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. Where does the ancient Chinese dataset come from?
Context 1: Introduction
Ancient Chinese is the writing language in ancient China  It is a treasure of Chinese culture which brings together the wisdom and ideas of the Chinese nation and chronicles the ancient cultural heritage of China  Learning ancient Chinese not only helps people to understand and inherit the wisdom of the ancients, but also promotes people to absorb and develop Chinese culture 
However, it is difficult for modern people to read ancient Chinese  Firstly, compared with modern Chinese, ancient Chinese is more concise and shorter  The grammatical order of modern Chinese is also quite different from that of ancient Chinese  Secondly, most modern Chinese words are double syllables, while the most of the ancient Chinese words are monosyllabic  Thirdly, there is more than one polysemous phenomenon in ancient Chinese  In addition, manual translation has a high cost  Therefore, it is meaningful and useful to study the automatic translation from ancient Chinese to modern Chinese  Through ancient-modern Chinese translation, the wisdom, talent and accumulated experience of the predecessors can be passed on to more people 
Neural machine translation (NMT) BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 has achieved remarkable performance on many bilingual translation tasks  It is an end-to-end learning approach for machine translation, with the potential to show great advantages over the statistic machine translation (SMT) systems  However, NMT approach has not been widely applied to the ancient-modern Chinese translation task  One of the main reasons is the limited high-quality parallel data resource 
The most popular method of acquiring translation examples is bilingual text alignment BIBREF5   This kind of method can be classified into two types: lexical-based and statistical-based  The lexical-based approaches BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 focus on lexical information, which utilize the bilingual dictionary BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 or lexical features  Meanwhile, the statistical-based approaches BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 rely on statistical information, such as sentence length ratio in two languages and align mode probability 
However, these methods are designed for other bilingual language pairs that are written in different language characters (e g  English-French, Chinese-Japanese)  The ancient-modern Chinese has some characteristics that are quite different from other language pairs  For example, ancient and modern Chinese are both written in Chinese characters, but ancient Chinese is highly concise and its syntactical structure is different from modern Chinese  The traditional methods do not take these characteristics into account  In this paper, we propose an effective ancient-modern Chinese text alignment method at the level of clause based on the characteristics of these two languages  The proposed method combines both lexical-based information and statistical-based information, which achieves 94 2 F1-score on Test set  Recently, a simple longest common subsequence based approach for ancient-modern Chinese sentence alignment is proposed in BIBREF12   Our experiments showed that our proposed alignment approach performs much better than their method 
We apply the proposed method to create a large translation parallel corpus which contains INLINEFORM0 1 24M bilingual sentence pairs  To our best knowledge, this is the first large high-quality ancient-modern Chinese dataset  Furthermore, we test SMT models and various NMT models on the created dataset and provide a strong baseline for this task 
Overview
There are four steps to build the ancient-modern Chinese translation dataset: (i) The parallel corpus crawling and cleaning  (ii) The paragraph alignment  (iii) The clause alignment based on aligned paragraphs  (iv) Augmenting data by merging aligned adjacent clauses  The most critical step is the third step 
Clause Alignment
In the clause alignment step, we combine both statistical-based and lexical-based information to measure the score for each possible clause alignment between ancient and modern Chinese strings  The dynamic programming is employed to further find overall optimal alignment paragraph by paragraph  According to the characteristics of the ancient and modern Chinese languages, we consider the following factors to measure the alignment score INLINEFORM0 between a bilingual clause pair:
Lexical Matching  The lexical matching score is used to calculate the matching coverage of the ancient clause INLINEFORM0   It contains two parts: exact matching and dictionary matching  An ancient Chinese character usually corresponds to one or more modern Chinese words  In the first part, we carry out Chinese Word segmentation to the modern Chinese clause INLINEFORM1   Then we match the ancient characters and modern words in the order from left to right  In further matching, the words that have been matched will be deleted from the original clauses 
However, some ancient characters do not appear in its corresponding modern Chinese words  An ancient Chinese dictionary is employed to address this issue  We preprocess the ancient Chinese dictionary and remove the stop words  In this dictionary matching step, we retrieve the dictionary definition of each unmatched ancient character and use it to match the remaining modern Chinese words  To reduce the impact of universal word matching, we use Inverse Document Frequency (IDF) to weight the matching words  The lexical matching score is calculated as: DISPLAYFORM0
