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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. Which basic neural architecture perform best by itself?
Context 1: Introduction
In the age of information dissemination without quality control, it has enabled malicious users to spread misinformation via social media and aim individual users with propaganda campaigns to achieve political and financial gains as well as advance a specific agenda  Often disinformation is complied in the two major forms: fake news and propaganda, where they differ in the sense that the propaganda is possibly built upon true information (e g , biased, loaded language, repetition, etc ) 
Prior works BIBREF0, BIBREF1, BIBREF2 in detecting propaganda have focused primarily at document level, typically labeling all articles from a propagandistic news outlet as propaganda and thus, often non-propagandistic articles from the outlet are mislabeled  To this end, EMNLP19DaSanMartino focuses on analyzing the use of propaganda and detecting specific propagandistic techniques in news articles at sentence and fragment level, respectively and thus, promotes explainable AI  For instance, the following text is a propaganda of type `slogan' 
Trump tweeted: $\underbrace{\text{`}`{\texttt {BUILD THE WALL!}"}}_{\text{slogan}}$
Shared Task: This work addresses the two tasks in propaganda detection BIBREF3 of different granularities: (1) Sentence-level Classification (SLC), a binary classification that predicts whether a sentence contains at least one propaganda technique, and (2) Fragment-level Classification (FLC), a token-level (multi-label) classification that identifies both the spans and the type of propaganda technique(s) 
Contributions: (1) To address SLC, we design an ensemble of different classifiers based on Logistic Regression, CNN and BERT, and leverage transfer learning benefits using the pre-trained embeddings/models from FastText and BERT  We also employed different features such as linguistic (sentiment, readability, emotion, part-of-speech and named entity tags, etc ), layout, topics, etc  (2) To address FLC, we design a multi-task neural sequence tagger based on LSTM-CRF and linguistic features to jointly detect propagandistic fragments and its type  Moreover, we investigate performing FLC and SLC jointly in a multi-granularity network based on LSTM-CRF and BERT  (3) Our system (MIC-CIS) is ranked 3rd (out of 12 participants) and 4th (out of 25 participants) in FLC and SLC tasks, respectively 
System Description ::: Linguistic, Layout and Topical Features
Some of the propaganda techniques BIBREF3 involve word and phrases that express strong emotional implications, exaggeration, minimization, doubt, national feeling, labeling , stereotyping, etc  This inspires us in extracting different features (Table TABREF1) including the complexity of text, sentiment, emotion, lexical (POS, NER, etc ), layout, etc  To further investigate, we use topical features (e g , document-topic proportion) BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6 at sentence and document levels in order to determine irrelevant themes, if introduced to the issue being discussed (e g , Red Herring) 
For word and sentence representations, we use pre-trained vectors from FastText BIBREF7 and BERT BIBREF8 
System Description ::: Sentence-level Propaganda Detection
Figure FIGREF2 (left) describes the three components of our system for SLC task: features, classifiers and ensemble  The arrows from features-to-classifier indicate that we investigate linguistic, layout and topical features in the two binary classifiers: LogisticRegression and CNN  For CNN, we follow the architecture of DBLP:conf/emnlp/Kim14 for sentence-level classification, initializing the word vectors by FastText or BERT  We concatenate features in the last hidden layer before classification 
One of our strong classifiers includes BERT that has achieved state-of-the-art performance on multiple NLP benchmarks  Following DBLP:conf/naacl/DevlinCLT19, we fine-tune BERT for binary classification, initializing with a pre-trained model (i e , BERT-base, Cased)  Additionally, we apply a decision function such that a sentence is tagged as propaganda if prediction probability of the classifier is greater than a threshold ($\tau $)  We relax the binary decision boundary to boost recall, similar to pankajgupta:CrossRE2019 
Ensemble of Logistic Regression, CNN and BERT: In the final component, we collect predictions (i e , propaganda label) for each sentence from the three ($\mathcal {M}=3$) classifiers and thus, obtain $\mathcal {M}$ number of predictions for each sentence  We explore two ensemble strategies (Table TABREF1): majority-voting and relax-voting to boost precision and recall, respectively 
System Description ::: Fragment-level Propaganda Detection
Figure FIGREF2 (right) describes our system for FLC task, where we design sequence taggers BIBREF9, BIBREF10 in three modes: (1) LSTM-CRF BIBREF11 with word embeddings ($w\_e$) and character embeddings $c\_e$, token-level features ($t\_f$) such as polarity, POS, NER, etc  (2) LSTM-CRF+Multi-grain that jointly performs FLC and SLC with FastTextWordEmb and BERTSentEmb, respectively  Here, we add binary sentence classification loss to sequence tagging weighted by a factor of $\alpha $  (3) LSTM-CRF+Multi-task that performs propagandistic span/fragment detection (PFD) and FLC (fragment detection + 19-way classification) 
Ensemble of Multi-grain, Multi-task LSTM-CRF with BERT: Here, we build an ensemble by considering propagandistic fragments (and its type) from each of the sequence taggers  In doing so, we first perform majority voting at the fragment level for the fragment where their spans exactly overlap  In case of non-overlapping fragments, we consider all  However, when the spans overlap (though with the same label), we consider the fragment with the largest span 
Experiments and Evaluation
