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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How larger are the training sets of these versions of ELMo compared to the previous ones?
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
Abusive language refers to any type of insult, vulgarity, or profanity that debases the target; it also can be anything that causes aggravation BIBREF0 , BIBREF1   Abusive language is often reframed as, but not limited to, offensive language BIBREF2 , cyberbullying BIBREF3 , othering language BIBREF4 , and hate speech BIBREF5  
Recently, an increasing number of users have been subjected to harassment, or have witnessed offensive behaviors online BIBREF6   Major social media companies (i e  Facebook, Twitter) have utilized multiple resources—artificial intelligence, human reviewers, user reporting processes, etc —in effort to censor offensive language, yet it seems nearly impossible to successfully resolve the issue BIBREF7 , BIBREF8  
The major reason of the failure in abusive language detection comes from its subjectivity and context-dependent characteristics BIBREF9   For instance, a message can be regarded as harmless on its own, but when taking previous threads into account it may be seen as abusive, and vice versa  This aspect makes detecting abusive language extremely laborious even for human annotators; therefore it is difficult to build a large and reliable dataset BIBREF10  
Previously, datasets openly available in abusive language detection research on Twitter ranged from 10K to 35K in size BIBREF9 , BIBREF11   This quantity is not sufficient to train the significant number of parameters in deep learning models  Due to this reason, these datasets have been mainly studied by traditional machine learning methods  Most recently, Founta et al  founta2018large introduced Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter, a dataset containing 100K tweets with cross-validated labels  Although this corpus has great potential in training deep models with its significant size, there are no baseline reports to date 
This paper investigates the efficacy of different learning models in detecting abusive language  We compare accuracy using the most frequently studied machine learning classifiers as well as recent neural network models  Reliable baseline results are presented with the first comparative study on this dataset  Additionally, we demonstrate the effect of different features and variants, and describe the possibility for further improvements with the use of ensemble models 
Related Work
The research community introduced various approaches on abusive language detection  Razavi et al  razavi2010offensive applied Naïve Bayes, and Warner and Hirschberg warner2012detecting used Support Vector Machine (SVM), both with word-level features to classify offensive language  Xiang et al  xiang2012detecting generated topic distributions with Latent Dirichlet Allocation BIBREF12 , also using word-level features in order to classify offensive tweets 
More recently, distributed word representations and neural network models have been widely applied for abusive language detection  Djuric et al  djuric2015hate used the Continuous Bag Of Words model with paragraph2vec algorithm BIBREF13 to more accurately detect hate speech than that of the plain Bag Of Words models  Badjatiya et al  badjatiya2017deep implemented Gradient Boosted Decision Trees classifiers using word representations trained by deep learning models  Other researchers have investigated character-level representations and their effectiveness compared to word-level representations BIBREF14 , BIBREF15  
As traditional machine learning methods have relied on feature engineering, (i e  n-grams, POS tags, user information) BIBREF1 , researchers have proposed neural-based models with the advent of larger datasets  Convolutional Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks have been applied to detect abusive language, and they have outperformed traditional machine learning classifiers such as Logistic Regression and SVM BIBREF15 , BIBREF16   However, there are no studies investigating the efficiency of neural models with large-scale datasets over 100K 
Methodology
This section illustrates our implementations on traditional machine learning classifiers and neural network based models in detail  Furthermore, we describe additional features and variant models investigated 
Traditional Machine Learning Models
We implement five feature engineering based machine learning classifiers that are most often used for abusive language detection  In data preprocessing, text sequences are converted into Bag Of Words (BOW) representations, and normalized with Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) values  We experiment with word-level features using n-grams ranging from 1 to 3, and character-level features from 3 to 8-grams  Each classifier is implemented with the following specifications:
Naïve Bayes (NB): Multinomial NB with additive smoothing constant 1
Logistic Regression (LR): Linear LR with L2 regularization constant 1 and limited-memory BFGS optimization
Support Vector Machine (SVM): Linear SVM with L2 regularization constant 1 and logistic loss function
Random Forests (RF): Averaging probabilistic predictions of 10 randomized decision trees
Gradient Boosted Trees (GBT): Tree boosting with learning rate 1 and logistic loss function
Neural Network based Models
Along with traditional machine learning approaches, we investigate neural network based models to evaluate their efficacy within a larger dataset  In particular, we explore Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and their variant models  A pre-trained GloVe BIBREF17 representation is used for word-level features 
