Brussels, England, Scandinavia), landmarks (e g  Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building) or land cover types (e g  mountain, forest, beach)  To allow us to build location models using such tags, we collected the tags and meta-data of 70 million Flickr photos with coordinates in Europe (which is the region our experiments will focus on), all of which were uploaded to Flickr before the end of September 2015  In this section we first explain how tags can be weighted to obtain bag-of-words representations of locations from Flickr  Subsequently we describe a tag selection method, which will allow us to specialize the embedding depending on which aspects of the considered locations are of interest, after which we discuss the actual embedding model 
Tag weighting  Let INLINEFORM0 be a set of geographic locations, each characterized by latitude and longitude coordinates  To generate a bag-of-words representation of a given location, we have to weight the relevance of each tag to that location  To this end, we have followed the weighting scheme from BIBREF7 , which combines a Gaussian kernel (to model spatial proximity) with Positive Pointwise Mutual Information (PPMI) BIBREF48 , BIBREF49  
Let us write INLINEFORM0 for the set of users who have assigned tag INLINEFORM1 to a photo with coordinates near INLINEFORM2   To assess how relevant INLINEFORM3 is to the location INLINEFORM4 , the number of times INLINEFORM5 occurs in photos near INLINEFORM6 is clearly an important criterion  However, rather than simply counting the number of occurrences within some fixed radius, we use a Gaussian kernel to weight the tag occurrences according to their distance from that location: INLINEFORM7
where the threshold INLINEFORM0 is assumed to be fixed, INLINEFORM1 is the location of a Flickr photo, INLINEFORM2 is the Haversine distance, and we will assume that the bandwidth parameter INLINEFORM3 is set to INLINEFORM4   A tag occurrence is counted only once for all photos by the same user at the same location, which is important to reduce the impact of bulk uploading  The value INLINEFORM5 reflects how frequent tag INLINEFORM6 is near location INLINEFORM7 , but it does not yet take into account the total number of tag occurrences near INLINEFORM8 , nor how popular the tag INLINEFORM9 is overall  To measure how strongly tag INLINEFORM10 is associated with location INLINEFORM11 , we use PPMI, which is a commonly used measure of association in natural language processing  However, rather than estimating PPMI scores from term frequencies, we will use the INLINEFORM12 values instead: INLINEFORM13
where: INLINEFORM0
with INLINEFORM0 the set of all tags, and INLINEFORM1 the set of locations 
Tag selection  Inspired by BIBREF50 , we use a term selection method in order to focus on the tags that are most important for the tasks that we want to consider and reduce the impact of tags that might relate only to a given individual or a group of users  In particular, we obtained good results with a method based on Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, which is based on BIBREF51   Let INLINEFORM0 be a set of (mutually exclusive) properties of locations in which we are interested (e g  land cover categories)  For the ease of presentation, we will identify INLINEFORM1 with the set of locations that have the corresponding property  Then, we select tags from INLINEFORM2 that maximize the following score: INLINEFORM3
where INLINEFORM0 is the probability that a photo with tag INLINEFORM1 has a location near INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 is the probability that an arbitrary tag occurrence is assigned to a photo near a location in INLINEFORM4   Since INLINEFORM5 often has to be estimated from a small number of tag occurrences, it is estimated using Bayesian smoothing: INLINEFORM6
where INLINEFORM0 is a parameter controlling the amount of smoothing, which will be tuned in the experiments  On the other hand, for INLINEFORM1 we can simply use a maximum likelihood estimation: INLINEFORM2
Location embedding  We now want to find a vector INLINEFORM0 for each location INLINEFORM1 such that similar locations are represented using similar vectors  To achieve this, we use a close variant of the GloVe model, where tag occurrences are treated as context words of geographic locations  In particular, with each location INLINEFORM2 we associate a vector INLINEFORM3 and with each tag INLINEFORM4 we associate a vector INLINEFORM5 and a bias term INLINEFORM6 , and consider the following objective (which in our full model ( EQREF7 ) will be combined with components that are derived from the structured information): INLINEFORM7
Note how tags play the role of the context words in the GloVe model, while instead of learning target word vectors we now learn location vectors  In contrast to GloVe, our objective does not directly refer to co-occurrence statistics, but instead uses the INLINEFORM0 scores  One important consequence of this is that we can also consider pairs INLINEFORM1 for which INLINEFORM2 does not occur in INLINEFORM3 at all; such pairs are usually called negative examples  While they cannot be used in the standard GloVe model, some authors have already reported that introducing negative examples in variants of GloVe can lead to an improvement BIBREF52   In practice, evaluating the full objective above would not be computationally feasible, as we may need to consider millions of locations and millions of tags  Therefore, rather than considering all tags in INLINEFORM4 for the inner summation, we only consider those tags that appear at least once near location INLINEFORM5 together with a sample of negative examples 
Structured Environmental Data
There is a wide variety of structured data that can be used to describe locations  In this work, we have restricted ourselves to the same datasets as BIBREF7   These include nine (real-valued) numerical features, which are latitude, longitude, elevation, population, and five climate related features (avg  temperature, avg  precipitation, avg  solar radiation, avg  wind speed, and avg  water vapor pressure)  In addition, 180 categorical features were used, which are CORINE land cover classes at level 1 (5 classes), level 2 (15 classes) and level 3 (44 classes) and 116 soil types (SoilGrids)  Note that each location should belong to exactly 4 categories: one CORINE class at each of the three levels and a soil type 
Numerical features  Numerical features can be treated similarly to the tag occurrences, i e  we will assume that the value of a given numerical feature can be predicted from the location vectors using a linear mapping  In particular, for each numerical feature INLINEFORM0 we consider a vector INLINEFORM1 and a bias term INLINEFORM2 , and the following objective: INLINEFORM3
where we write INLINEFORM0 for set of all numerical features and INLINEFORM1 is the value of feature INLINEFORM2 for location INLINEFORM3 , after z-score normalization 
Categorical features  To take into account the categorical features, we impose the constraint that locations belonging to the same category should be close together in the space  To formalize this, we represent each category type INLINEFORM0 as a vector INLINEFORM1 , and consider the following objective: INLINEFORM2
Evaluation Tasks
We will use the method from BIBREF7 as our main baseline  This will allow us to directly evaluate the effectiveness of embeddings for the considered problem, since we have used the same structured datasets and same tag weighting scheme  For this reason, we will also follow their evaluation methodology  In particular, we will consider three evaluation tasks:
Predicting the distribution of 100 species across Europe, using the European network of nature protected sites Natura 2000 dataset as ground truth  For each of these species, a binary classification problem is considered  The set of locations INLINEFORM0 is defined as the 26,425 distinct sites occurring in the dataset 
Predicting soil type, again each time treating the task as a binary classification problem, using the same set of locations INLINEFORM0 as in the species distribution experiments  For these experiments, none of the soil type features are used for generating the embeddings 
Predicting CORINE land cover classes at levels 1, 2 and level 3, each time treating the task as a binary classification problem, using the same set of locations INLINEFORM0 as in the species distribution experiments  For these experiments, none of the CORINE features are used for generating the embeddings 
In addition, we will also consider the following regression tasks:
Predicting 5 climate related features: the average precipitation, temperature, solar radiation, water vapor pressure, and wind speed  We again use the same set of locations INLINEFORM0 as for species distribution in this experiment  None of the climate features is used for constructing the embeddings for this experiment 
Predicting people's subjective opinions of landscape beauty in Britain, using the crowdsourced dataset from the ScenicOrNot website as ground truth  The set INLINEFORM0 is chosen as the set of locations of 191 605 rated locations from the ScenicOrNot dataset for which at least one georeferenced Flickr photo exists within a 1 km radius 
Experimental Setup
In all experiments, we use Support Vector Machines (SVMs) for classification problems and Support Vector Regression (SVR) for regression problems to make predictions from our representations of geographic locations  In both cases, we used the SVM INLINEFORM0 implementation BIBREF53   For each experiment, the set of locations INLINEFORM1 was split into two-thirds for training, one-sixth for testing, and one-sixth for tuning the parameters  All embedding models are learned with Adagrad using 30 iterations  The number of dimensions is chosen for each experiment from INLINEFORM2 based on the tuning data  For the parameters of our model in Equation EQREF7 , we considered values of INLINEFORM3 from {0 1, 0 01, 0 001, 0 0001} and values of INLINEFORM4 from {1, 10, 100, 1000, 10 000, 100 000}  To compute KL divergence, we need to determine a set of classes INLINEFORM5 for each experiment  For classification problems, we can simply consider the given categories, but for the regression problems we need to define such classes by discretizing the numerical values  For the scenicness experiments, we considered scores 3 and 7 as cut-off points, leading to three classes (i e  less than 3, between 3 and 7, and above 7)  Similarly, for each climate related features, we consider two cut-off values for discretization: 5 and 15 for average temperature, 50 and 100 for average precipitation, 10 000 and 17 000 for average solar radiation, 0 7 and 1 for average water vapor pressure, and 3 and 5 for wind speed  The smoothing parameter INLINEFORM6 was selected among INLINEFORM7 based on the tuning data  In all experiments where term selection is used, we select the top 100 000 tags  We fixed the radius INLINEFORM8 at 1km when counting the number of tag occurrences  Finally, we set the number of negative examples as 10 times the number of positive examples for each location, but with a cap at 1000 negative examples in each region for computational reasons  We tune all parameters with respect to the F1 score for the classification tasks, and Spearman INLINEFORM9 for the regression tasks 
Variants and Baseline Methods
We will refer to our model as EGEL (Embedding GEographic Locations), and will consider the following variants  EGEL-Tags only uses the information from the Flickr tags (i e  component INLINEFORM0 ), without using any negative examples and without feature selection  EGEL-Tags+NS is similar to EGEL-Tags but with the addition of negative examples  EGEL-KL(Tags+NS) additionally considers term selection  EGEL-All is our full method, i e  it additionally uses the structured information  We also consider the following baselines  BOW-Tags represents locations using a bag-of-words representation, using the same tag weighting as the embedding model  BOW-KL(Tags) uses the same representation but after term selection, using the same KL-based method as the embedding model  BOW-All combines the bag-of-words representation with the structured information, encoded as proposed in BIBREF7   GloVe uses the objective from the original GloVe model for learning location vectors, i e  this variant differs from EGEL-Tags in that instead of INLINEFORM1 we use the number of co-occurrences of tag INLINEFORM2 near location INLINEFORM3 , measured as INLINEFORM4  
Results and Discussion
We present our results for the binary classification tasks in Tables TABREF23 – TABREF24 in terms of average precision, average recall and macro average F1 score  The results of the regression tasks are reported in Tables TABREF25 and TABREF29 in terms of the mean absolute error between the predicted and actual scores, as well as the Spearman INLINEFORM0 correlation between the rankings induced by both sets of scores  It can be clearly seen from the results that our proposed method (EGEL-All) can effectively integrate Flickr tags with the available structured information  It outperforms the baselines for all the considered tasks  Furthermore, note that the PPMI-based weighting in EGEL-Tags consistently outperforms GloVe and that both the addition of negative examples and term selection lead to further improvements  The use of term selection leads to particularly substantial improvements for the regression problems 
While our experimental results confirm the usefulness of embeddings for predicting environmental features, this is only consistently the case for the variants that use both the tags and the structured datasets  In particular, comparing BOW-Tags with EGEL-Tags, we sometimes see that the former achieves the best results  While this might seem surprising, it is in accordance with the findings in BIBREF54 , BIBREF38 , among others, where it was also found that bag-of-words representations can sometimes lead to surprisingly effective baselines  Interestingly, we note that in all cases where EGEL-KL(Tags+NS) performs worse than BOW-Tags, we also find that BOW-KL(Tags) performs worse than BOW-Tags  This suggests that for these tasks there is a very large variation in the kind of tags that can inform the prediction model, possibly including e g  user-specific tags  Some of the information captured by such highly specific but rare tags is likely to be lost in the embedding 
To further analyze the difference in performance between BoW representations and embeddings, Figure TABREF29 compares the performance of the GloVe model with the bag-of-words model for predicting place scenicness, as a function of the number of tag occurrences at the considered locations  What is clearly noticeable in Figure TABREF29 is that GloVe performs better than the bag-of-words model for large corpora and worse for smaller corpora  This issue has been alleviated in our embedding method by the addition of negative examples 