Data: While the SLC task is binary, the FLC consists of 18 propaganda techniques BIBREF3  We split (80-20%) the annotated corpus into 5-folds and 3-folds for SLC and FLC tasks, respectively  The development set of each the folds is represented by dev (internal); however, the un-annotated corpus used in leaderboard comparisons by dev (external)  We remove empty and single token sentences after tokenization  Experimental Setup: We use PyTorch framework for the pre-trained BERT model (Bert-base-cased), fine-tuned for SLC task  In the multi-granularity loss, we set $\alpha = 0 1$ for sentence classification based on dev (internal, fold1) scores  We use BIO tagging scheme of NER in FLC task  For CNN, we follow DBLP:conf/emnlp/Kim14 with filter-sizes of [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], 128 filters and 16 batch-size  We compute binary-F1and macro-F1 BIBREF12 in SLC and FLC, respectively on dev (internal) 
Experiments and Evaluation ::: Results: Sentence-Level Propaganda
Table TABREF10 shows the scores on dev (internal and external) for SLC task  Observe that the pre-trained embeddings (FastText or BERT) outperform TF-IDF vector representation  In row r2, we apply logistic regression classifier with BERTSentEmb that leads to improved scores over FastTextSentEmb  Subsequently, we augment the sentence vector with additional features that improves F1 on dev (external), however not dev (internal)  Next, we initialize CNN by FastTextWordEmb or BERTWordEmb and augment the last hidden layer (before classification) with BERTSentEmb and feature vectors, leading to gains in F1 for both the dev sets  Further, we fine-tune BERT and apply different thresholds in relaxing the decision boundary, where $\tau \ge 0 35$ is found optimal 
We choose the three different models in the ensemble: Logistic Regression, CNN and BERT on fold1 and subsequently an ensemble+ of r3, r6 and r12 from each fold1-5 (i e , 15 models) to obtain predictions for dev (external)  We investigate different ensemble schemes (r17-r19), where we observe that the relax-voting improves recall and therefore, the higher F1 (i e , 0 673)  In postprocess step, we check for repetition propaganda technique by computing cosine similarity between the current sentence and its preceding $w=10$ sentence vectors (i e , BERTSentEmb) in the document  If the cosine-similarity is greater than $\lambda \in \lbrace  99,  95\rbrace $, then the current sentence is labeled as propaganda due to repetition  Comparing r19 and r21, we observe a gain in recall, however an overall decrease in F1 applying postprocess 
Finally, we use the configuration of r19 on the test set  The ensemble+ of (r4, r7 r12) was analyzed after test submission  Table TABREF9 (SLC) shows that our submission is ranked at 4th position 
Experiments and Evaluation ::: Results: Fragment-Level Propaganda
Table TABREF11 shows the scores on dev (internal and external) for FLC task  Observe that the features (i e , polarity, POS and NER in row II) when introduced in LSTM-CRF improves F1  We run multi-grained LSTM-CRF without BERTSentEmb (i e , row III) and with it (i e , row IV), where the latter improves scores on dev (internal), however not on dev (external)  Finally, we perform multi-tasking with another auxiliary task of PFD  Given the scores on dev (internal and external) using different configurations (rows I-V), it is difficult to infer the optimal configuration  Thus, we choose the two best configurations (II and IV) on dev (internal) set and build an ensemble+ of predictions (discussed in section SECREF6), leading to a boost in recall and thus an improved F1 on dev (external) 
Finally, we use the ensemble+ of (II and IV) from each of the folds 1-3, i e , $|{\mathcal {M}}|=6$ models to obtain predictions on test  Table TABREF9 (FLC) shows that our submission is ranked at 3rd position 
Conclusion and Future Work
Our system (Team: MIC-CIS) explores different neural architectures (CNN, BERT and LSTM-CRF) with linguistic, layout and topical features to address the tasks of fine-grained propaganda detection  We have demonstrated gains in performance due to the features, ensemble schemes, multi-tasking and multi-granularity architectures  Compared to the other participating systems, our submissions are ranked 3rd and 4th in FLC and SLC tasks, respectively 
In future, we would like to enrich BERT models with linguistic, layout and topical features during their fine-tuning  Further, we would also be interested in understanding and analyzing the neural network learning, i e , extracting salient fragments (or key-phrases) in the sentence that generate propaganda, similar to pankajgupta:2018LISA in order to promote explainable AI 
Context 3: Introduction
We posses a wealth of prior knowledge about many natural language processing tasks  For example, in text categorization, we know that words such as NBA, player, and basketball are strong indicators of the sports category BIBREF0 , and words like terrible, boring, and messing indicate a negative polarity while words like perfect, exciting, and moving suggest a positive polarity in sentiment classification 
A key problem arisen here, is how to leverage such knowledge to guide the learning process, an interesting problem for both NLP and machine learning communities  Previous studies addressing the problem fall into several lines  First, to leverage prior knowledge to label data BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Second, to encode prior knowledge with a prior on parameters, which can be commonly seen in many Bayesian approaches BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   Third, to formalise prior knowledge with additional variables and dependencies BIBREF5   Last, to use prior knowledge to control the distributions over latent output variables BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , which makes the output variables easily interpretable 