CNN: We adopt Kim's kim2014convolutional implementation as the baseline  The word-level CNN models have 3 convolutional filters of different sizes [1,2,3] with ReLU activation, and a max-pooling layer  For the character-level CNN, we use 6 convolutional filters of various sizes [3,4,5,6,7,8], then add max-pooling layers followed by 1 fully-connected layer with a dimension of 1024 
Park and Fung park2017one proposed a HybridCNN model which outperformed both word-level and character-level CNNs in abusive language detection  In order to evaluate the HybridCNN for this dataset, we concatenate the output of max-pooled layers from word-level and character-level CNN, and feed this vector to a fully-connected layer in order to predict the output 
All three CNN models (word-level, character-level, and hybrid) use cross entropy with softmax as their loss function and Adam BIBREF18 as the optimizer 
RNN: We use bidirectional RNN BIBREF19 as the baseline, implementing a GRU BIBREF20 cell for each recurrent unit  From extensive parameter-search experiments, we chose 1 encoding layer with 50 dimensional hidden states and an input dropout probability of 0 3  The RNN models use cross entropy with sigmoid as their loss function and Adam as the optimizer 
For a possible improvement, we apply a self-matching attention mechanism on RNN baseline models BIBREF21 so that they may better understand the data by retrieving text sequences twice  We also investigate a recently introduced method, Latent Topic Clustering (LTC) BIBREF22   The LTC method extracts latent topic information from the hidden states of RNN, and uses it for additional information in classifying the text data 
Feature Extension
While manually analyzing the raw dataset, we noticed that looking at the tweet one has replied to or has quoted, provides significant contextual information  We call these, “context tweets"

ground_truth: By 14 times.

up to 1.95 times larger

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What learning models are used on the dataset?
Context 2:  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 
Context 3: Introduction
Multi-document summarization (MDS), the transformation of a set of documents into a short text containing their most important aspects, is a long-studied problem in NLP  Generated summaries have been shown to support humans dealing with large document collections in information seeking tasks BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   However, when exploring a set of documents manually, humans rarely write a fully-formulated summary for themselves  Instead, user studies BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 show that they note down important keywords and phrases, try to identify relationships between them and organize them accordingly  Therefore, we believe that the study of summarization with similarly structured outputs is an important extension of the traditional task 
A representation that is more in line with observed user behavior is a concept map BIBREF5 , a labeled graph showing concepts as nodes and relationships between them as edges (Figure FIGREF2 )  Introduced in 1972 as a teaching tool BIBREF6 , concept maps have found many applications in education BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , for writing assistance BIBREF9 or to structure information repositories BIBREF10 , BIBREF11   For summarization, concept maps make it possible to represent a summary concisely and clearly reveal relationships  Moreover, we see a second interesting use case that goes beyond the capabilities of textual summaries: When concepts and relations are linked to corresponding locations in the documents they have been extracted from, the graph can be used to navigate in a document collection, similar to a table of contents  An implementation of this idea has been recently described by BIBREF12  
The corresponding task that we propose is concept-map-based MDS, the summarization of a document cluster in the form of a concept map  In order to develop and evaluate methods for the task, gold-standard corpora are necessary, but no suitable corpus is available  The manual creation of such a dataset is very time-consuming, as the annotation includes many subtasks  In particular, an annotator would need to manually identify all concepts in the documents, while only a few of them will eventually end up in the summary 
To overcome these issues, we present a corpus creation method that effectively combines automatic preprocessing, scalable crowdsourcing and high-quality expert annotations  Using it, we can avoid the high effort for single annotators, allowing us to scale to document clusters that are 15 times larger than in traditional summarization corpora  We created a new corpus of 30 topics, each with around 40 source documents on educational topics and a summarizing concept map that is the consensus of many crowdworkers (see Figure FIGREF3 ) 
As a crucial step of the corpus creation, we developed a new crowdsourcing scheme called low-context importance annotation  In contrast to traditional approaches, it allows us to determine important elements in a document cluster without requiring annotators to read all documents, making it feasible to crowdsource the task and overcome quality issues observed in previous work BIBREF13   We show that the approach creates reliable data for our focused summarization scenario and, when tested on traditional summarization corpora, creates annotations that are similar to those obtained by earlier efforts 
