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 datasets did they use for evaluation?
Context 1: Introduction
Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) is a novel Transformer BIBREF0 model, which recently achieved state-of-the-art performance in several language understanding tasks, such as question answering, natural language inference, semantic similarity, sentiment analysis, and others BIBREF1  While well-suited to dealing with relatively short sequences, Transformers suffer from a major issue that hinders their applicability in classification of long sequences, i e  they are able to consume only a limited context of symbols as their input BIBREF2 
There are several natural language (NLP) processing tasks that involve such long sequences  Of particular interest are topic identification of spoken conversations BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5 and call center customer satisfaction prediction BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8, BIBREF9  Call center conversations, while usually quite short and to the point, often involve agents trying to solve very complex issues that the customers experience, resulting in some calls taking even an hour or more  For speech analytics purposes, these calls are typically transcribed using an automatic speech recognition (ASR) system, and processed in textual representations further down the NLP pipeline  These transcripts sometimes exceed the length of 5000 words  Furthermore, temporal information might play an important role in tasks like CSAT  For example, a customer may be angry at the beginning of the call, but after her issue is resolved, she would be very satisfied with the way it was handled  Therefore, simple bag of words models, or any model that does not include temporal dependencies between the inputs, may not be well-suited to handle this category of tasks  This motivates us to employ model such as BERT in this task 
In this paper, we propose a method that builds upon BERT's architecture  We split the input text sequence into shorter segments in order to obtain a representation for each of them using BERT  Then, we use either a recurrent LSTM BIBREF10 network, or another Transformer, to perform the actual classification  We call these techniques Recurrence over BERT (RoBERT) and Transformer over BERT (ToBERT)  Given that these models introduce a hierarchy of representations (segment-wise and document-wise), we refer to them as Hierarchical Transformers  To the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been done before to use the Transformer architecture for classification of such long sequences 
Our novel contributions are:
Two extensions - RoBERT and ToBERT - to the BERT model, which enable its application in classification of long texts by performing segmentation and using another layer on top of the segment representations 
State-of-the-art results on the Fisher topic classification task 
Significant improvement on the CSAT prediction task over the MS-CNN model 
Related work
Several dimensionality reduction algorithms such as RBM, autoencoders, subspace multinomial models (SMM) are used to obtain a low dimensional representation of documents from a simple BOW representation and then classify it using a simple linear classifiers BIBREF11, BIBREF12, BIBREF13, BIBREF4  In BIBREF14 hierarchical attention networks are used for document classification  They evaluate their model on several datasets with average number of words around 150  Character-level CNN are explored in BIBREF15 but it is prohibitive for very long documents  In BIBREF16, dataset collected from arXiv papers is used for classification  For classification, they sample random blocks of words and use them together for classification instead of using full document which may work well as arXiv papers are usually coherent and well written on a well defined topic  Their method may not work well on spoken conversations as random block of words usually do not represent topic of full conversation 
Several researchers addressed the problem of predicting customer satisfaction BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8, BIBREF9  In most of these works, logistic regression, SVM, CNN are applied on different kinds of representations 
In BIBREF17, authors use BERT for document classification but the average document length is less than BERT maximum length 512  TransformerXL BIBREF2 is an extension to the Transformer architecture that allows it to better deal with long inputs for the language modelling task  It relies on the auto-regressive property of the model, which is not the case in our tasks 
Method ::: BERT
Because our work builds heavily upon BERT, we provide a brief summary of its features  BERT is built upon the Transformer architecture BIBREF0, which uses self-attention, feed-forward layers, residual connections and layer normalization as the main building blocks  It has two pre-training objectives:
Masked language modelling - some of the words in a sentence are being masked and the model has to predict them based on the context (note the difference from the typical autoregressive language model training objective);
Next sentence prediction - given two input sequences, decide whether the second one is the next sentence or not 
BERT has been shown to beat the state-of-the-art performance on 11 tasks with no modifications to the model architecture, besides adding a task-specific output layer BIBREF1  We follow same procedure suggested in BIBREF1 for our tasks  Fig  FIGREF8 shows the BERT model for classification  We obtain two kinds of representation from BERT: pooled output from last transformer block, denoted by H, and posterior probabilities, denoted by P  There are two variants of BERT - BERT-Base and BERT-Large  In this work we are using BERT-Base for faster training and experimentation, however, our methods are applicable to BERT-Large as well  BERT-Base and BERT-Large are different in model parameters such as number of transformer blocks, number of self-attention heads  Total number of parameters in BERT-Base are 110M and 340M in BERT-Large 
BERT suffers from major limitations in terms of handling long sequences  Firstly, the self-attention layer has a quadratic complexity $O(n^2)$ in terms of the sequence length $n$ BIBREF0  Secondly, BERT uses a learned positional embeddings scheme BIBREF1, which means that it won't likely be able to generalize to positions beyond those seen in the training data 
To investigate the effect of fine-tuning BERT on task performance, we use either the pre-trained BERT weights, or the weights from a BERT fine-tuned on the task-specific dataset on a segment-level (i e  we preserve the original label but fine-tune on each segment separately instead of on the whole text sequence)  We compare these results to using the fine-tuned segment-level BERT predictions directly as inputs to the next layer 
Method ::: Recurrence over BERT
Given that BERT is limited to a particular input length, we split the input sequence into segments of a fixed size with overlap  For each of these segments, we obtain H or P from BERT model  We then stack these segment-level representations into a sequence, which serves as input to a small (100-dimensional) LSTM layer  Its output serves as a document embedding  Finally, we use two fully connected layers with ReLU (30-dimensional) and softmax (the same dimensionality as the number of classes) activations to obtain the final predictions 