However, a crucial problem, which has rarely been addressed, is the bias in the prior knowledge that we supply to the learning model  Would the model be robust or sensitive to the prior knowledge? Or, which kind of knowledge is appropriate for the task? Let's see an example: we may be a baseball fan but unfamiliar with hockey so that we can provide a few number of feature words of baseball, but much less of hockey for a baseball-hockey classification task  Such prior knowledge may mislead the model with heavy bias to baseball  If the model cannot handle this situation appropriately, the performance may be undesirable 
In this paper, we investigate into the problem in the framework of Generalized Expectation Criteria BIBREF7   The study aims to reveal the factors of reducing the sensibility of the prior knowledge and therefore to make the model more robust and practical  To this end, we introduce auxiliary regularization terms in which our prior knowledge is formalized as distribution over output variables  Recall the example just mentioned, though we do not have enough knowledge to provide features for class hockey, it is easy for us to provide some neutral words, namely words that are not strong indicators of any class, like player here  As one of the factors revealed in this paper, supplying neutral feature words can boost the performance remarkably, making the model more robust 
More attractively, we do not need manual annotation to label these neutral feature words in our proposed approach 
More specifically, we explore three regularization terms to address the problem: (1) a regularization term associated with neutral features; (2) the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term; and (3) the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution  For the first manner, we simply use the most common features as neutral features and assume the neutral features are distributed uniformly over class labels  For the second and third one, we assume we have some knowledge about the class distribution which will be detailed soon later 
To summarize, the main contributions of this work are as follows:
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we briefly describe the generalized expectation criteria and present the proposed regularization terms  In Section 3, we conduct extensive experiments to justify the proposed methods  We survey related work in Section 4, and summarize our work in Section 5 
Method
We address the robustness problem on top of GE-FL BIBREF0 , a GE method which leverages labeled features as prior knowledge  A labeled feature is a strong indicator of a specific class and is manually provided to the classifier  For example, words like amazing, exciting can be labeled features for class positive in sentiment classification 
Generalized Expectation Criteria
Generalized expectation (GE) criteria BIBREF7 provides us a natural way to directly constrain the model in the preferred direction  For example, when we know the proportion of each class of the dataset in a classification task, we can guide the model to predict out a pre-specified class distribution 
Formally, in a parameter estimation objective function, a GE term expresses preferences on the value of some constraint functions about the model's expectation  Given a constraint function $G({\rm x}, y)$ , a conditional model distribution $p_\theta (y|\rm x)$ , an empirical distribution $\tilde{p}({\rm x})$ over input samples and a score function $S$ , a GE term can be expressed as follows:
$$S(E_{\tilde{p}({\rm x})}[E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]])$$   (Eq  4)
Learning from Labeled Features
Druck et al  ge-fl proposed GE-FL to learn from labeled features using generalized expectation criteria  When given a set of labeled features $K$ , the reference distribution over classes of these features is denoted by $\hat{p}(y| x_k), k \in K$   GE-FL introduces the divergence between this reference distribution and the model predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ , as a term of the objective function:
$$\mathcal {O} = \sum _{k \in K} KL(\hat{p}(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) + \sum _{y,i} \frac{\theta _{yi}^2}{2 \sigma ^2}$$   (Eq  6)
where $\theta _{yi}$ is the model parameter which indicates the importance of word $i$ to class $y$   The predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ can be expressed as follows: $ p_\theta (y | x_k) = \frac{1}{C_k} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y|{\rm x})I(x_k) $
in which $I(x_k)$ is 1 if feature $k$ occurs in instance ${\rm x}$ and 0 otherwise, $C_k = \sum _{\rm x} I(x_k)$ is the number of instances with a non-zero value of feature $k$ , and $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ takes a softmax form as follows: $ p_\theta (y|{\rm x}) = \frac{1}{Z(\rm x)}\exp (\sum _i \theta _{yi}x_i)  $
To solve the optimization problem, L-BFGS can be used for parameter estimation 
In the framework of GE, this term can be obtained by setting the constraint function $G({\rm x}, y) = \frac{1}{C_k} \vec{I} (y)I(x_k)$ , where $\vec{I}(y)$ is an indicator vector with 1 at the index corresponding to label $y$ and 0 elsewhere 
Regularization Terms
GE-FL reduces the heavy load of instance annotation and performs well when we provide prior knowledge with no bias  In our experiments, we observe that comparable numbers of labeled features for each class have to be supplied  But as mentioned before, it is often the case that we are not able to provide enough knowledge for some of the classes  For the baseball-hockey classification task, as shown before, GE-FL will predict most of the instances as baseball  In this section, we will show three terms to make the model more robust 
Neutral features are features that are not informative indicator of any classes, for instance, word player to the baseball-hockey classification task  Such features are usually frequent words across all categories  When we set the preference distribution of the neutral features to be uniform distributed, these neutral features will prevent the model from biasing to the class that has a dominate number of labeled features 