To summarize, we make the following contributions: (1) We propose a novel task, concept-map-based MDS (§ SECREF2 ), (2) present a new crowdsourcing scheme to create reference summaries (§ SECREF4 ), (3) publish a new dataset for the proposed task (§ SECREF5 ) and (4) provide an evaluation protocol and baseline (§ SECREF7 )  We make these resources publicly available under a permissive license 
Task
Concept-map-based MDS is defined as follows: Given a set of related documents, create a concept map that represents its most important content, satisfies a specified size limit and is connected 
We define a concept map as a labeled graph showing concepts as nodes and relationships between them as edges  Labels are arbitrary sequences of tokens taken from the documents, making the summarization task extractive  A concept can be an entity, abstract idea, event or activity, designated by its unique label  Good maps should be propositionally coherent, meaning that every relation together with the two connected concepts form a meaningful proposition 
The task is complex, consisting of several interdependent subtasks  One has to extract appropriate labels for concepts and relations and recognize different expressions that refer to the same concept across multiple documents  Further, one has to select the most important concepts and relations for the summary and finally organize them in a graph satisfying the connectedness and size constraints 
Related Work
Some attempts have been made to automatically construct concept maps from text, working with either single documents BIBREF14 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 or document clusters BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   These approaches extract concept and relation labels from syntactic structures and connect them to build a concept map  However, common task definitions and comparable evaluations are missing  In addition, only a few of them, namely Villalon 2012 and Valerio 2006, define summarization as their goal and try to compress the input to a substantially smaller size  Our newly proposed task and the created large-cluster dataset fill these gaps as they emphasize the summarization aspect of the task 
For the subtask of selecting summary-worthy concepts and relations, techniques developed for traditional summarization BIBREF20 and keyphrase extraction BIBREF21 are related and applicable  Approaches that build graphs of propositions to create a summary BIBREF22 , BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 seem to be particularly related, however, there is one important difference: While they use graphs as an intermediate representation from which a textual summary is then generated, the goal of the proposed task is to create a graph that is directly interpretable and useful for a user  In contrast, these intermediate graphs, e g  AMR, are hardly useful for a typical, non-linguist user 
For traditional summarization, the most well-known datasets emerged out of the DUC and TAC competitions  They provide clusters of news articles with gold-standard summaries  Extending these efforts, several more specialized corpora have been created: With regard to size, Nakano 2010 present a corpus of summaries for large-scale collections of web pages  Recently, corpora with more heterogeneous documents have been suggested, e g  BIBREF26 and BIBREF27   The corpus we present combines these aspects, as it has large clusters of heterogeneous documents, and provides a necessary benchmark to evaluate the proposed task 
For concept map generation, one corpus with human-created summary concept maps for student essays has been created BIBREF28   In contrast to our corpus, it only deals with single documents, requires a two orders of magnitude smaller amount of compression of the input and is not publicly available  
Other types of information representation that also model concepts and their relationships are knowledge bases, such as Freebase BIBREF29 , and ontologies  However, they both differ in important aspects: Whereas concept maps follow an open label paradigm and are meant to be interpretable by humans, knowledge bases and ontologies are usually more strictly typed and made to be machine-readable  Moreover, approaches to automatically construct them from text typically try to extract as much information as possible, while we want to summarize a document 
Low-Context Importance Annotation
Lloret 2013 describe several experiments to crowdsource reference summaries  Workers are asked to read 10 documents and then select 10 summary sentences from them for a reward of $0 05  They discovered several challenges, including poor work quality and the subjectiveness of the annotation task, indicating that crowdsourcing is not useful for this purpose 
To overcome these issues, we introduce a new task design, low-context importance annotation, to determine summary-worthy parts of documents  Compared to Lloret et al 's approach, it is more in line with crowdsourcing best practices, as the tasks are simple, intuitive and small BIBREF30 and workers receive reasonable payment BIBREF31   Most importantly, it is also much more efficient and scalable, as it does not require workers to read all documents in a cluster 
Task Design
We break down the task of importance annotation to the level of single propositions  The goal of our crowdsourcing scheme is to obtain a score for each proposition indicating its importance in a document cluster, such that a ranking according to the score would reveal what is most important and should be included in a summary  In contrast to other work, we do not show the documents to the workers at all, but provide only a description of the document cluster's topic along with the propositions  This ensures that tasks are small, simple and can be done quickly (see Figure FIGREF4 ) 