 Conclusions
In this paper, we have proposed a model to learn geographic location embeddings using Flickr tags, numerical environmental features, and categorical information  The experimental results show that our model can integrate Flickr tags with structured information in a more effective way than existing methods, leading to substantial improvements over baseline methods on various prediction tasks about the natural environment 
Acknowledgments
Shelan Jeawak has been sponsored by HCED Iraq  Steven Schockaert has been supported by ERC Starting Grant 637277 
Context 3: Introduction
Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has shown its effectiveness in translation tasks when NMT systems perform best in recent machine translation campaigns BIBREF0 , BIBREF1   Compared to phrase-based Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) which is basically an ensemble of different features trained and tuned separately, NMT directly modeling the translation relationship between source and target sentences  Unlike SMT, NMT does not require much linguistic information and large monolingual data to achieve good performances 
An NMT consists of an encoder which recursively reads and represents the whole source sentence into a context vector and a recurrent decoder which takes the context vector and its previous state to predict the next target word  It is then trained in an end-to-end fashion to learn parameters which maximizes the likelihood between the outputs and the references  Recently, attention-based NMT has been featured in most state-of-the-art systems  First introduced by BIBREF2 , attention mechanism is integrated in decoder side as feedforward layers  It allows the NMT to decide which source words should take part in the predicting process of the next target words  It helps to improve NMTs significantly  Nevertheless, since the attention mechanism is specific to a particular source sentence and the considering target word, it is also specific to particular language pairs 
Some recent work has focused on extending the NMT framework to multilingual scenarios  By training such network using parallel corpora in number of different languages, NMT could benefit from additional information embedded in a common semantic space across languages  Basically, the proposed NMT are required to employ multiple encoders or multiple decoders to deal with multilinguality  Furthermore, in order to avoid the tight dependency of the attention mechanism to specific language pairs, they also need to modify their architecture to combine either the encoders or the attention layers  These modifications are specific to the purpose of the tasks as well  Thus, those multilingual NMTs are more complicated, much more free parameters to learn and more difficult to perform standard trainings compared to the original NMT 
In this paper, we introduce a unified approach to seamlessly extend the original NMT to multilingual settings  Our approach allows us to integrate any language in any side of the encoder-decoder architecture with only one encoder and one decoder for all the languages involved  Moreover, it is not necessary to do any network modification to enable attention mechanism in our NMT systems  We then apply our proprosed framework in two demanding scenarios: under-resourced translation and zero-resourced translation  The results show that bringing multilinguality to NMT helps to improve individual translations  With some insightful analyses of the results, we set our goal toward a fully multilingual NMT framework 
The paper starts with a detailed introduction to attention-based NMT  In Section SECREF3 , related work about multi-task NMT is reviewed  Section SECREF5 describes our proposed approach and thorough comparisons to the related work  It is followed by a section of evaluating our systems in two aforementioned scenarios, in which different strategies have been employed under a unified approach (Section SECREF4 )  Finally, the paper ends with conclusion and future work 
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International License  License details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/
Neural Machine Translation: Background
An NMT system consists of an encoder which automatically learns the characteristics of a source sentence into fix-length context vectors and a decoder that recursively combines the produced context vectors with the previous target word to generate the most probable word from a target vocabulary 
More specifically, a bidirectional recurrent encoder reads every words INLINEFORM0 of a source sentence INLINEFORM1 and encodes a representation INLINEFORM2 of the sentence into a fixed-length vector INLINEFORM3 concatinated from those of the forward and backward directions: INLINEFORM4
Here INLINEFORM0 is the one-hot vector of the word INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 is the word embedding matrix which is shared across the source words  INLINEFORM3 is the recurrent unit computing the current hidden state of the encoder based on the previous hidden state  INLINEFORM4 is then called an annotation vector, which encodes the source sentence up to the time INLINEFORM5 from both forward and backward directions  Recurrent units in NMT can be a simple recurrent neural network unit (RNN), a Long Short-Term Memory unit (LSTM) BIBREF3 or a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) BIBREF4
Similar to the encoder, the recurrent decoder generates one target word INLINEFORM0 to form a translated target sentence INLINEFORM1 in the end  At the time INLINEFORM2 , it takes the previous hidden state of the decoder INLINEFORM3 , the previous embedded word representation INLINEFORM4 and a time-specific context vector INLINEFORM5 as inputs to calculate the current hidden state INLINEFORM6 : INLINEFORM7
Again, INLINEFORM0 is the recurrent activation function of the decoder and INLINEFORM1 is the shared word embedding matrix of the target sentences  The context vector INLINEFORM2 is calculated based on the annotation vectors from the encoder  Before feeding the annotation vectors into the decoder, an attention mechanism is set up in between, in order to choose which annotation vectors should contribute to the predicting decision of the next target word  Intuitively, a relevance between the previous target word and the annotation vectors can be used to form some attention scenario  There exists several ways to calculate the relevance as shown in BIBREF5 , but what we describe here follows the proposed method of BIBREF2 DISPLAYFORM0
In BIBREF2 , this attention mechanism, originally called alignment model, has been employed as a simple feedforward network with the first layer is a learnable layer via INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2   The relevance scores INLINEFORM3 are then normalized into attention weights INLINEFORM4 and the context vector INLINEFORM5 is calculated as the weighted sum of all annotation vectors INLINEFORM6   Depending on how much attention the target word at time INLINEFORM7 put on the source states INLINEFORM8 , a soft alignment is learned  By being employed this way, word alignment is not a latent variable but a parametrized function, making the alignment model differentiable  Thus, it could be trained together with the whole architecture using backpropagation 