Formally, given a set of neutral features $K^{^{\prime }}$ , the uniform distribution is $\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) = \frac{1}{|C|}, k \in K^{^{\prime }}$ , where $|C|$ is the number of classes  The objective function with the new term becomes
$$\mathcal {O}_{NE} = \mathcal {O} + \sum _{k \in K^{^{\prime }}} KL(\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) $$   (Eq  9)
Note that we do not need manual annotation to provide neutral features  One simple way is to take the most common features as neutral features  Experimental results show that this strategy works successfully 
Another way to prevent the model from drifting from the desired direction is to constrain the predicted class distribution on unlabeled data  When lacking knowledge about the class distribution of the data, one feasible way is to take maximum entropy principle, as below:
$$\mathcal {O}_{ME} = \mathcal {O} + \lambda \sum _{y} p(y) \log p(y)$$   (Eq  11)
where $p(y)$ is the predicted class distribution, given by $ p(y) = \frac{1}{|X|} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y | \rm x)  $ To control the influence of this term on the overall objective function, we can tune $\lambda $ according to the difference in the number of labeled features of each class  In this paper, we simply set $\lambda $ to be proportional to the total number of labeled features, say $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This maximum entropy term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$   Therefore, $E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]$ is just the model distribution $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ and its expectation with the empirical distribution $\tilde{p}(\rm x)$ is simply the average over input samples, namely $p(y)$   When $S$ takes the maximum entropy form, we can derive the objective function as above 
Sometimes, we have already had much knowledge about the corpus, and can estimate the class distribution roughly without labeling instances  Therefore, we introduce the KL divergence between the predicted and reference class distributions into the objective function 
Given the preference class distribution $\hat{p}(y)$ , we modify the objective function as follows:
$$\mathcal {O}_{KL} &= \mathcal {O} + \lambda KL(\hat{p}(y) || p(y))$$   (Eq  13)
Similarly, we set $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This divergence term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$ and setting the score function to $S(\hat{p}, p) = \sum _i \hat{p}_i \log \frac{\hat{p}_i}{p_i}$ , where $p$ and $\hat{p}$ are distributions  Note that this regularization term involves the reference class distribution which will be discussed later 
Experiments
In this section, we first justify the approach when there exists unbalance in the number of labeled features or in class distribution  Then, to test the influence of $\lambda $ , we conduct some experiments with the method which incorporates the KL divergence of class distribution  Last, we evaluate our approaches in 9 commonly used text classification datasets  We set $\lambda = 5|K|$ by default in all experiments unless there is explicit declaration  The baseline we choose here is GE-FL BIBREF0 , a method based on generalization expectation criteria 
Data Preparation
We evaluate our methods on several commonly used datasets whose themes range from sentiment, web-page, science to medical and healthcare  We use bag-of-words feature and remove stopwords in the preprocess stage  Though we have labels of all documents, we do not use them during the learning process, instead, we use the label of features 
The movie dataset, in which the task is to classify the movie reviews as positive or negtive, is used for testing the proposed approaches with unbalanced labeled features, unbalanced datasets or different $\lambda $ parameters  All unbalanced datasets are constructed based on the movie dataset by randomly removing documents of the positive class  For each experiment, we conduct 10-fold cross validation 
As described in BIBREF0 , there are two ways to obtain labeled features  The first way is to use information gain  We first calculate the mutual information of all features according to the labels of the documents and select the top 20 as labeled features for each class as a feature pool  Note that using information gain requires the document label, but this is only to simulate how we human provide prior knowledge to the model  The second way is to use LDA BIBREF9 to select features  We use the same selection process as BIBREF0 , where they first train a LDA on the dataset, and then select the most probable features of each topic (sorted by $P(w_i|t_j)$ , the probability of word $w_i$ given topic $t_j$ ) 
Similar to BIBREF10 , BIBREF0 , we estimate the reference distribution of the labeled features using a heuristic strategy  If there are $|C|$ classes in total, and $n$ classes are associated with a feature $k$ , the probability that feature $k$ is related with any one of the $n$ classes is $\frac{0 9}{n}$ and with any other class is $\frac{0 1}{|C| - n}$  
Neutral features are the most frequent words after removing stop words, and their reference distributions are uniformly distributed  We use the top 10 frequent words as neutral features in all experiments 
With Unbalanced Labeled Features
In this section, we evaluate our approach when there is unbalanced knowledge on the categories to be classified  The labeled features are obtained through information gain  Two settings are chosen:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
As shown in Figure 1 , Maximum entropy principle shows improvement only on the balanced case

ground_truth: BERT

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 additional features and context are proposed?