In preliminary tests, we found that this design, despite the minimal context, works reasonably on our focused clusters on common educational topics  For instance, consider Figure FIGREF4 : One can easily say that P1 is more important than P2 without reading the documents 
We distinguish two task variants:
Instead of enforcing binary importance decisions, we use a 5-point Likert-scale to allow more fine-grained annotations  The obtained labels are translated into scores (5  1) and the average of all scores for a proposition is used as an estimate for its importance  This follows the idea that while single workers might find the task subjective, the consensus of multiple workers, represented in the average score, tends to be less subjective due to the “wisdom of the crowd”  We randomly group five propositions into a task 
As an alternative, we use a second task design based on pairwise comparisons  Comparisons are known to be easier to make and more consistent BIBREF32 , but also more expensive, as the number of pairs grows quadratically with the number of objects  To reduce the cost, we group five propositions into a task and ask workers to order them by importance per drag-and-drop  From the results, we derive pairwise comparisons and use TrueSkill BIBREF35 , a powerful Bayesian rank induction model BIBREF34 , to obtain importance estimates for each proposition 
Pilot Study
To verify the proposed approach, we conducted a pilot study on Amazon Mechanical Turk using data from TAC2008 BIBREF36   We collected importance estimates for 474 propositions extracted from the first three clusters using both task designs  Each Likert-scale task was assigned to 5 different workers and awarded $0 06  For comparison tasks, we also collected 5 labels each, paid $0 05 and sampled around 7% of all possible pairs  We submitted them in batches of 100 pairs and selected pairs for subsequent batches based on the confidence of the TrueSkill model 
Following the observations of Lloret 2013, we established several measures for quality control  First, we restricted our tasks to workers from the US with an approval rate of at least 95%  Second, we identified low quality workers by measuring the correlation of each worker's Likert-scores with the average of the other four scores  The worst workers (at most 5% of all labels) were removed 
In addition, we included trap sentences, similar as in BIBREF13 , in around 80 of the tasks  In contrast to Lloret et al 's findings, both an obvious trap sentence (This sentence is not important) and a less obvious but unimportant one (Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law) were consistently labeled as unimportant (1 08 and 1 14), indicating that the workers did the task properly 
For Likert-scale tasks, we follow Snow 2008 and calculate agreement as the average Pearson correlation of a worker's Likert-score with the average score of the remaining workers  This measure is less strict than exact label agreement and can account for close labels and high- or low-scoring workers  We observe a correlation of 0 81, indicating substantial agreement  For comparisons, the majority agreement is 0 73  To further examine the reliability of the collected data, we followed the approach of Kiritchenko 2016 and simply repeated the crowdsourcing for one of the three topics  Between the importance estimates calculated from the first and second run, we found a Pearson correlation of 0 82 (Spearman 0 78) for Likert-scale tasks and 0 69 (Spearman 0 66) for comparison tasks  This shows that the approach, despite the subjectiveness of the task, allows us to collect reliable annotations 
In addition to the reliability studies, we extrinsically evaluated the annotations in the task of summary evaluation  For each of the 58 peer summaries in TAC2008, we calculated a score as the sum of the importance estimates of the propositions it contains  Table TABREF13 shows how these peer scores, averaged over the three topics, correlate with the manual responsiveness scores assigned during TAC in comparison to ROUGE-2 and Pyramid scores  The results demonstrate that with both task designs, we obtain importance annotations that are similarly useful for summary evaluation as pyramid annotations or gold-standard summaries (used for ROUGE) 
Based on the pilot study, we conclude that the proposed crowdsourcing scheme allows us to obtain proper importance annotations for propositions  As workers are not required to read all documents, the annotation is much more efficient and scalable as with traditional methods 
Corpus Creation
This section presents the corpus construction process, as outlined in Figure FIGREF16 , combining automatic preprocessing, scalable crowdsourcing and high-quality expert annotations to be able to scale to the size of our document clusters  For every topic, we spent about $150 on crowdsourcing and 1 5h of expert annotations, while just a single annotator would already need over 8 hours (at 200 words per minute) to read all documents of a topic 
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: Naïve Bayes (NB), Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forests (RF), Gradient Boosted Trees (GBT),  Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN)

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

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 type of evaluation is proposed for this task?