With this approach, we overcome BERT's computational complexity, reducing it to $O(n/k * k^2) = O(nk)$ for RoBERT, with $k$ denoting the segment size (the LSTM component has negligible linear complexity $O(k)$)  The positional embeddings are also no longer an issue 
Method ::: Transformer over BERT
Given that Transformers' edge over recurrent networks is their ability to effectively capture long distance relationships between words in a sequence BIBREF0, we experiment with replacing the LSTM recurrent layer in favor of a small Transformer model (2 layers of transformer building block containing self-attention, fully connected, etc )  To investigate if preserving the information about the input sequence order is important, we also build a variant of ToBERT which learns positional embeddings at the segment-level representations (but is limited to sequences of length seen during the training) 
ToBERT's computational complexity $O(\frac{n^2}{k^2})$ is asymptotically inferior to RoBERT, as the top-level Transformer model again suffers from quadratic complexity in the number of segments  However, in practice this number is much smaller than the input sequence length (${\frac{n}{k}} << n$), so we haven't observed performance or memory issues with our datasets 
Experiments
We evaluated our models on 3 different datasets:
CSAT dataset for CSAT prediction, consisting of spoken transcripts (automatic via ASR) 
20 newsgroups for topic identification task, consisting of written text;
Fisher Phase 1 corpus for topic identification task, consisting of spoken transcripts (manual);
Experiments ::: CSAT
CSAT dataset consists of US English telephone speech from call centers  For each call in this dataset, customers participated in that call gave a rating on his experience with agent  Originally, this dataset has labels rated on a scale 1-9 with 9 being extremely satisfied and 1 being extremely dissatisfied  Fig  FIGREF16 shows the histogram of ratings for our dataset  As the distribution is skewed towards extremes, we choose to do binary classification with ratings above 4 5 as satisfied and below 4 5 as dissatisfied  Quantization of ratings also helped us to create a balanced dataset  This dataset contains 4331 calls and we split them into 3 sets for our experiments: 2866 calls for training, 362 calls for validation and, finally, 1103 calls for testing 
We obtained the transcripts by employing an ASR system  The ASR system uses TDNN-LSTM acoustic model trained on Fisher and Switchboard datasets with lattice-free maximum mutual information criterion BIBREF18  The word error rates using four-gram language models were 9 2% and 17 3% respectively on Switchboard and CallHome portions of Eval2000 dataset 
Experiments ::: 20 newsgroups
20 newsgroups data set is one of the frequently used datasets in the text processing community for text classification and text clustering  This data set contains approximately 20,000 English documents from 20 topics to be identified, with 11314 documents for training and 7532 for testing  In this work, we used only 90% of documents for training and the remaining 10% for validation  For fair comparison with other publications, we used 53160 words vocabulary set available in the datasets website 
Experiments ::: Fisher
Fisher Phase 1 US English corpus is often used for automatic speech recognition in speech community  In this work, we used it for topic identification as in BIBREF3  The documents are 10-minute long telephone conversations between two people discussing a given topic  We used same training and test splits as BIBREF3 in which 1374 and 1372 documents are used for training and testing respectively  For validation of our model, we used 10% of training dataset and the remaining 90% was used for actual model training  The number of topics in this data set is 40 
Experiments ::: Dataset Statistics
Table TABREF22 shows statistics of our datasets  It can be observed that average length of Fisher is much higher than 20 newsgroups and CSAT  Cumulative distribution of document lengths for each dataset is shown in Fig  FIGREF21  It can be observed that almost all of the documents in Fisher dataset have length more than 1000 words  For CSAT, more than 50% of the documents have length greater than 500 and for 20newsgroups only 10% of the documents have length greater than 500  Note that, for CSAT and 20newsgroups, there are few documents with length more than 5000 
Experiments ::: Architecture and Training Details
In this work, we split document into segments of 200 tokens with a shift of 50 tokens to extract features from BERT model  For RoBERT, LSTM model is trained to minimize cross-entropy loss with Adam optimizer BIBREF19  The initial learning rate is set to $0 001$ and is reduced by a factor of $0 95$ if validation loss does not decrease for 3-epochs  For ToBERT, the Transformer is trained with the default BERT version of Adam optimizer BIBREF1 with an initial learning rate of $5e$-5  We report accuracy in all of our experiments  We chose a model with the best validation accuracy to calculate accuracy on the test set  To accomodate for non-determinism of some TensorFlow GPU operations, we report accuracy averaged over 5 runs 
Results
Table TABREF25 presents results using pre-trained BERT features  We extracted features from the pooled output of final transformer block as these were shown to be working well for most of the tasks BIBREF1  The features extracted from a pre-trained BERT model without any fine-tuning lead to a sub-par performance  However, We also notice that ToBERT model exploited the pre-trained BERT features better than RoBERT  It also converged faster than RoBERT  Table TABREF26 shows results using features extracted after fine-tuning BERT model with our datasets  Significant improvements can be observed compared to using pre-trained BERT features  Also, it can be noticed that ToBERT outperforms RoBERT on Fisher and 20newsgroups dataset by 13 63% and 0 81% respectively  On CSAT, ToBERT performs slightly worse than RoBERT but it is not statistically significant as this dataset is small 
Table TABREF27 presents results using fine-tuned BERT predictions instead of the pooled output from final transformer block  For each document, having obtained segment-wise predictions we can obtain final prediction for the whole document in three ways:
Compute the average of all segment-wise predictions and find the most probable class;
Find the most frequently predicted class;
Train a classification model 
It can be observed from Table TABREF27 that a simple averaging operation or taking most frequent predicted class works competitively for CSAT and 20newsgroups but not for the Fisher dataset  We believe the improvements from using RoBERT or ToBERT, compared to simple averaging or most frequent operations, are proportional to the fraction of long documents in the dataset  CSAT and 20newsgroups have (on average) significantly shorter documents than Fisher, as seen in Fig  FIGREF21  Also, significant improvements for Fisher could be because of less confident predictions from BERT model as this dataset has 40 classes  Fig  FIGREF31 presents the comparison of average voting and ToBERT for various document length ranges for Fisher dataset  We used fine-tuned BERT segment-level predictions (P) for this analysis  It can be observed that ToBERT outperforms average voting in every interval  To the best of our knowledge, this is a state-of-the-art result reported on the Fisher dataset 