Context 2: Introduction
Abusive language refers to any type of insult, vulgarity, or profanity that debases the target; it also can be anything that causes aggravation BIBREF0 , BIBREF1   Abusive language is often reframed as, but not limited to, offensive language BIBREF2 , cyberbullying BIBREF3 , othering language BIBREF4 , and hate speech BIBREF5  
Recently, an increasing number of users have been subjected to harassment, or have witnessed offensive behaviors online BIBREF6   Major social media companies (i e  Facebook, Twitter) have utilized multiple resources—artificial intelligence, human reviewers, user reporting processes, etc —in effort to censor offensive language, yet it seems nearly impossible to successfully resolve the issue BIBREF7 , BIBREF8  
The major reason of the failure in abusive language detection comes from its subjectivity and context-dependent characteristics BIBREF9   For instance, a message can be regarded as harmless on its own, but when taking previous threads into account it may be seen as abusive, and vice versa  This aspect makes detecting abusive language extremely laborious even for human annotators; therefore it is difficult to build a large and reliable dataset BIBREF10  
Previously, datasets openly available in abusive language detection research on Twitter ranged from 10K to 35K in size BIBREF9 , BIBREF11   This quantity is not sufficient to train the significant number of parameters in deep learning models  Due to this reason, these datasets have been mainly studied by traditional machine learning methods  Most recently, Founta et al  founta2018large introduced Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter, a dataset containing 100K tweets with cross-validated labels  Although this corpus has great potential in training deep models with its significant size, there are no baseline reports to date 
This paper investigates the efficacy of different learning models in detecting abusive language  We compare accuracy using the most frequently studied machine learning classifiers as well as recent neural network models  Reliable baseline results are presented with the first comparative study on this dataset  Additionally, we demonstrate the effect of different features and variants, and describe the possibility for further improvements with the use of ensemble models 
Related Work
The research community introduced various approaches on abusive language detection  Razavi et al  razavi2010offensive applied Naïve Bayes, and Warner and Hirschberg warner2012detecting used Support Vector Machine (SVM), both with word-level features to classify offensive language  Xiang et al  xiang2012detecting generated topic distributions with Latent Dirichlet Allocation BIBREF12 , also using word-level features in order to classify offensive tweets 
More recently, distributed word representations and neural network models have been widely applied for abusive language detection  Djuric et al  djuric2015hate used the Continuous Bag Of Words model with paragraph2vec algorithm BIBREF13 to more accurately detect hate speech than that of the plain Bag Of Words models  Badjatiya et al  badjatiya2017deep implemented Gradient Boosted Decision Trees classifiers using word representations trained by deep learning models  Other researchers have investigated character-level representations and their effectiveness compared to word-level representations BIBREF14 , BIBREF15  
As traditional machine learning methods have relied on feature engineering, (i e  n-grams, POS tags, user information) BIBREF1 , researchers have proposed neural-based models with the advent of larger datasets  Convolutional Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks have been applied to detect abusive language, and they have outperformed traditional machine learning classifiers such as Logistic Regression and SVM BIBREF15 , BIBREF16   However, there are no studies investigating the efficiency of neural models with large-scale datasets over 100K 
Methodology
This section illustrates our implementations on traditional machine learning classifiers and neural network based models in detail  Furthermore, we describe additional features and variant models investigated 
Traditional Machine Learning Models
We implement five feature engineering based machine learning classifiers that are most often used for abusive language detection  In data preprocessing, text sequences are converted into Bag Of Words (BOW) representations, and normalized with Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) values  We experiment with word-level features using n-grams ranging from 1 to 3, and character-level features from 3 to 8-grams  Each classifier is implemented with the following specifications:
Naïve Bayes (NB): Multinomial NB with additive smoothing constant 1
Logistic Regression (LR): Linear LR with L2 regularization constant 1 and limited-memory BFGS optimization
Support Vector Machine (SVM): Linear SVM with L2 regularization constant 1 and logistic loss function
Random Forests (RF): Averaging probabilistic predictions of 10 randomized decision trees
Gradient Boosted Trees (GBT): Tree boosting with learning rate 1 and logistic loss function
Neural Network based Models
Along with traditional machine learning approaches, we investigate neural network based models to evaluate their efficacy within a larger dataset  In particular, we explore Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and their variant models  A pre-trained GloVe BIBREF17 representation is used for word-level features 
CNN: We adopt Kim's kim2014convolutional implementation as the baseline  The word-level CNN models have 3 convolutional filters of different sizes [1,2,3] with ReLU activation, and a max-pooling layer  For the character-level CNN, we use 6 convolutional filters of various sizes [3,4,5,6,7,8], then add max-pooling layers followed by 1 fully-connected layer with a dimension of 1024 