One of the most severe problems of NMT is handling of the rare words, which are not in the short lists of the vocabularies, i e  out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words, or do not appear in the training set at all  In BIBREF6 , the rare target words are copied from their aligned source words after the translation  This heuristic works well with OOV words and named entities but unable to translate unseen words  In BIBREF7 , their proposed NMT models have been shown to not only be effective on reducing vocabulary sizes but also have the ability to generate unseen words  This is achieved by segmenting the rare words into subword units and translating them  The state-of-the-art translation systems essentially employ subword NMT BIBREF7  
Universal Encoder and Decoder for Multilingual Neural Machine Translation
While the majority of previous research has focused on improving the performance of NMT on individual language pairs with individual NMT systems, recent work has started investigating potential ways to conduct the translation involved in multiple languages using a single NMT system  The possible reason explaining these efforts lies on the unique architecture of NMT  Unlike SMT, NMT consists of separated neural networks for the source and target sides, or the encoder and decoder, respectively  This allows these components to map a sentence in any language to a representation in an embedding space which is believed to share common semantics among the source languages involved  From that shared space, the decoder, with some implicit or explicit relevant constraints, could transform the representation into a concrete sentence in any desired language  In this section, we review some related work on this matter  We then describe a unified approach toward an universal attention-based NMT scheme  Our approach does not require any architecture modification and it can be trained to learn a minimal number of parameters compared to the other work 
Related Work
By extending the solution of sequence-to-sequence modeling using encoder-decoder architectures to multi-task learning, Luong2016 managed to achieve better performance on some INLINEFORM0 tasks such as translation, parsing and image captioning compared to individual tasks  Specifically in translation, the work utilizes multiple encoders to translate from multiple languages, and multiple decoders to translate to multiple languages  In this view of multilingual translation, each language in source or target side is modeled by one encoder or decoder, depending on the side of the translation  Due to the natural diversity between two tasks in that multi-task learning scenario, e g  translation and parsing, it could not feature the attention mechanism although it has proven its effectiveness in NMT  There exists two directions which proposed for multilingual translation scenarios where they leverage the attention mechanism  The first one is indicated in the work from BIBREF8 , where it introduce an one-to-many multilingual NMT system to translates from one source language into multiple target languages  Having one source language, the attention mechanism is then handed over to the corresponding decoder  The objective function is changed to adapt to multilingual settings  In testing time, the parameters specific to a desired language pair are used to perform the translation 
Firat2016 proposed another approach which genuinely delivers attention-based NMT to multilingual translation  As in BIBREF9 , their approach utilizes one encoder per source language and one decoder per target language for many-to-many translation tasks  Instead of a quadratic number of independent attention layers, however, one single attention mechanism is integrated into their NMT, performing an affine transformation between the hidden layer of INLINEFORM0 source languages and that one of INLINEFORM1 target languages  It is required to change their architecture to accomodate such a complicated shared attention mechanism 
In a separate effort to achieve multilingual NMT, the work of Zoph2016 leverages available parallel data from other language pairs to help reducing possible ambiguities in the translation process into a single target language  They employed the multi-source attention-based NMT in a way that only one attention mechanism is required despite having multiple encoders  To achieve this, the outputs of the encoders were combined before feeding to the attention layer  They implemented two types of encoder combination; One is adding a non-linear layer on the concatenation of the encoders' hidden states  The other is using a variant of LSTM taking the respective gate values from the individual LSTM units of the encoders  As a result, the combined hidden states contain information from both encoders , thus encode the common semantic of the two source languages 
Universal Encoder and Decoder
Inspired by the multi-source NMT as additional parallel data in several languages are expected to benefit single translations, we aim to develop a NMT-based approach toward an universal framework to perform multilingual translation  Our solution features two treatments: 1) Coding the words in different languages as different words in the language-mixed vocabularies and 2) Forcing the NMT to translating a representation of source sentences into the sentences in a desired target language 
Language-specific Coding  When the encoder of a NMT system considers words across languages as different words, with a well-chosen architecture, it is expected to be able to learn a good representation of the source words in an embedding space in which words carrying similar meaning would have a closer distance to each others than those are semantically different  This should hold true when the words have the same or similar surface form, such as (@de@Obama; @en@Obama) or (@de@Projektion; @en@projection)  This should also hold true when the words have the same or similar meaning across languages, such as (@en@car; @en@automobile) or (@de@Flussufer; @en@bank)  Our encoder then acts similarly to the one of multi-source approach BIBREF10 , collecting additional information from other sources for better translations, but with a much simpler embedding function  Unlike them, we need only one encoder, so we could reduce the number of parameters to learn  Furthermore, we neither need to change the network architecture nor depend on which recurrent unit (GRU, LSTM or simple RNN) is currently using in the encoder 
We could apply the same trick to the target sentences and thus enable many-to-many translation capability of our NMT system  Similar to the multi-target translation BIBREF8 , we exploit further the correlation in semantics of those target sentences across different languages  The main difference between our approach and the work of BIBREF8 is that we need only one decoder for all target languages  Given one encoder for multiple source languages and one decoder for multiple target languages, it is trivial to incorporate the attention mechanism as in the case of a regular NMT for single language translation  In training, the attention layers were directed to learn relevant alignments between words in specific language pair and forward the produced context vector to the decoder  Now we rely totally on the network to learn good alignments between source and target sides  In fact, giving more information, our system are able to form nice alignments 