Context 4:  Finally, for B2 we achieve much poorer performance, with average scores of P=0 21, R=0 20 and F1=0 21 
Robustness  In Table TABREF58 , we show the overall performance for the years between 2009 and 2013  An interesting observation we make is that we have a very robust performance and the results are stable across the years  If we consider the experimental setup, where for year INLINEFORM0 we optimize the learning objective with only 74k training instances and evaluate on the rest of the instances, it achieves a very good performance  We predict with F1=0 68 the remaining 469k instances for the years INLINEFORM1  
The results are particularly promising considering the fact that the distribution between our two classes is highly skewed  On average the number of `relevant' pairs account for only around INLINEFORM0 of all pairs  A good indicator to support such a statement is the kappa (denoted by INLINEFORM1 ) statistic  INLINEFORM2 measures agreement between the algorithm and the gold standard on both labels while correcting for chance agreement (often expected due to extreme distributions)  The INLINEFORM3 scores for B1 across the years is on average INLINEFORM4 , while for INLINEFORM5 we achieve a score of INLINEFORM6 (the maximum score for INLINEFORM7 is 1) 
In Figure FIGREF60 we show the impact of the individual feature groups that contribute to the superior performance in comparison to the baselines  Relative entity frequency from the salience feature, models the entity salience as an exponentially decaying function based on the positional index of the paragraph where the entity appears  The performance of INLINEFORM0 with relative entity frequency from the salience feature group is close to that of all the features combined  The authority and novelty features account to a further improvement in terms of precision, by adding roughly a 7%-10% increase  However, if both feature groups are considered separately, they significantly outperform the baseline B1 
Article–Section Placement
We model the ASP placement task as a successor of the AEP task  For all the `relevant' news entity pairs, the task is to determine the correct entity section  Each section in a Wikipedia entity page represents a different topic  For example, Barack Obama has the sections `Early Life', `Presidency', `Family and Personal Life' etc  However, many entity pages have an incomplete section structure  Incomplete or missing sections are due to two Wikipedia properties  First, long-tail entities miss information and sections due to their lack of popularity  Second, for all entities whether popular or not, certain sections might occur for the first time due to real world developments  As an example, the entity Germanwings did not have an `Accidents' section before this year's disaster, which was the first in the history of the airline 
Even if sections are missing for certain entities, similar sections usually occur in other entities of the same class (e g  other airlines had disasters and therefore their pages have an accidents section)  We exploit such homogeneity of section structure and construct templates that we use to expand entity profiles  The learning objective for INLINEFORM0 takes into account the following properties:
Section-templates: account for incomplete section structure for an entity profile INLINEFORM0 by constructing section templates INLINEFORM1 from an entity class INLINEFORM2
Overall fit: measures the overall fit of a news article to sections in the section templates INLINEFORM0
Given the fact that entity profiles are often incomplete, we construct section templates for every entity class  We group entities based on their class INLINEFORM0 and construct section templates INLINEFORM1   For different entity classes, e g  Person and Location, the section structure and the information represented in those section varies heavily  Therefore, the section templates are with respect to the individual classes in our experimental setup (see Figure FIGREF42 )  DISPLAYFORM0
Generating section templates has two main advantages  Firstly, by considering class-based profiles, we can overcome the problem of incomplete individual entity profiles and thereby are able to suggest news articles to sections that do not yet exist in a specific entity INLINEFORM0   The second advantage is that we are able to canonicalize the sections, i e  `Early Life' and `Early Life and Childhood' would be treated similarly 
To generate the section template INLINEFORM0 , we extract all sections from entities of a given type INLINEFORM1 at year INLINEFORM2   Next, we cluster the entity sections, based on an extended version of k–means clustering BIBREF18 , namely x–means clustering introduced in Pelleg et al  which estimates the number of clusters efficiently BIBREF19   As a similarity metric we use the cosine similarity computed based on the tf–idf models of the sections  Using the x–means algorithm we overcome the requirement to provide the number of clusters k beforehand  x–means extends the k–means algorithm, such that a user only specifies a range [ INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 ] that the number of clusters may reasonably lie in 
The learning objective of INLINEFORM0 is to determine the overall fit of a news article INLINEFORM1 to one of the sections in a given section template INLINEFORM2   The template is pre-determined by the class of the entity for which the news is suggested as relevant by INLINEFORM3   In all cases, we measure how well INLINEFORM4 fits each of the sections INLINEFORM5 as well as the specific entity section INLINEFORM6   The section profiles in INLINEFORM7 represent the aggregated entity profiles from all entities of class INLINEFORM8 at year INLINEFORM9  