Table TABREF32 presents the effect of position embeddings on the model performance  It can be observed that position embeddings did not significantly affect the model performance for Fisher and 20newsgroups, but they helped slightly in CSAT prediction (an absolute improvement of 0 64% F1-score)  We think that this is explained by the fact that Fisher and 20newsgroups are topic identification tasks, and the topic does not change much throughout these documents  However, CSAT may vary during the call, and in some cases a naive assumption that the sequential nature of the transcripts is irrelevant may lead to wrong conclusions 
Table TABREF33 compares our results with previous works  It can be seen that our model ToBERT outperforms CNN based experiments by significant margin on CSAT and Fisher datasets  For CSAT dataset, we used multi-scale CNN (MS-CNN) as the baseline, given its strong results on Fisher and 20newsgroups  The setup was replicated from BIBREF5 for comparison  We also see that our result on 20 newsgroups is 0 6% worse than the state-of-the-art 
Conclusions
In this paper, we presented two methods for long documents using BERT model: RoBERT and ToBERT  We evaluated our experiments on two classification tasks - customer satisfaction prediction and topic identification - using 3 datasets: CSAT, 20newsgroups and Fisher  We observed that ToBERT outperforms RoBERT on pre-trained BERT features and fine-tuned BERT features for all our tasks  Also, we noticed that fine-tuned BERT performs better than pre-trained BERT  We have shown that both RoBERT and ToBERT improved the simple baselines of taking an average (or the most frequent) of segment-wise predictions for long documents to obtain final prediction  Position embeddings did not significantly affect our models performance, but slightly improved the accuracy on the CSAT task  We obtained the best results on Fisher dataset and good improvements for CSAT task compared to the CNN baseline  It is interesting to note that the longer the average input in a given task, the bigger improvement we observe w r t  the baseline for that task  Our results confirm that both RoBERT and ToBERT can be used for long sequences with competitive performance and quick fine-tuning procedure  For future work, we shall focus on training models on long documents directly (i e  in an end-to-end manner) 
Context 2: Introduction
Language modelling in its inception had one-hot vector encoding of words  However, it captures only alphabetic ordering but not the word semantic similarity  Vector space models helps to learn word representations in a lower dimensional space and also captures semantic similarity  Learning word embedding aids in natural language processing tasks such as question answering and reasoning BIBREF0, stance detection BIBREF1, claim verification BIBREF2 
Recent models BIBREF3, BIBREF4 work on the basis that words with similar context share semantic similarity  BIBREF4 proposes a neural probabilistic model which models the target word probability conditioned on the previous words using a recurrent neural network  Word2Vec models BIBREF3 such as continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) predict the target word given the context, and skip-gram model works in reverse of predicting the context given the target word  While, GloVe embeddings were based on a Global matrix factorization on local contexts BIBREF5  However, the aforementioned models do not handle words with multiple meanings (polysemies) 
BIBREF6 proposes a neural network approach considering both local and global contexts in learning word embeddings (point estimates)  Their multiple prototype model handles polysemous words by providing apriori heuristics about word senses in the dataset  BIBREF7 proposes an alternative to handle polysemous words by a modified skip-gram model and EM algorithm  BIBREF8 presents a non-parametric based alternative to handle polysemies  However, these approaches fail to consider entailment relations among the words  BIBREF9 learn a Gaussian distribution per word using the expected likelihood kernel  However, for polysemous words, this may lead to word distributions with larger variances as it may have to cover various senses 
BIBREF10 proposes multimodal word distribution approach  It captures polysemy  However, the energy based objective function fails to consider asymmetry and hence entailment  Textual entailment recognition is necessary to capture lexical inference relations such as causality (for example, mosquito $\rightarrow $ malaria), hypernymy (for example, dog $\models $ animal) etc 
In this paper, we propose to obtain multi-sense word embedding distributions by using a variant of max margin objective based on the asymmetric KL divergence energy function to capture textual entailment  Multi-sense distributions are advantageous in capturing polysemous nature of words and in reducing the uncertainty per word by distributing it across senses  However, computing KL divergence between mixtures of Gaussians is intractable, and we use a KL divergence approximation based on stricter upper and lower bounds  While capturing textual entailment (asymmetry), we have also not compromised on capturing symmetrical similarity between words (for example, funny and hilarious) which will be elucidated in Section $3 1$  We also show the effectiveness of the proposed approach on the benchmark word similarity and entailment datasets in the experimental section 
Methodology ::: Word Representation
Probabilistic representation of words helps one model uncertainty in word representation, and polysemy  Given a corpus $V$, containing a list of words each represented as $w$, the probability density for a word $w$ can be represented as a mixture of Gaussians with $C$ components BIBREF10 
Here, $p_{w,j}$ represents the probability of word $w$ belonging to the component $j$, $\operatorname{\mathbf {\mu }}_{w,j}$ represents $D$ dimensional word representation corresponding to the $j^{th}$ component sense of the word $w$, and $\Sigma _{w,j}$ represents the uncertainty in representation for word $w$ belonging to component $j$ 
Objective function
The model parameters (means, covariances and mixture weights) $\theta $ can be learnt using a variant of max-margin objective BIBREF11 
Here $E_\theta (\cdot , \cdot )$ represents an energy function which assigns a score to the pair of words, $w$ is a particular word under consideration, $c$ its positive context (same context), and $c^{\prime }$ the negative context  The objective aims to push the margin of the difference between the energy function of a word $w$ to its positive context $c$ higher than its negative context $c$ by a threshold of $m$  Thus, word pairs in the same context gets a higher energy than the word pairs in the dissimilar context  BIBREF10 consider the energy function to be an expected likelihood kernel which is defined as follows 
This is similar to the cosine similarity metric over vectors and the energy between two words is maximum when they have similar distributions  But, the expected likelihood kernel is a symmetric metric which will not be suitable for capturing ordering among words and hence entailment 