In comparison to other research that could perform complete multi-task learning, e g  the work from BIBREF9 or the approach proposed by BIBREF11 , our method is able to accommodate the attention layers seemlessly and easily  It also draws a clear distinction from those works in term of the complexity of the whole network: considerably less parameters to learn, thus reduces overfitting, with a conventional attention mechanism and a standard training procedure 
Target Forcing  While language-specific coding allows us to implement a multilingual attention-based NMT, there are two issues we have to consider before training the network  The first is that the number of rare words would increase in proportion with the number of languages involved  This might be solved by applying a rare word treatment method with appropriate awareness of the vocabularies' size  The second one is more problematic: Ambiguity level in the translation process definitely increases due to the additional introduction of words having the same or similar meaning across languages at both source and target sides  We deal with the problem by explicitly forcing the attention and translation to the direction that we prefer, expecting the information would limit the ambiguity to the scope of one language instead of all target languages

ground_truth: 5 percent points.

0.05 F1

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 existing approaches?
Context 3:  We realize this idea by adding at the beginning and at the end of every source sentences a special symbol indicating the language they would be translated into  For example, in a multilingual NMT, when a source sentence is German and the target language is English, the original sentence (already language-specific coded) is:
@de@darum @de@geht @de@es @de@in @de@meinem @de@Vortrag
Now when we force it to be translated into English, the target-forced sentence becomes:
<E> @de@darum @de@geht @de@es @de@in @de@meinem @de@Vortrag <E>
Due to the nature of recurrent units used in the encoder and decoder, in training, those starting symbols encourage the network learning the translation of following target words in a particular language pair  In testing time, information of the target language we provided help to limit the translated candidates, hence forming the translation in the desired language 
Figure FIGREF8 illustrates the essence of our approach  With two steps in the preprocessing phase, namely language-specific coding and target forcing, we are able to employ multilingual attention-based NMT without any special treatment in training such a standard architecture  Our encoder and attention-enable decoder can be seen as a shared encoder and decoder across languages, or an universal encoder and decoder  The flexibitily of our approach allow us to integrate any language into source or target side  As we will see in Section SECREF4 , it has proven to be extremely helpful not only in low-resourced scenarios but also in translation of well-resourced language pairs as it provides a novel way to make use of large monolingual corpora in NMT 
Evaluation
In this section, we describe the evaluation of our proposed approach in comparisons with the strong baselines using NMT in two scenarios: the translation of an under-resource language pair and the translation of a language pair that does not exist any paralled data at all 
Experimental Settings
Training Data  We choose WIT3's TED corpus BIBREF12 as the basis of our experiments since it might be the only high-quality parallel data of many low-resourced language pairs  TED is also multilingual in a sense that it includes numbers of talks which are commonly translated into many languages  In addition, we use a much larger corpus provided freely by WMT organizers when we evaluate the impact of our approach in a real machine translation campaign  It includes the paralled corpus extracted from the digital corpus of European Parliament (EPPS), the News Commentary (NC) and the web-crawled parallel data (CommonCrawl)  While the number of sentences in popular TED corpora varies from 13 thousands to 17 thousands, the total number of sentences in those larger corpus is approximately 3 million sentences 
Neural Machine Translation Setup  All experiments have been conducted using NMT framework Nematus, Following the work of Sennrich2016a, subword segmentation is handled in the prepocessing phase using Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE)  Excepts stated clearly in some experiments, we set the number of BPE merging operations at 39500 on the joint of source and target data  When training all NMT systems, we take out the sentence pairs exceeding 50-word length and shuffle them inside every minibatch  Our short-list vocabularies contain 40,000 most frequent words while the others are considered as rare words and applied the subword translation  We use an 1024-cell GRU layer and 1000-dimensional embeddings with dropout at every layer with the probability of 0 2 in the embedding and hidden layers and 0 1 in the input and ourput layers  We trained our systems using gradient descent optimization with Adadelta BIBREF13 on minibatches of size 80 and the gradient is rescaled whenever its norm exceed 1 0  All the trainings last approximately seven days if the early-stopping condition could not be reached  At a certain time, an external evaluation script on BLEU BIBREF14 is conducted on a development set to decide the early-stopping condition  This evaluation script has also being used to choose the model archiving the best BLEU on the development set instead of the maximal loglikelihood between the translations and target sentences while training  In translation, the framework produces INLINEFORM0 -best candidates and we then use a beam search with the beam size of 12 to get the best translation 
Under-resourced Translation
First, we consider the translation for an under-resourced pair of languages  Here a small portion of the large parallel corpus for English-German is used as a simulation for the scenario where we do not have much parallel data: Translating texts in English to German  We perform language-specific coding in both source and target sides  By accommodating the German monolingual data as an additional input (German INLINEFORM0 German), which we called the mix-source approach, we could enrich the training data in a simple, natural way  Given this under-resourced situation, it could help our NMT obtain a better representation of the source side, hence, able to learn the translation relationship better  Including monolingual data in this way might also improve the translation of some rare word types such as named entities  Furthermore, as the ultimate goal of our work, we would like to investigate the advantages of multilinguality in NMT  We incorporate a similar portion of French-German parallel corpus into the English-German one  As discussed in Section SECREF5 , it is expected to help reducing the ambiguity in translation between one language pair since it utilizes the semantic context provided by the other source language  We name this mix-multi-source 
Table TABREF16 summarizes the performance of our systems measured in BLEU on two test sets, tst2013 and tst2014  Compared to the baseline NMT system which is solely trained on TED English-German data, our mix-source system achieves a considerable improvement of 2 6 BLEU points on tst2013 and 2 1 BLEU points on and tst2014   Adding French data to the source side and their corresponding German data to the target side in our mix-multi-source system also help to gain 2 2 and 1 6 BLEU points more on tst2013 tst2014, respectively  We observe a better improvement from our mix-source system compared to our mix-multi-source system  We speculate the reason that the mix-source encoder utilize the same information shared in two languages while the mix-multi-source receives and processes similar information in the other language but not necessarily the same  We might validate this hypothesis by comparing two systems trained on a common English-German-French corpus of TED  We put it in our future work's plan 