To learn INLINEFORM0 we rely on a variety of features that consider several similarity aspects as shown in Table TABREF31   For the sake of simplicity we do not make the distinction in Table TABREF31 between the individual entity section and class-based section similarities, INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 , respectively  Bear in mind that an entity section INLINEFORM3 might be present at year INLINEFORM4 but not at year INLINEFORM5 (see for more details the discussion on entity profile expansion in Section UID69 ) 
Topic  We use topic similarities to ensure (i) that the content of INLINEFORM0 fits topic-wise with a specific section text and (ii) that it has a similar topic to previously referred news articles in that section  In a pre-processing stage we compute the topic models for the news articles, entity sections INLINEFORM1 and the aggregated class-based sections in INLINEFORM2   The topic models are computed using LDA BIBREF20   We only computed a single topic per article/section as we are only interested in topic term overlaps between article and sections  We distinguish two main features: the first feature measures the overlap of topic terms between INLINEFORM3 and the entity section INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5 , and the second feature measures the overlap of the topic model of INLINEFORM6 against referred news articles in INLINEFORM7 at time INLINEFORM8  
Syntactic  These features represent a mechanism for conveying the importance of a specific text snippet, solely based on the frequency of specific POS tags (i e  NNP, CD etc ), as commonly used in text summarization tasks  Following the same intuition as in BIBREF8 , we weigh the importance of articles by the count of specific POS tags  We expect that for different sections, the importance of POS tags will vary  We measure the similarity of POS tags in a news article against the section text  Additionally, we consider bi-gram and tri-gram POS tag overlap  This exploits similarity in syntactical patterns between the news and section text 
Lexical  As lexical features, we measure the similarity of INLINEFORM0 against the entity section text INLINEFORM1 and the aggregate section text INLINEFORM2   Further, we distinguish between the overall similarity of INLINEFORM3 and that of the different news paragraphs ( INLINEFORM4 which denotes the paragraphs of INLINEFORM5 up to the 5th paragraph)  A higher similarity on the first paragraphs represents a more confident indicator that INLINEFORM6 should be suggested to a specific section INLINEFORM7   We measure the similarity based on two metrics: (i) the KL-divergence between the computed language models and (ii) cosine similarity of the corresponding paragraph text INLINEFORM8 and section text 
Entity-based  Another feature set we consider is the overlap of named entities and their corresponding entity classes  For different entity sections, we expect to find a particular set of entity classes that will correlate with the section, e g  `Early Life' contains mostly entities related to family, school, universities etc 
Frequency  Finally, we gather statistics about the number of entities, paragraphs, news article length, top– INLINEFORM0 entities and entity classes, and the frequency of different POS tags  Here we try to capture patterns of articles that are usually cited in specific sections 
Evaluation Plan
In this section we outline the evaluation plan to verify the effectiveness of our learning approaches  To evaluate the news suggestion problem we are faced with two challenges 
What comprises the ground truth for such a task ?
How do we construct training and test splits given that entity pages consists of text added at different points in time ?
Consider the ground truth challenge  Evaluating if an arbitrary news article should be included in Wikipedia is both subjective and difficult for a human if she is not an expert  An invasive approach, which was proposed by Barzilay and Sauper BIBREF8 , adds content directly to Wikipedia and expects the editors or other users to redact irrelevant content over a period of time  The limitations of such an evaluation technique is that content added to long-tail entities might not be evaluated by informed users or editors in the experiment time frame  It is hard to estimate how much time the added content should be left on the entity page  A more non-invasive approach could involve crowdsourcing of entity and news article pairs in an IR style relevance assessment setup  The problem of such an approach is again finding knowledgeable users or experts for long-tail entities  Thus the notion of relevance of a news recommendation is challenging to evaluate in a crowd setup 
We take a slightly different approach by making an assumption that the news articles already present in Wikipedia entity pages are relevant  To this extent, we extract a dataset comprising of all news articles referenced in entity pages (details in Section SECREF40 )  At the expense of not evaluating the space comprising of news articles absent in Wikipedia, we succeed in (i) avoiding restrictive assumptions about the quality of human judgments, (ii) being invasive and polluting Wikipedia, and (iii) deriving a reusable test bed for quicker experimentation 
The second challenge of construction of training and test set separation is slightly easier and is addressed in Section SECREF46  
Datasets
The datasets we use for our experimental evaluation are directly extracted from the Wikipedia entity pages and their revision history  The generated data represents one of the contributions of our paper  The datasets are the following:
Entity Classes  We focus on a manually predetermined set of entity classes for which we expect to have news coverage  The number of analyzed entity classes is 27, including INLINEFORM0 entities with at least one news reference  The entity classes were selected from the DBpedia class ontology  Figure FIGREF42 shows the number of entities per class for the years (2009-2014) 
News Articles  We extract all news references from the collected Wikipedia entity pages  The extracted news references are associated with the sections in which they appear  In total there were INLINEFORM0 news references, and after crawling we end up with INLINEFORM1 successfully crawled news articles  The details of the news article distribution, and the number of entities and sections from which they are referred are shown in Table TABREF44  
Article-Entity Ground-truth  The dataset comprises of the news and entity pairs INLINEFORM0   News-entity pairs are relevant if the news article is referenced in the entity page  Non-relevant pairs (i e  negative training examples) consist of news articles that contain an entity but are not referenced in that entity's page  If a news article INLINEFORM1 is referred from INLINEFORM2 at year INLINEFORM3 , the features are computed taking into account the entity profiles at year INLINEFORM4  
Article-Section Ground-truth  The dataset consists of the triple INLINEFORM0 , where INLINEFORM1 , where we assume that INLINEFORM2 has already been determined as relevant  We therefore have a multi-class classification problem where we need to determine the section of INLINEFORM3 where INLINEFORM4 is cited  Similar to the article-entity ground truth, here too the features compute the similarity between INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7  
Data Pre-Processing
We POS-tag the news articles and entity profiles INLINEFORM0 with the Stanford tagger BIBREF21   For entity linking the news articles, we use TagMe! BIBREF22 with a confidence score of 0 3  On a manual inspection of a random sample of 1000 disambiguated entities, the accuracy is above 0 9  On average, the number of entities per news article is approximately 30  For entity linking the entity profiles, we simply follow the anchor text that refers to Wikipedia entities 
Train and Testing Evaluation Setup
We evaluate the generated supervised models for the two tasks, AEP and ASP, by splitting the train and testing instances  It is important to note that for the pairs INLINEFORM0 and the triple INLINEFORM1 , the news article INLINEFORM2 is referenced at time INLINEFORM3 by entity INLINEFORM4 , while the features take into account the entity profile at time INLINEFORM5   This avoids any `overlapping' content between the news article and the entity page, which could affect the learning task of the functions INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7   Table TABREF47 shows the statistics of train and test instances  We learn the functions at year INLINEFORM8 and test on instances for the years greater than INLINEFORM9   Please note that we do not show the performance for year 2014 as we do not have data for 2015 for evaluation 
Article-Section Placement
Here we show the evaluation setup for ASP task and discuss the results with a focus on three main aspects, (i) the overall performance across the years, (ii) the entity class specific performance, and (iii) the impact on entity profile expansion by suggesting missing sections to entities based on the pre-computed templates 
Baselines  To the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of any comparable approach for this task  Therefore, the baselines we consider are the following:
S1: Pick the section from template INLINEFORM0 with the highest lexical similarity to INLINEFORM1 : S1 INLINEFORM2
S2: Place the news into the most frequent section in INLINEFORM0
Learning Models  We use Random Forests (RF) BIBREF23 and Support Vector Machines (SVM) BIBREF24   The models are optimized taking into account the features in Table TABREF31   In contrast to the AEP task, here the scale of the number of instances allows us to learn the SVM models  The SVM model is optimized using the INLINEFORM0 loss function and uses the Gaussian kernels 
Metrics  We compute precision P as the ratio of news for which we pick a section INLINEFORM0 from INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 conforms to the one in our ground-truth (see Section SECREF40 )  The definition of recall R and F1 score follows from that of precision 
Figure FIGREF66 shows the overall performance and a comparison of our approach (when INLINEFORM0 is optimized using SVM) against the best performing baseline S2  With the increase in the number of training instances for the ASP task the performance is a monotonically non-decreasing function  For the year 2009, we optimize the learning objective of INLINEFORM1 with around 8% of the total instances, and evaluate on the rest  The performance on average is around P=0 66 across all classes  Even though for many classes the performance is already stable (as we will see in the next section), for some classes we improve further  If we take into account the years between 2010 and 2012, we have an increase of INLINEFORM2 P=0 17, with around 70% of instances used for training and the remainder for evaluation  For the remaining years the total improvement is INLINEFORM3 P=0 18 in contrast to the performance at year 2009 
On the other hand, the baseline S1 has an average precision of P=0 12  The performance across the years varies slightly, with the year 2011 having the highest average precision of P=0 13  Always picking the most frequent section as in S2, as shown in Figure FIGREF66 , results in an average precision of P=0 17, with a uniform distribution across the years 