Objective function ::: Proposed Energy function
As each word is represented by a mixture of Gaussian distributions, KL divergence is a better choice of energy function to capture distance between distributions  Since, KL divergence is minimum when the distributions are similar and maximum when they are dissimilar, energy function is taken as exponentiated negative KL divergence 
However, computing KL divergence between Gaussian mixtures is intractable and obtaining exact KL value is not possible  One way of approximating the KL is by Monte-Carlo approximation but it requires large number of samples to get a good approximation and is computationally expensive on high dimensional embedding space 
Alternatively, BIBREF12 presents a KL approximation between Gaussian mixtures where they obtain an upper bound through product of Gaussian approximation method and a lower bound through variational approximation method  In BIBREF13, the authors combine the lower and upper bounds from approximation methods of BIBREF12 to provide a stricter bound on KL between Gaussian mixtures  Lets consider Gaussian mixtures for the words $w$ and $v$ as follows 
The approximate KL divergence between the Gaussian mixture representations over the words $w$ and $v$ is shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM8  More details on approximation is included in the Supplementary Material 
where $EL_{ik}(w,w) = \int f_{w,i} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) f_{w,k} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) d\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}$ and $EL_{ij}(w,v) = \int f_{w,i} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) f_{v,k} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) d\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}$  Note that the expected likelihood kernel appears component wise inside the approximate KL divergence derivation 
One advantage of using KL as energy function is that it enables to capture asymmetry in entailment datasets  For eg , let us consider the words 'chair' with two senses as 'bench' and 'sling', and 'wood' with two senses as 'trees' and 'furniture'  The word chair ($w$) is entailed within wood ($v$), i e

ground_truth: CSAT dataset, 20 newsgroups, Fisher Phase 1 corpus

CSAT dataset , 20 newsgroups, Fisher Phase 1 corpus

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 does this approach compare to other WSD approaches employing word embeddings?
Context 2:  chair $\models $ wood  Now, minimizing the KL divergence necessitates maximizing $\log {\sum _j p_{v,j} \exp ({-KL(f_{w,i} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})||f_{v,j}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}))})}$ which in turn minimizes $KL(f_{w,i}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})||f_{v,j}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}))$  This will result in the support of the $i^{th}$ component of $w$ to be within the $j^{th}$ component of $v$, and holds for all component pairs leading to the entailment of $w$ within $v$  Consequently, we can see that bench $\models $ trees, bench $\models $ furniture, sling $\models $ trees, and sling $\models $ furniture  Thus, it introduces lexical relationship between the senses of child word and that of the parent word  Minimizing the KL also necessitates maximizing $\log {\sum _j {p_{v,j}} EL_{ij}(w,v)}$ term for all component pairs among $w$ and $v$  This is similar to maximizing expected likelihood kernel, which brings the means of $f_{w,i}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ and $f_{v,j}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ closer (weighted by their co-variances) as discussed in BIBREF10  Hence, the proposed approach captures the best of both worlds, thereby catering to both word similarity and entailment 
We also note that minimizing the KL divergence necessitates minimizing $\log {\sum _k p_{w,k} \exp ({-KL(f_{w,i}||f_{w,k})})}$ which in turn maximizes $KL(f_{w,i}||f_{w,k})$  This prevents the different mixture components of a word converging to single Gaussian and encourages capturing different possible senses of the word  The same is also achieved by minimizing $\sum _k {p_{w,k}} EL_{ik}(w,w)$ term and act as a regularization term which promotes diversity in learning senses of a word 
Experimentation and Results
We train our proposed model GM$\_$KL (Gaussian Mixture using KL Divergence) on the Text8 dataset BIBREF14 which is a pre-processed data of $17M$ words from wikipedia  Of which, 71290 unique and frequent words are chosen using the subsampling trick in BIBREF15  We compare GM$\_$KL with the previous approaches w2g BIBREF9 ( single Gaussian model) and w2gm BIBREF10 (mixture of Gaussian model with expected likelihood kernel)  For all the models used for experimentation, the embedding size ($D$) was set to 50, number of mixtures to 2, context window length to 10, batch size to 128  The word embeddings were initialized using a uniform distribution in the range of $[-\sqrt{\frac{3}{D}}$, $\sqrt{\frac{3}{D}}]$ such that the expectation of variance is 1 and mean 0 BIBREF16  One could also consider initializing the word embeddings using other contextual representations such as BERT BIBREF17 and ELMo BIBREF18 in the proposed approach  In order to purely analyze the performance of $\emph {GM\_KL}$ over the other models, we have chosen initialization using uniform distribution for experiments  For computational benefits, diagonal covariance is used similar to BIBREF10  Each mixture probability is constrained in the range $[0,1]$, summing to 1 by optimizing over unconstrained scores in the range $(-\infty ,\infty )$ and converting scores to probability using softmax function  The mixture scores are initialized to 0 to ensure fairness among all the components  The threshold for negative sampling was set to $10^{-5}$, as recommended in BIBREF3  Mini-batch gradient descent with Adagrad optimizer BIBREF19 was used with initial learning rate set to $0 05$ 
Table TABREF9 shows the qualitative results of GM$\_$KL  Given a query word and component id, the set of nearest neighbours along with their respective component ids are listed  For eg , the word `plane' in its 0th component captures the `geometry' sense and so are its neighbours, and its 1st component captures `vehicle' sense and so are its corresponding neighbours  Other words such as `rock' captures both the `metal' and `music' senses, `star' captures `celebrity' and `astronomical' senses, and `phone' captures `telephony' and `internet' senses 
We quantitatively compare the performance of the GM$\_$KL, w2g, and w2gm approaches on the SCWS dataset BIBREF6  The dataset consists of 2003 word pairs of polysemous and homonymous words with labels obtained by an average of 10 human scores  The Spearman correlation between the human scores and the model scores are computed  To obtain the model score, the following metrics are used:
MaxCos: Maximum cosine similarity among all component pairs of words $w$ and $v$:
AvgCos: Average component-wise cosine similarity between the words $w$ and $v$ 
KL$\_$approx: Formulated as shown in (DISPLAY_FORM8) between the words $w$ and $v$ 
KL$\_$comp: Maximum component-wise negative KL between words $w$ and $v$:
Table TABREF17 compares the performance of the approaches on the SCWS dataset  It is evident from Table TABREF17 that GM$\_$KL achieves better correlation than existing approaches for various metrics on SCWS dataset 
Table TABREF18 shows the Spearman correlation values of GM$\_$KL model evaluated on the benchmark word similarity datasets: SL BIBREF20, WS, WS-R, WS-S BIBREF21, MEN BIBREF22, MC BIBREF23, RG BIBREF24, YP BIBREF25, MTurk-287 and MTurk-771 BIBREF26, BIBREF27, and RW BIBREF28  The metric used for comparison is 'AvgCos'  It can be seen that for most of the datasets, GM$\_$KL achieves significantly better correlation score than w2g and w2gm approaches  Other datasets such as MC and RW consist of only a single sense, and hence w2g model performs better and GM$\_$KL achieves next better performance  The YP dataset have multiple senses but does not contain entailed data and hence could not make use of entailment benefits of GM$\_$KL 
Table TABREF19 shows the evaluation results of GM$\_$KL model on the entailment datasets such as entailment pairs dataset BIBREF29 created from WordNet with both positive and negative labels, a crowdsourced dataset BIBREF30 of 79 semantic relations labelled as entailed or not and annotated distributionally similar nouns dataset BIBREF31  The 'MaxCos' similarity metric is used for evaluation and the best precision and best F1-score is shown, by picking the optimal threshold  Overall, GM$\_$KL performs better than both w2g and w2gm approaches 
Conclusion
We proposed a KL divergence based energy function for learning multi-sense word embedding distributions modelled as Gaussian mixtures  Due to the intractability of the Gaussian mixtures for the KL divergence measure, we use an approximate KL divergence function  We also demonstrated that the proposed GM$\_$KL approaches performed better than other approaches on the benchmark word similarity and entailment datasets 
tocsectionAppendices
Approximation for KL divergence between mixtures of gaussians
KL between gaussian mixtures $f_{w}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ and $f_{v}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ can be decomposed as:
BIBREF12 presents KL approximation between gaussian mixtures using
product of gaussian approximation method where KL is approximated using product of component gaussians and
variational approximation method where KL is approximated by introducing some variational parameters 
The product of component gaussian approximation method using Jensen's inequality provides upper bounds as shown in equations DISPLAY_FORM23 and  
The variational approximation method provides lower bounds as shown in equations DISPLAY_FORM24 and DISPLAY_FORM25 
where $H$ represents the entropy term and the entropy of $i^{th}$ component of word $w$ with dimension $D$ is given as
In BIBREF13, the authors combine the lower and upper bounds from approximation methods of BIBREF12 to formulate a stricter bound on KL between gaussian mixtures 
From equations DISPLAY_FORM23 and DISPLAY_FORM25, a stricter lower bound for KL between gaussian mixtures is obtained as shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM26
From equations and DISPLAY_FORM24, a stricter upper bound for KL between gaussian mixtures is obtained as shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM27
Finally, the KL between gaussian mixtures is taken as the mean of KL upper and lower bounds as shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM28 
Context 3: Introduction
Since humans amass more and more generally available data in the form of unstructured text it would be very useful to teach machines to read and comprehend such data and then use this understanding to answer our questions  A significant amount of research has recently focused on answering one particular kind of questions the answer to which depends on understanding a context document  These are cloze-style questions BIBREF0 which require the reader to fill in a missing word in a sentence  An important advantage of such questions is that they can be generated automatically from a suitable text corpus which allows us to produce a practically unlimited amount of them  That opens the task to notoriously data-hungry deep-learning techniques which now seem to outperform all alternative approaches 
Two such large-scale datasets have recently been proposed by researchers from Google DeepMind and Facebook AI: the CNN/Daily Mail dataset BIBREF1 and the Children's Book Test (CBT) BIBREF2 respectively  These have attracted a lot of attention from the research community BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 with a new state-of-the-art model coming out every few weeks 
However if our goal is a production-level system actually capable of helping humans, we want the model to use all available resources as efficiently as possible  Given that
we believe that if the community is striving to bring the performance as far as possible, it should move its work to larger data 
This thinking goes in line with recent developments in the area of language modelling  For a long time models were being compared on several "standard" datasets with publications often presenting minuscule improvements in performance  Then the large-scale One Billion Word corpus dataset appeared BIBREF15 and it allowed Jozefowicz et al  to train much larger LSTM models BIBREF16 that almost halved the state-of-the-art perplexity on this dataset 
We think it is time to make a similar step in the area of text comprehension  Hence we are introducing the BookTest, a new dataset very similar to the Children's Book test but more than 60 times larger to enable training larger models even in the domain of text comprehension  Furthermore the methodology used to create our data can later be used to create even larger datasets when the need arises thanks to further technological progress 
We show that if we evaluate a model trained on the new dataset on the now standard Children's Book Test dataset, we see an improvement in accuracy much larger than other research groups achieved by enhancing the model architecture itself (while still using the original CBT training data)  By training on the new dataset, we reduce the prediction error by almost one third  On the named-entity version of CBT this brings the ensemble of our models to the level of human baseline as reported by Facebook BIBREF2   However in the final section we show in our own human study that there is still room for improvement on the CBT beyond the performance of our model 
Task Description
A natural way of testing a reader's comprehension of a text is to ask her a question the answer to which can be deduced from the text  Hence the task we are trying to solve consists of answering a cloze-style question, the answer to which depends on the understanding of a context document provided with the question  The model is also provided with a set of possible answers from which the correct one is to be selected  This can be formalized as follows:
The training data consist of tuples INLINEFORM0 , where INLINEFORM1 is a question, INLINEFORM2 is a document that contains the answer to question INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 is a set of possible answers and INLINEFORM5 is the ground-truth answer  Both INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7 are sequences of words from vocabulary INLINEFORM8   We also assume that all possible answers are words from the vocabulary, that is INLINEFORM9   In the CBT and CNN/Daily Mail datasets it is also true that the ground-truth answer INLINEFORM10 appears in the document  This is exploited by many machine learning models BIBREF2 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 , however some do not explicitly depend on this property BIBREF1 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF9