As we expected Figure FIGREF19 shows how different words in different languages can be close in the shared space after being learned to translate into a common language  We extract the word embeddings from the encoder of the mix-multi-source (En,Fr INLINEFORM0 De,De) after training, remove the language-specific codes (@en@ and @fr@)and project the word vectors to the 2D space using t-SNE BIBREF15  
Using large monolingual data in NMT 
A standard NMT system employs parallel data only  While good parallel corpora are limited in number, getting monolingual data of an arbitrary language is trivial  To make use of German monolingual corpus in an English INLINEFORM0 German NMT system, sennrich2016b built a separate German INLINEFORM1 English NMT using the same parallel corpus, then they used that system to translate the German monolingual corpus back to English, forming a synthesis parallel data  gulcehre2015 trained another RNN-based language model to score the monolingual corpus and integrate it to the NMT system through shallow or deep fusion  Both methods requires to train separate systems with possibly different hyperparameters for each  Conversely, by applying mix-source method to the big monolingual data, we need to train only one network  We mix the TED parallel corpus and the substantial monolingual corpus (EPPS+NC+CommonCrawl) and train a mix-source NMT system from those data 
The first result is not encouraging when its performance is even worse than the baseline NMT which is trained on the small parallel data only  Not using the same information in the source side, as we discussed in case of mix-multi-source strategy, could explain the degrading in performance of such a system  But we believe that the magnitude and unbalancing of the corpus are the main reasons  The data contains nearly four millions sentences but only around twenty thousands of them (0 5%) are the genuine parallel data  As a quick attempt, after we get the model with that big data, we continue training on the real parallel corpus for some more epochs  When this adaptation is applied, our system brings an improvement of +1 52 BLEU on tst2013 and +1 06 BLEU on tst2014 (Table TABREF21 ) 
Zero-resourced Translation
Among low-resourced scenarios, zero-resourced translation task stands in an extreme level  A zero-resourced translation task is one of the most difficult situation when there is no parallel data between the translating language pair  To the best of our knowledge, there have been yet existed a published work about using NMT for zero-resourced translation tasks up to now  In this section, we extend our strategies using the proposed multilingual NMT approach as first attempts to this extreme situation 
We employ language-specific coding and target forcing in a strategy called bridge  Unlike the strategies used in under-resourced translation task, bridge is an entire many-to-many multilingual NMT  Simulating a zero-resourced German INLINEFORM0 French translation task given the available German-English and English-French parallel corpora, after applying language-specific coding and target forcing for each corpus, we mix those data with an English-English data as a “bridge” creating some connection between German and French  We also propose a variant of this strategy that we incorporate French-French data  And we call it universal 
We evaluate bridge and universal systems on two German INLINEFORM0 French test sets  They are compared to a direct system, which is an NMT trained on German INLINEFORM1 French data, and to a pivot system, which essentially consists of two separate NMTs trained to translate from German to English and English to French  The direct system should not exist in a real zero-resourced situation  We refer it as the perfect system for comparison purpose only  In case of the pivot system, to generate a translated text in French from a German sentence, we first translate it to English, then the output sentence is fed to the English INLINEFORM2 German NMT system to obtain the French translation  Since there are more than two languages involved in those systems, we increase the number of BPE merging operations proportionally in order to reduce the number of rare words in such systems  We do not expect our proposed systems to perform well with this primitive way of building direct translating connections since this is essentially a difficult task  We report the performance of those systems in Table TABREF23  
Unsupprisingly, both bridge and universal systems perform worse than the pivot one  We consider two possible reasons:
Our target forcing mechanism is moderately primitive  Since the process is applied after language-specific coding, the target forcing symbol is the same for all source sentences in every languages  Thus, the forcing strength might not be enough to guide the decision of the next words  Once the very first word is translated into a word in wrong language, the following words tend to be translated into that wrong language again  Table TABREF24 shows some statistics of the translated words and sentences in wrong language 
Balancing of the training corpus  Although it is not severe as in the case of mix-source system for large monolingual data, the limited number of sentences in target language can affect the training  The difference of 1 07 BLEU points between bridge and universal might explain this assumption as we added more target data (French) in universal strategy, thus reducing the unbalance in training 
Those issues would be addressed in our following future work toward the multilingual attention-based NMT 
Conclusion and Future Work
In this paper, we present our first attempts in building a multilingual Neural Machine Translation framework  By treating words in different languages as different words and force the attention and translation to the direction of desired target language, we are able to employ attention-enable NMT toward a multilingual translation system  Our proposed approach alleviates the need of complicated architecture re-designing when accommodating attention mechanism  In addition, the number of free parameters to learn in our network does not go beyond that magnitute of a single NMT system  With its universality, our approach has shown its effectiveness in an under-resourced translation task with considerable improvements  In addition, the approach has achieved interesting and promising results when applied in the translation task that there is no direct parallel corpus between source and target languages 
Nevertheless, there are issues that we can continue working on to address in future work  A more balancing data would be helpful for this framework  The mechanism of forcing the NMT system to the right target language could be improved  We could conduct more detailed analyses of the various strategies under the framework to show its universarity 

ground_truth: BOW-Tags, BOW-KL(Tags), BOW-All, GloVe

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. Do they test their framework performance on commonly used language pairs, such as English-to-German?