Here we show the performance of INLINEFORM0 decomposed for the different entity classes  Specifically we analyze the 27 classes in Figure FIGREF42   In Table TABREF68 , we show the results for a range of years (we omit showing all years due to space constraints)  For illustration purposes only, we group them into four main classes ( INLINEFORM1 Person, Organization, Location, Event INLINEFORM2 ) and into the specific sub-classes shown in the second column in Table TABREF68   For instance, the entity classes OfficeHolder and Politician are aggregated into Person–Politics 
It is evident that in the first year the performance is lower in contrast to the later years  This is due to the fact that as we proceed, we can better generalize and accurately determine the correct fit of an article INLINEFORM0 into one of the sections from the pre-computed templates INLINEFORM1   The results are already stable for the year range INLINEFORM2   For a few Person sub-classes, e g  Politics, Entertainment, we achieve an F1 score above 0 9  These additionally represent classes with a sufficient number of training instances for the years INLINEFORM3   The lowest F1 score is for the Criminal and Television classes  However, this is directly correlated with the insufficient number of instances 
The baseline approaches for the ASP task perform poorly  S1, based on lexical similarity, has a varying performance for different entity classes  The best performance is achieved for the class Person – Politics, with P=0 43  This highlights the importance of our feature choice and that the ASP cannot be considered as a linear function, where the maximum similarity yields the best results  For different entity classes different features and combination of features is necessary  Considering that S2 is the overall best performing baseline, through our approach INLINEFORM0 we have a significant improvement of over INLINEFORM1 P=+0 64 
The models we learn are very robust and obtain high accuracy, fulfilling our pre-condition for accurate news suggestions into the entity sections  We measure the robustness of INLINEFORM0 through the INLINEFORM1 statistic  In this case, we have a model with roughly 10 labels (corresponding to the number of sections in a template INLINEFORM2 )  The score we achieve shows that our model predicts with high confidence with INLINEFORM3  
The last analysis is the impact we have on expanding entity profiles INLINEFORM0 with new sections  Figure FIGREF70 shows the ratio of sections for which we correctly suggest an article INLINEFORM1 to the right section in the section template INLINEFORM2   The ratio here corresponds to sections that are not present in the entity profile at year INLINEFORM3 , that is INLINEFORM4   However, given the generated templates INLINEFORM5 , we can expand the entity profile INLINEFORM6 with a new section at time INLINEFORM7   In details, in the absence of a section at time INLINEFORM8 , our model trains well on similar sections from the section template INLINEFORM9 , hence we can predict accurately the section and in this case suggest its addition to the entity profile  With time, it is obvious that the expansion rate decreases at later years as the entity profiles become more `complete' 
This is particularly interesting for expanding the entity profiles of long-tail entities as well as updating entities with real-world emerging events that are added constantly  In many cases such missing sections are present at one of the entities of the respective entity class INLINEFORM0   An obvious case is the example taken in Section SECREF16 , where the `Accidents' is rather common for entities of type Airline  However, it is non-existent for some specific entity instances, i e Germanwings airline 
Through our ASP approach INLINEFORM0 , we are able to expand both long-tail and trunk entities  We distinguish between the two types of entities by simply measuring their section text length  The real distribution in the ground truth (see Section SECREF40 ) is 27% and 73% are long-tail and trunk entities, respectively  We are able to expand the entity profiles for both cases and all entity classes without a significant difference, with the only exception being the class Creative Work, where we expand significantly more trunk entities 
Conclusion and Future Work
In this work, we have proposed an automated approach for the novel task of suggesting news articles to Wikipedia entity pages to facilitate Wikipedia updating  The process consists of two stages  In the first stage, article–entity placement, we suggest news articles to entity pages by considering three main factors, such as entity salience in a news article, relative authority and novelty of news articles for an entity page  In the second stage, article–section placement, we determine the best fitting section in an entity page  Here, we remedy the problem of incomplete entity section profiles by constructing section templates for specific entity classes  This allows us to add missing sections to entity pages  We carry out an extensive experimental evaluation on 351,983 news articles and 73,734 entities coming from 27 distinct entity classes  For the first stage, we achieve an overall performance with P=0 93, R=0 514 and F1=0 676, outperforming our baseline competitors significantly  For the second stage, we show that we can learn incrementally to determine the correct section for a news article based on section templates  The overall performance across different classes is P=0 844, R=0 885 and F1=0 860 
In the future, we will enhance our work by extracting facts from the suggested news articles  Results suggest that the news content cited in entity pages comes from the first paragraphs  However, challenging task such as the canonicalization and chronological ordering of facts, still remain 

ground_truth: Answer with content missing: (Evaluation Metrics section) Precision, Recall, F1-scores, Strict match, METEOR, ROUGE-2