Current Landscape
We will now briefly review what datasets for text comprehension have been published up to date and look at models which have been recently applied to solving the task we have just described 
Datasets
A crucial condition for applying deep-learning techniques is to have a huge amount of data available for training  For question answering this specifically means having a large number of document-question-answer triples available  While there is an unlimited amount of text available, coming up with relevant questions and the corresponding answers can be extremely labour-intensive if done by human annotators  There were efforts to provide such human-generated datasets, e g  Microsoft's MCTest BIBREF17 , however their scale is not suitable for deep learning without pre-training on other data BIBREF18 (such as using pre-trained word embedding vectors) 
Google DeepMind managed to avoid this scale issue with their way of generating document-question-answer triples automatically, closely followed by Facebook with a similar method  Let us now briefly introduce the two resulting datasets whose properties are summarized in Table TABREF8  
These two datasets BIBREF1 exploit a useful feature of online news articles – many articles include a short summarizing sentence near the top of the page  Since all information in the summary sentence is also presented in the article body, we get a nice cloze-style question about the article contents by removing a word from the short summary 
The dataset's authors also replaced all named entities in the dataset by anonymous tokens which are further shuffled for each new batch  This forces the model to rely solely on information from the context document, not being able to transfer any meaning of the named entities between documents 
This restricts the task to one specific aspect of context-dependent question answering which may be useful however it moves the task further from the real application scenario, where we would like the model to use all information available to answer questions  Furthermore Chen et al  BIBREF5 have suggested that this can make about 17% of the questions unanswerable even by humans  They also claim that more than a half of the question sentences are mere paraphrases or exact matches of a single sentence from the context document  This raises a question to what extent the dataset can test deeper understanding of the articles 
The Children's Book Test BIBREF2 uses a different source - books freely available thanks to Project Gutenberg  Since no summary is available, each example consists of a context document formed from 20 consecutive sentences from the story together with a question formed from the subsequent sentence 
The dataset comes in four flavours depending on what type of word is omitted from the question sentence  Based on human evaluation done in BIBREF2 it seems that NE and CN are more context dependent than the other two types – prepositions and verbs  Therefore we (and all of the recent publications) focus only on these two word types 
Several new datasets related to the (now almost standard) ones above emerged recently  We will now briefly present them and explain how the dataset we are introducing in this article differs from them 
The LAMBADA dataset BIBREF19 is designed to measure progress in understanding common-sense questions about short stories that can be easily answered by humans but cannot be answered by current standard machine-learning models (e g  plain LSTM language models)  This dataset is useful for measuring the gap between humans and machine learning algorithms  However, by contrast to our BookTest dataset, it will not allow us to track progress towards the performance of the baseline systems or on examples where machine learning may show super-human performance  Also LAMBADA is just a diagnostic dataset and does not provide ready-to-use question-answering training data, just a plain-text corpus which may moreover include copyrighted books making its use potentially problematic for some purposes  We are providing ready training data consisting of copyright-free books only 
The SQuAD dataset BIBREF20 based on Wikipedia and the Who-did-What dataset BIBREF21 based on Gigaword news articles are factoid question-answering datasets where a multi-word answer should be extracted from a context document  This is in contrast to the previous datasets, including CNN/DM, CBT, LAMBADA and our new dataset, which require only single-word answers  Both these datasets however provide less than 130,000 training questions, two orders of magnitude less than our dataset does 
The Story Cloze Test BIBREF22 provides a crowd-sourced corpus of 49,255 commonsense stories for training and 3,744 testing stories with right and wrong endings  Hence the dataset is again rather small  Similarly to LAMBADA, the Story Cloze Test was designed to be easily answerable by humans 
In the WikiReading BIBREF23 dataset the context document is formed from a Wikipedia article and the question-answer pair is taken from the corresponding WikiData page  For each entity (e g  Hillary Clinton), WikiData contain a number of property-value pairs (e g  place of birth: Chicago) which form the datasets's question-answer pairs  The dataset is certainly relevant to the community, however the questions are of very limited variety with only 20 properties (and hence unique questions) covering INLINEFORM0 of the dataset  Furthermore many of the frequent properties are mentioned at a set spot within the article (e g  the date of birth is almost always in brackets behind the name of a person) which may make the task easier for machines  We are trying to provide a more varied dataset 
Although there are several datasets related to task we are aiming to solve, they differ sufficiently for our dataset to bring new value to the community  Its biggest advantage is its size which can furthermore be easily upscaled without expensive human annotation  Finally while we are emphasizing the differences, models could certainly benefit from as diverse a collection of datasets as possible 
Machine Learning Models
A first major work applying deep-learning techniques to text comprehension was Hermann et al  BIBREF1   This work was followed by the application of Memory Networks to the same task BIBREF2   Later three models emerged around the same time BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 including our psr model BIBREF4   The AS Reader inspired several subsequent models that use it as a sub-component in a diverse ensemble BIBREF8 ; extend it with a hierarchical structure BIBREF6 , BIBREF24 , BIBREF7 ; compute attention over the context document for every word in the query BIBREF10 or use two-way context-query attention mechanism for every word in the context and the query BIBREF11 that is similar in its spirit to models recently proposed in different domains, e g  BIBREF25 in information retrieval  Other neural approaches to text comprehension are explored in BIBREF9 , BIBREF12  