Context 4: 
Source Data
As a starting point, we used the DIP corpus BIBREF37 , a collection of 49 clusters of 100 web pages on educational topics (e g  bullying, homeschooling, drugs) with a short description of each topic  It was created from a large web crawl using state-of-the-art information retrieval  We selected 30 of the topics for which we created the necessary concept map annotations 
Proposition Extraction
As concept maps consist of propositions expressing the relation between concepts (see Figure FIGREF2 ), we need to impose such a structure upon the plain text in the document clusters  This could be done by manually annotating spans representing concepts and relations, however, the size of our clusters makes this a huge effort: 2288 sentences per topic (69k in total) need to be processed  Therefore, we resort to an automatic approach 
The Open Information Extraction paradigm BIBREF38 offers a representation very similar to the desired one  For instance, from
Students with bad credit history should not lose hope and apply for federal loans with the FAFSA 
Open IE systems extract tuples of two arguments and a relation phrase representing propositions:
(s  with bad credit history, should not lose, hope)
(s  with bad credit history, apply for, federal loans with the FAFSA)
While the relation phrase is similar to a relation in a concept map, many arguments in these tuples represent useful concepts  We used Open IE 4, a state-of-the-art system BIBREF39 to process all sentences  After removing duplicates, we obtained 4137 tuples per topic 
Since we want to create a gold-standard corpus, we have to ensure that we produce high-quality data  We therefore made use of the confidence assigned to every extracted tuple to filter out low quality ones  To ensure that we do not filter too aggressively (and miss important aspects in the final summary), we manually annotated 500 tuples sampled from all topics for correctness  On the first 250 of them, we tuned the filter threshold to 0 5, which keeps 98 7% of the correct extractions in the unseen second half  After filtering, a topic had on average 2850 propositions (85k in total) 
Proposition Filtering
Despite the similarity of the Open IE paradigm, not every extracted tuple is a suitable proposition for a concept map  To reduce the effort in the subsequent steps, we therefore want to filter out unsuitable ones  A tuple is suitable if it (1) is a correct extraction, (2) is meaningful without any context and (3) has arguments that represent proper concepts  We created a guideline explaining when to label a tuple as suitable for a concept map and performed a small annotation study  Three annotators independently labeled 500 randomly sampled tuples  The agreement was 82% ( INLINEFORM0 )  We found tuples to be unsuitable mostly because they had unresolvable pronouns, conflicting with (2), or arguments that were full clauses or propositions, conflicting with (3), while (1) was mostly taken care of by the confidence filtering in § SECREF21  
Due to the high number of tuples we decided to automate the filtering step  We trained a linear SVM on the majority voted annotations  As features, we used the extraction confidence, length of arguments and relations as well as part-of-speech tags, among others  To ensure that the automatic classification does not remove suitable propositions, we tuned the classifier to avoid false negatives  In particular, we introduced class weights, improving precision on the negative class at the cost of a higher fraction of positive classifications  Additionally, we manually verified a certain number of the most uncertain negative classifications to further improve performance  When 20% of the classifications are manually verified and corrected, we found that our model trained on 350 labeled instances achieves 93% precision on negative classifications on the unseen 150 instances  We found this to be a reasonable trade-off of automation and data quality and applied the model to the full dataset 
The classifier filtered out 43% of the propositions, leaving 1622 per topic  We manually examined the 17k least confident negative classifications and corrected 955 of them  We also corrected positive classifications for certain types of tuples for which we knew the classifier to be imprecise  Finally, each topic was left with an average of 1554 propositions (47k in total) 
Importance Annotation
Given the propositions identified in the previous step, we now applied our crowdsourcing scheme as described in § SECREF4 to determine their importance  To cope with the large number of propositions, we combine the two task designs: First, we collect Likert-scores from 5 workers for each proposition, clean the data and calculate average scores  Then, using only the top 100 propositions according to these scores, we crowdsource 10% of all possible pairwise comparisons among them  Using TrueSkill, we obtain a fine-grained ranking of the 100 most important propositions 
For Likert-scores, the average agreement over all topics is 0 80, while the majority agreement for comparisons is 0 78  We repeated the data collection for three randomly selected topics and found the Pearson correlation between both runs to be 0 73 (Spearman 0 73) for Likert-scores and 0 72 (Spearman 0 71) for comparisons  These figures show that the crowdsourcing approach works on this dataset as reliably as on the TAC documents 
In total, we uploaded 53k scoring and 12k comparison tasks to Mechanical Turk, spending $4425 45 including fees  From the fine-grained ranking of the 100 most important propositions, we select the top 50 per topic to construct a summary concept map in the subsequent steps 
Proposition Revision
Having a manageable number of propositions, an annotator then applied a few straightforward transformations that correct common errors of the Open IE system  First, we break down propositions with conjunctions in either of the arguments into separate propositions per conjunct, which the Open IE system sometimes fails to do  And second, we correct span errors that might occur in the argument or relation phrases, especially when sentences were not properly segmented  As a result, we have a set of high quality propositions for our concept map, consisting of, due to the first transformation, 56 1 propositions per topic on average 
Concept Map Construction
In this final step, we connect the set of important propositions to form a graph  For instance, given the following two propositions
(student, may borrow, Stafford Loan)