Park and Fung park2017one proposed a HybridCNN model which outperformed both word-level and character-level CNNs in abusive language detection  In order to evaluate the HybridCNN for this dataset, we concatenate the output of max-pooled layers from word-level and character-level CNN, and feed this vector to a fully-connected layer in order to predict the output 
All three CNN models (word-level, character-level, and hybrid) use cross entropy with softmax as their loss function and Adam BIBREF18 as the optimizer 
RNN: We use bidirectional RNN BIBREF19 as the baseline, implementing a GRU BIBREF20 cell for each recurrent unit  From extensive parameter-search experiments, we chose 1 encoding layer with 50 dimensional hidden states and an input dropout probability of 0 3  The RNN models use cross entropy with sigmoid as their loss function and Adam as the optimizer 
For a possible improvement, we apply a self-matching attention mechanism on RNN baseline models BIBREF21 so that they may better understand the data by retrieving text sequences twice  We also investigate a recently introduced method, Latent Topic Clustering (LTC) BIBREF22   The LTC method extracts latent topic information from the hidden states of RNN, and uses it for additional information in classifying the text data 
Feature Extension
While manually analyzing the raw dataset, we noticed that looking at the tweet one has replied to or has quoted, provides significant contextual information  We call these, “context tweets"  As humans can better understand a tweet with the reference of its context, our assumption is that computers also benefit from taking context tweets into account in detecting abusive language 
As shown in the examples below, (2) is labeled abusive due to the use of vulgar language  However, the intention of the user can be better understood with its context tweet (1) 
(1) I hate when I'm sitting in front of the bus and somebody with a wheelchair get on 
INLINEFORM0 (2) I hate it when I'm trying to board a bus and there's already an as**ole on it 
Similarly, context tweet (3) is important in understanding the abusive tweet (4), especially in identifying the target of the malice 
(3) Survivors of #Syria Gas Attack Recount `a Cruel Scene' 
INLINEFORM0 (4) Who the HELL is “LIKE" ING this post? Sick people    
Huang et al  huang2016modeling used several attributes of context tweets for sentiment analysis in order to improve the baseline LSTM model  However, their approach was limited because the meta-information they focused on—author information, conversation type, use of the same hashtags or emojis—are all highly dependent on data 
In order to avoid data dependency, text sequences of context tweets are directly used as an additional feature of neural network models  We use the same baseline model to convert context tweets to vectors, then concatenate these vectors with outputs of their corresponding labeled tweets  More specifically, we concatenate max-pooled layers of context and labeled tweets for the CNN baseline model  As for RNN, the last hidden states of context and labeled tweets are concatenated 
Dataset
Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter BIBREF10 classifies tweets into 4 labels, “normal", “spam", “hateful" and “abusive"  We were only able to crawl 70,904 tweets out of 99,996 tweet IDs, mainly because the tweet was deleted or the user account had been suspended  Table shows the distribution of labels of the crawled data 
Data Preprocessing
In the data preprocessing steps, user IDs, URLs, and frequently used emojis are replaced as special tokens  Since hashtags tend to have a high correlation with the content of the tweet BIBREF23 , we use a segmentation library BIBREF24 for hashtags to extract more information 
For character-level representations, we apply the method Zhang et al  zhang2015character proposed  Tweets are transformed into one-hot encoded vectors using 70 character dimensions—26 lower-cased alphabets, 10 digits, and 34 special characters including whitespace 
Training and Evaluation
In training the feature engineering based machine learning classifiers, we truncate vector representations according to the TF-IDF values (the top 14,000 and 53,000 for word-level and character-level representations, respectively) to avoid overfitting  For neural network models, words that appear only once are replaced as unknown tokens 
Since the dataset used is not split into train, development, and test sets, we perform 10-fold cross validation, obtaining the average of 5 tries; we divide the dataset randomly by a ratio of 85:5:10, respectively  In order to evaluate the overall performance, we calculate the weighted average of precision, recall, and F1 scores of all four labels, “normal”, “spam”, “hateful”, and “abusive” 
Empirical Results
As shown in Table , neural network models are more accurate than feature engineering based models (i e  NB, SVM, etc ) except for the LR model—the best LR model has the same F1 score as the best CNN model 
Among traditional machine learning models, the most accurate in classifying abusive language is the LR model followed by ensemble models such as GBT and RF  Character-level representations improve F1 scores of SVM and RF classifiers, but they have no positive effect on other models 
For neural network models, RNN with LTC modules have the highest accuracy score, but there are no significant improvements from its baseline model and its attention-added model  Similarly, HybridCNN does not improve the baseline CNN model  For both CNN and RNN models, character-level features significantly decrease the accuracy of classification 
The use of context tweets generally have little effect on baseline models, however they noticeably improve the scores of several metrics  For instance, CNN with context tweets score the highest recall and F1 for “hateful" labels, and RNN models with context tweets have the highest recall for “abusive" tweets 