Possible Directions for Improvements
Accuracy in any machine learning tasks can be enhanced either by improving a machine learning model or by using more in-domain training data  Current state of the art models BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF11 improve over AS Reader's accuracy on CBT NE and CN datasets by 1-2 percent absolute  This suggests that with current techniques there is only limited room for improvement on the algorithmic side 
The other possibility to improve performance is simply to use more training data  The importance of training data was highlighted by the frequently quoted Mercer's statement that “There is no data like more data ” The observation that having more data is often more important than having better algorithms has been frequently stressed since then BIBREF13 , BIBREF14  
As a step in the direction of exploiting the potential of more data in the domain of text comprehension, we created a new dataset called BookTest similar to, but much larger than the widely used CBT and CNN/DM datasets 
BookTest
Similarly to the CBT, our BookTest dataset is derived from books available through project Gutenberg  We used 3555 copyright-free books to extract CN examples and 10507 books for NE examples, for comparison the CBT dataset was extracted from just 108 books 
When creating our dataset we follow the same procedure as was used to create the CBT dataset BIBREF2   That is, we detect whether each sentence contains either a named entity or a common noun that already appeared in one of the preceding twenty sentences  This word is then replaced by a gap tag (XXXXX) in this sentence which is hence turned into a cloze-style question  The preceding 20 sentences are used as the context document  For common noun and named entity detection we use the Stanford POS tagger BIBREF27 and Stanford NER BIBREF28 

ground_truth: GM$\_$KL achieves better correlation than existing approaches for various metrics on SCWS dataset.

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 does their ensemble method work?
Context 3: 
The training dataset consists of the original CBT NE and CN data extended with new NE and CN examples  The new BookTest dataset hence contains INLINEFORM0 training examples and INLINEFORM1 tokens 
The validation dataset consists of INLINEFORM0 NE and INLINEFORM1 CN questions  We have one test set for NE and one for CN, each containing INLINEFORM2 examples  The training, validation and test sets were generated from non-overlapping sets of books 
When generating the dataset we removed all editions of books used to create CBT validation and test sets from our training dataset  Therefore the models trained on the BookTest corpus can be evaluated on the original CBT data and they can be compared with recent text-comprehension models utilizing this dataset BIBREF2 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11  
Baselines
We will now use our psr model to evaluate the performance gain from increasing the dataset size 
AS Reader
In BIBREF4 we introduced the psr , which at the time of publication significantly outperformed all other architectures on the CNN, DM and CBT datasets  This model is built to leverage the fact that the answer is a single word from the context document  Similarly to many other models it uses attention over the document – intuitively a measure of how relevant each word is to answering the question  However while most previous models used this attention as weights to calculate a blended representation of the answer word, we simply sum the attention across all occurrences of each unique words and then simply select the word with the highest sum as the final answer  While simple, this trick seems both to improve accuracy and to speed-up training  It was adopted by many subsequent models BIBREF8 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF24  
Let us now describe the model in more detail  Figure FIGREF21 may help you in understanding the following paragraphs 
The words from the document and the question are first converted into vector embeddings using a look-up matrix INLINEFORM0   The document is then read by a bidirectional GRU network BIBREF29   A concatenation of the hidden states of the forward and backward GRUs at each word is then used as a contextual embedding of this word, intuitively representing the context in which the word is appearing  We can also understand it as representing the set of questions to which this word may be an answer 
Similarly the question is read by a bidirectional GRU but in this case only the final hidden states are concatenated to form the question embedding 
The attention over each word in the context is then calculated as the dot product of its contextual embedding with the question embedding  This attention is then normalized by the softmax function and summed across all occurrences of each answer candidate  The candidate with most accumulated attention is selected as the final answer 
For a more detailed description of the model including equations check BIBREF4   More details about the training setup and model hyperparameters can be found in the Appendix 
During our past experiments on the CNN, DM and CBT datasets BIBREF4 each unique word from the training, validation and test datasets had its row in the look-up matrix INLINEFORM0   However as we radically increased the dataset size, this would result in an extremely large number of model parameters so we decided to limit the vocabulary size to INLINEFORM1 most frequent words  For each example, each unique out-of-vocabulary word is now mapped on one of 1000 anonymous tokens which are randomly initialized and untrained  Fixing the embeddings of these anonymous tags proved to significantly improve the performance 
While mostly using the original AS Reader model, we have also tried introducing a minor tweak in some instances of the model  We tried initializing the context encoder GRU's hidden state by letting the encoder read the question first before proceeding to read the context document  Intuitively this allows the encoder to know in advance what to look for when reading over the context document 
Including models of this kind in the ensemble helped to improve the performance 
Results
Table TABREF25 shows the accuracy of the psr and other architectures on the CBT validation and test data  The last two rows show the performance of the psr trained on the BookTest dataset; all the other models have been trained on the original CBT training data 
If we take the best psr ensemble trained on CBT as a baseline, improving the model architecture as in BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , continuing to use the original CBT training data, lead to improvements of INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 absolute on named entities and common nouns respectively  By contrast, inflating the training dataset provided a boost of INLINEFORM2 while using the same model  The ensemble of our models even exceeded the human baseline provided by Facebook BIBREF2 on the Common Noun dataset 
Our model takes approximately two weeks to converge when trained on the BookTest dataset on a single Nvidia Tesla K40 GPU 
Discussion
Embracing the abundance of data may mean focusing on other aspects of system design than with smaller data  Here are some of the challenges that we need to face in this situation 