(the student, does not have, a credit history)
one can easily see, although the first arguments differ slightly, that both labels describe the concept student, allowing us to build a concept map with the concepts student, Stafford Loan and credit history  The annotation task thus involves deciding which of the available propositions to include in the map, which of their concepts to merge and, when merging, which of the available labels to use  As these decisions highly depend upon each other and require context, we decided to use expert annotators rather than crowdsource the subtasks 
Annotators were given the topic description and the most important, ranked propositions  Using a simple annotation tool providing a visualization of the graph, they could connect the propositions step by step  They were instructed to reach a size of 25 concepts, the recommended maximum size for a concept map BIBREF6   Further, they should prefer more important propositions and ensure connectedness  When connecting two propositions, they were asked to keep the concept label that was appropriate for both propositions  To support the annotators, the tool used ADW BIBREF40 , a state-of-the-art approach for semantic similarity, to suggest possible connections  The annotation was carried out by graduate students with a background in NLP after receiving an introduction into the guidelines and tool and annotating a first example 
If an annotator was not able to connect 25 concepts, she was allowed to create up to three synthetic relations with freely defined labels, making the maps slightly abstractive  On average, the constructed maps have 0 77 synthetic relations, mostly connecting concepts whose relation is too obvious to be explicitly stated in text (e g  between Montessori teacher and Montessori education) 
To assess the reliability of this annotation step, we had the first three maps created by two annotators  We casted the task of selecting propositions to be included in the map as a binary decision task and observed an agreement of 84% ( INLINEFORM0 )  Second, we modeled the decision which concepts to join as a binary decision on all pairs of common concepts, observing an agreement of 95% ( INLINEFORM1 )  And finally, we compared which concept labels the annotators decided to include in the final map, observing 85% ( INLINEFORM2 ) agreement  Hence, the annotation shows substantial agreement BIBREF41  
Corpus Analysis
In this section, we describe our newly created corpus, which, in addition to having summaries in the form of concept maps, differs from traditional summarization corpora in several aspects 
Document Clusters
The corpus consists of document clusters for 30 different topics  Each of them contains around 40 documents with on average 2413 tokens, which leads to an average cluster size of 97,880 token  With these characteristics, the document clusters are 15 times larger than typical DUC clusters of ten documents and five times larger than the 25-document-clusters (Table TABREF26 )  In addition, the documents are also more variable in terms of length, as the (length-adjusted) standard deviation is twice as high as in the other corpora  With these properties, the corpus represents an interesting challenge towards real-world application scenarios, in which users typically have to deal with much more than ten documents 
Because we used a large web crawl as the source for our corpus, it contains documents from a variety of genres  To further analyze this property, we categorized a sample of 50 documents from the corpus  Among them, we found professionally written articles and blog posts (28%), educational material for parents and kids (26%), personal blog posts (16%), forum discussions and comments (12%), commented link collections (12%) and scientific articles (6%) 
In addition to the variety of genres, the documents also differ in terms of language use  To capture this property, we follow Zopf 2016 and compute, for every topic, the average Jensen-Shannon divergence between the word distribution of one document and the word distribution in the remaining documents  The higher this value is, the more the language differs between documents  We found the average divergence over all topics to be 0 3490, whereas it is 0 3019 in DUC 2004 and 0 3188 in TAC 2008A 
Concept Maps
As Table TABREF33 shows, each of the 30 reference concept maps has exactly 25 concepts and between 24 and 28 relations  Labels for both concepts and relations consist on average of 3 2 tokens, whereas the latter are a bit shorter in characters 
To obtain a better picture of what kind of text spans have been used as labels, we automatically tagged them with their part-of-speech and determined their head with a dependency parser  Concept labels tend to be headed by nouns (82%) or verbs (15%), while they also contain adjectives, prepositions and determiners  Relation labels, on the other hand, are almost always headed by a verb (94%) and contain prepositions, nouns and particles in addition  These distributions are very similar to those reported by Villalon 2010 for their (single-document) concept map corpus 
Analyzing the graph structure of the maps, we found that all of them are connected  They have on average 7 2 central concepts with more than one relation, while the remaining ones occur in only one proposition  We found that achieving a higher number of connections would mean compromising importance, i e  including less important propositions, and decided against it 
Baseline Experiments
In this section, we briefly describe a baseline and evaluation scripts that we release, with a detailed documentation, along with the corpus 
Conclusion
In this work, we presented low-context importance annotation, a novel crowdsourcing scheme that we used to create a new benchmark corpus for concept-map-based MDS  The corpus has large-scale document clusters of heterogeneous web documents, posing a challenging summarization task  Together with the corpus, we provide implementations of a baseline method and evaluation scripts and hope that our efforts facilitate future research on this variant of summarization 
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Teresa Botschen, Andreas Hanselowski and Markus Zopf for their help with the annotation work and Christian Meyer for his valuable feedback  This work has been supported by the German Research Foundation as part of the Research Training Group “Adaptive Preparation of Information from Heterogeneous Sources” (AIPHES) under grant No  GRK 1994/1 

ground_truth: Yes

Yes