Discussion and Conclusion
While character-level features are known to improve the accuracy of neural network models BIBREF16 , they reduce classification accuracy for Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter  We conclude this is because of the lack of labeled data as well as the significant imbalance among the different labels  Unlike neural network models, character-level features in traditional machine learning classifiers have positive results because we have trained the models only with the most significant character elements using TF-IDF values 
Variants of neural network models also suffer from data insufficiency  However, these models show positive performances on “spam" (14%) and “hateful" (4%) tweets—the lower distributed labels  The highest F1 score for “spam" is from the RNN-LTC model (0 551), and the highest for “hateful" is CNN with context tweets (0 309)  Since each variant model excels in different metrics, we expect to see additional improvements with the use of ensemble models of these variants in future works 
In this paper, we report the baseline accuracy of different learning models as well as their variants on the recently introduced dataset, Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter  Experimental results show that bidirectional GRU networks with LTC provide the most accurate results in detecting abusive language  Additionally, we present the possibility of using ensemble models of variant models and features for further improvements 
Acknowledgments
K  Jung is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, ASRI, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea  This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No  2016M3C4A7952632), the Technology Innovation Program (10073144) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) 
We would also like to thank Yongkeun Hwang and Ji Ho Park for helpful discussions and their valuable insights 

ground_truth: using tweets that one has replied or quoted to as contextual information

text sequences of context tweets

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 NLP tasks do they consider?
Context 3:  An obvious reason is that maximum entropy only favors uniform distribution 
Incorporating Neutral features performs similarly to maximum entropy since we assume that neutral words are uniformly distributed  Its accuracy decreases slowly when the number of labeled features becomes larger ( $t>4$ ) (Figure 1 (a)), suggesting that the model gradually biases to the class with more labeled features, just like GE-FL 
Incorporating the KL divergence of class distribution performs much better than GE-FL on both balanced and unbalanced datasets  This shows that it is effective to control the unbalance in labeled features and in the dataset 
With Balanced Labeled Features
We also compare with the baseline when the labeled features are balanced  Similar to the experiment above, the labeled features are obtained by information gain  Two settings are experimented with:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for each class, and conduct comparisons on the original balanced movie dataset (positive:negtive=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the class distribution is unbalanced, by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 2   When the dataset is balanced (Figure 2 (a)), there is little difference between GE-FL and our methods  The reason is that the proposed regularization terms provide no additional knowledge to the model and there is no bias in the labeled features  On the unbalanced dataset (Figure 2 (b)), incorporating KL divergence is much better than GE-FL since we provide additional knowledge(the true class distribution), but maximum entropy and neutral features are much worse because forcing the model to approach the uniform distribution misleads it 
With Unbalanced Class Distributions
Our methods are also evaluated on datasets with different unbalanced class distributions  We manually construct several movie datasets with class distributions of 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 by randomly removing 50%, 67%, 75% positive documents  The original balanced movie dataset is used as a control group  We test with both balanced and unbalanced labeled features  For the balanced case, we randomly select 10 features from the feature pool for each class, and for the unbalanced case, we select 10 features for one class, and 1 feature for the other  Results are shown in Figure 3  
Figure 3 (a) shows that when the dataset and the labeled features are both balanced, there is little difference between our methods and GE-FL(also see Figure 2 (a))  But when the class distribution becomes more unbalanced, the difference becomes more remarkable  Performance of neutral features and maximum entropy decrease significantly but incorporating KL divergence increases remarkably  This suggests if we have more accurate knowledge about class distribution, KL divergence can guide the model to the right direction 
Figure 3 (b) shows that when the labeled features are unbalanced, our methods significantly outperforms GE-FL  Incorporating KL divergence is robust enough to control unbalance both in the dataset and in labeled features while the other three methods are not so competitive 
The Influence of λ\lambda 
We present the influence of $\lambda $ on the method that incorporates KL divergence in this section  Since we simply set $\lambda = \beta |K|$ , we just tune $\beta $ here  Note that when $\beta = 0$ , the newly introduced regularization term is disappeared, and thus the model is actually GE-FL  Again, we test the method with different $\lambda $ in two settings:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other class  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 4   As expected, $\lambda $ reflects how strong the regularization is  The model tends to be closer to our preferences with the increasing of $\lambda $ on both cases 