Firstly, since the amount of data is practically unlimited – we could even generate them on the fly resulting in continuous learning similar to the Never-Ending Language Learning by Carnegie Mellon University BIBREF30 – it is now the speed of training that determines how much data the model is able to see  Since more training data significantly help the model performance, focusing on speeding up the algorithm may be more important than ever before  This may for instance influence the decision whether to use regularization such as dropout which does seem to somewhat improve the model performance, however usually at a cost of slowing down training 
Thanks to its simplicity, the psr seems to be training fast - for example around seven times faster than the models proposed by Chen et al  BIBREF5   Hence the psr may be particularly suitable for training on large datasets 
The second challenge is how to generalize the performance gains from large data to a specific target domain  While there are huge amounts of natural language data in general, it may not be the case in the domain where we may want to ultimately apply our model 
Hence we are usually not facing a scenario of simply using a larger amount of the same training data, but rather extending training to a related domain of data, hoping that some of what the model learns on the new data will still help it on the original task 
This is highlighted by our observations from applying a model trained on the BookTest to Children's Book Test test data  If we move model training from joint CBT NE+CN training data to a subset of the BookTest of the same size (230k examples), we see a drop in accuracy of around 10% on the CBT test datasets 
Hence even though the Children's Book Test and BookTest datasets are almost as close as two disjoint datasets can get, the transfer is still very imperfect   Rightly choosing data to augment the in-domain training data is certainly a problem worth exploring in future work 
Our results show that given enough data the AS Reader was able to exceed the human performance on CBT CN reported by Facebook  However we hypothesized that the system is still not achieving its full potential so we decided to examine the room for improvement in our own small human study 
Human Study
After adding more data we have the performance on the CBT validation and test datasets soaring  However is there still potential for much further growth beyond the results we have observed?
We decided to explore the remaining space for improvement on the CBT by testing humans on a random subset of 50 named entity and 50 common noun validation questions that the psr ensemble could not answer correctly  These questions were answered by 10 non-native English speakers from our research laboratory, each on a disjoint subset of questions   Participants had unlimited time to answer the questions and were told that these questions were not correctly answered by a machine, providing additional motivation to prove they are better than computers  The results of the human study are summarized in Table TABREF28   They show that a majority of questions that our system could not answer so far are in fact answerable  This suggests that 1) the original human baselines might have been underestimated, however, it might also be the case that there are some examples that can be answered by machines and not by humans; 2) there is still space for improvement 
A system that would answer correctly every time when either our ensemble or human answered correctly would achieve accuracy over 92% percent on both validation and test NE datasets and over 96% on both CN datasets  Hence it still makes sense to use CBT dataset to study further improvements of text-comprehension systems 
Conclusion
Few ways of improving model performance are as solidly established as using more training data  Yet we believe this principle has been somewhat neglected by recent research in text comprehension  While there is a practically unlimited amount of data available in this field, most research was performed on unnecessarily small datasets 
As a gentle reminder to the community we have shown that simply infusing a model with more data can yield performance improvements of up to INLINEFORM0 where several attempts to improve the model architecture on the same training data have given gains of at most INLINEFORM1 compared to our best ensemble result  Yes, experiments on small datasets certainly can bring useful insights  However we believe that the community should also embrace the real-world scenario of data abundance 
The BookTest dataset we are proposing gives the reading-comprehension community an opportunity to make a step in that direction 
Training Details
The training details are similar to those in BIBREF4 however we are including them here for completeness 
To train the model we used stochastic gradient descent with the ADAM update rule BIBREF32 and learning rates of INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2   The best learning rate in our experiments was INLINEFORM3   We minimized negative log-likelihood as the training objective 
The initial weights in the word-embedding matrix were drawn randomly uniformly from the interval INLINEFORM0   Weights in the GRU networks were initialized by random orthogonal matrices BIBREF34 and biases were initialized to zero  We also used a gradient clipping BIBREF33 threshold of 10 and batches of sizes between 32 or 256  Increasing the batch from 32 to 128 seems to significantly improve performance on the large dataset - something we did not observe on the original CBT data  Increasing the batch size much above 128 is currently difficult due to memory constraints of the GPU 
During training we randomly shuffled all examples at the beginning of each epoch  To speed up training, we always pre-fetched 10 batches worth of examples and sorted them according to document length  Hence each batch contained documents of roughly the same length 
We also did not use pre-trained word embeddings 
We did not perform any text pre-processing since the datasets were already tokenized 
During training we evaluated the model performance every 12 hours and at the end of each epoch and stopped training when the error on the 20k BookTest validation set started increasing  We explored the hyperparameter space by training 67 different models The region of the parameter space that we explored together with the parameters of the model with best validation accuracy are summarized in Table TABREF29  
Our model was implemented using Theano BIBREF31 and Blocks BIBREF35  
The ensembles were formed by simply averaging the predictions from the constituent single models  These single models were selected using the following algorithm 
We started with the best performing model according to validation performance  Then in each step we tried adding the best performing model that had not been previously tried  We kept it in the ensemble if it did improve its validation performance and discarded it otherwise  This way we gradually tried each model once  We call the resulting model a greedy ensemble  We used the INLINEFORM0 BookTest validation dataset for this procedure 
The algorithm was offered 10 models and selected 5 of them for the final ensemble 

ground_truth: simply averaging the predictions from the constituent single models