Using LDA Selected Features
We compare our methods with GE-FL on all the 9 datasets in this section  Instead of using features obtained by information gain, we use LDA to select labeled features  Unlike information gain, LDA does not employ any instance labels to find labeled features  In this setting, we can build classification models without any instance annotation, but just with labeled features 
Table 1 shows that our three methods significantly outperform GE-FL  Incorporating neutral features performs better than GE-FL on 7 of the 9 datasets, maximum entropy is better on 8 datasets, and KL divergence better on 7 datasets 
LDA selects out the most predictive features as labeled features without considering the balance among classes  GE-FL does not exert any control on such an issue, so the performance is severely suffered  Our methods introduce auxiliary regularization terms to control such a bias problem and thus promote the model significantly 
Related Work
There have been much work that incorporate prior knowledge into learning, and two related lines are surveyed here  One is to use prior knowledge to label unlabeled instances and then apply a standard learning algorithm  The other is to constrain the model directly with prior knowledge 
Liu et al text manually labeled features which are highly predictive to unsupervised clustering assignments and use them to label unlabeled data  Chang et al guiding proposed constraint driven learning  They first used constraints and the learned model to annotate unlabeled instances, and then updated the model with the newly labeled data  Daumé daume2008cross proposed a self training method in which several models are trained on the same dataset, and only unlabeled instances that satisfy the cross task knowledge constraints are used in the self training process 
MaCallum et al gec proposed generalized expectation(GE) criteria which formalised the knowledge as constraint terms about the expectation of the model into the objective function Graça et al pr proposed posterior regularization(PR) framework which projects the model's posterior onto a set of distributions that satisfy the auxiliary constraints  Druck et al ge-fl explored constraints of labeled features in the framework of GE by forcing the model's predicted feature distribution to approach the reference distribution  Andrzejewski et al andrzejewski2011framework proposed a framework in which general domain knowledge can be easily incorporated into LDA  Altendorf et al altendorf2012learning explored monotonicity constraints to improve the accuracy while learning from sparse data  Chen et al chen2013leveraging tried to learn comprehensible topic models by leveraging multi-domain knowledge 
Mann and McCallum simple,generalized incorporated not only labeled features but also other knowledge like class distribution into the objective function of GE-FL  But they discussed only from the semi-supervised perspective and did not investigate into the robustness problem, unlike what we addressed in this paper 
There are also some active learning methods trying to use prior knowledge  Raghavan et al feedback proposed to use feedback on instances and features interlacedly, and demonstrated that feedback on features boosts the model much  Druck et al active proposed an active learning method which solicits labels on features rather than on instances and then used GE-FL to train the model 
Conclusion and Discussions
This paper investigates into the problem of how to leverage prior knowledge robustly in learning models  We propose three regularization terms on top of generalized expectation criteria  As demonstrated by the experimental results, the performance can be considerably improved when taking into account these factors  Comparative results show that our proposed methods is more effective and works more robustly against baselines  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to address the robustness problem of leveraging knowledge, and may inspire other research 
We then present more detailed discussions about the three regularization methods  Incorporating neutral features is the simplest way of regularization, which doesn't require any modification of GE-FL but just finding out some common features  But as Figure 1 (a) shows, only using neutral features are not strong enough to handle extremely unbalanced labeled features 
The maximum entropy regularization term shows the strong ability of controlling unbalance 
This method doesn't need any extra knowledge, and is thus suitable when we know nothing about the corpus  But this method assumes that the categories are uniformly distributed, which may not be the case in practice, and it will have a degraded performance if the assumption is violated (see Figure 1 (b), Figure 2 (b), Figure 3 (a)) 
The KL divergence performs much better on unbalanced corpora than other methods  The reason is that KL divergence utilizes the reference class distribution and doesn't make any assumptions  The fact suggests that additional knowledge does benefit the model 
However, the KL divergence term requires providing the true class distribution  Sometimes, we may have the exact knowledge about the true distribution, but sometimes we may not  Fortunately, the model is insensitive to the true distribution and therefore a rough estimation of the true distribution is sufficient  In our experiments, when the true class distribution is 1:2, where the reference class distribution is set to 1:1 5/1:2/1:2 5, the accuracy is 0 755/0 756/0 760 respectively  This provides us the possibility to perform simple computing on the corpus to obtain the distribution in reality  Or, we can set the distribution roughly with domain expertise 

ground_truth: text classification for themes including sentiment, web-page, science, medical and healthcare