The above equation is used to calculate the matching coverage of the ancient clause INLINEFORM0   The first term of equation ( EQREF8 ) represents exact matching score  INLINEFORM1 denotes the length of INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 denotes each ancient character in INLINEFORM4 , and the indicator function INLINEFORM5 indicates whether the character INLINEFORM6 can match the words in the clause INLINEFORM7   The second term is dictionary matching score  Here INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9 represent the remaining unmatched strings of INLINEFORM10 and INLINEFORM11 , respectively  INLINEFORM12 denotes the INLINEFORM13 -th character in the dictionary definition of the INLINEFORM14 and its IDF score is denoted as INLINEFORM15   The INLINEFORM16 is a predefined parameter which is used to normalize the IDF score  We tuned the value of this parameter on the Dev set 
Statistical Information  Similar to BIBREF11 and BIBREF6 , the statistical information contains alignment mode and length information  There are many alignment modes between ancient and modern Chinese languages  If one ancient Chinese clause aligns two adjacent modern Chinese clauses, we call this alignment as 1-2 alignment mode  We show some examples of different alignment modes in Figure FIGREF9   In this paper, we only consider 1-0, 0-1, 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2 alignment modes which account for INLINEFORM0 of the Dev set  We estimate the probability Pr INLINEFORM1 n-m INLINEFORM2 of each alignment mode n-m on the Dev set  To utilize length information, we make an investigation on length correlation between these two languages  Based on the assumption of BIBREF11 that each character in one language gives rise to a random number of characters in the other language and those random variables INLINEFORM3 are independent and identically distributed with a normal distribution, we estimate the mean INLINEFORM4 and standard deviation INLINEFORM5 from the paragraph aligned parallel corpus  Given a clause pair INLINEFORM6 , the statistical information score can be calculated by: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the normal distribution probability density function 
Edit Distance  Because ancient and modern Chinese are both written in Chinese characters, we also consider using the edit distance  It is a way of quantifying the dissimilarity between two strings by counting the minimum number of operations (insertion, deletion, and substitution) required to transform one string into the other  Here we define the edit distance score as: DISPLAYFORM0
Dynamic Programming  The overall alignment score for each possible clause alignment is as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
Here INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are pre-defined interpolation factors  We use dynamic programming to find the overall optimal alignment paragraph by paragraph  Let INLINEFORM2 be total alignment scores of aligning the first to INLINEFORM3 -th ancient Chinese clauses with the first to to INLINEFORM4 -th modern Chinese clauses, and the recurrence then can be described as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
Where INLINEFORM0 denotes concatenate clause INLINEFORM1 to clause INLINEFORM2   As we discussed above, here we only consider 1-0, 0-1, 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2 alignment modes 
Ancient-Modern Chinese Dataset
Data Collection  To build the large ancient-modern Chinese dataset, we collected 1 7K bilingual ancient-modern Chinese articles from the internet  More specifically, a large part of the ancient Chinese data we used come from ancient Chinese history records in several dynasties (about 1000BC-200BC) and articles written by celebrities of that era  They used plain and accurate words to express what happened at that time, and thus ensure the generality of the translated materials 
Paragraph Alignment  To further ensure the quality of the new dataset, the work of paragraph alignment is manually completed  After data cleaning and manual paragraph alignment, we obtained 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs 
Clause Alignment  We applied our clause alignment algorithm on the 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs and obtained 517K aligned bilingual clauses  The reason we use clause alignment algorithm instead of sentence alignment is because we can construct more aligned sentences more flexibly and conveniently  To be specific, we can get multiple additional sentence level bilingual pairs by “data augmentation” 
Data Augmentation  We augmented the data in the following way: Given an aligned clause pair, we merged its adjacent clause pairs as a new sample pair  For example, suppose we have three adjacent clause level bilingual pairs: ( INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 ), ( INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 ), and ( INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 )  We can get some additional sentence level bilingual pairs, such as: ( INLINEFORM6 , INLINEFORM7 ) and ( INLINEFORM8 , INLINEFORM9 )  Here INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , and INLINEFORM12 are adjacent clauses in the original paragraph, and INLINEFORM13 denotes concatenate clause INLINEFORM14 to clause INLINEFORM15   The advantage of using this data augmentation method is that compared with only using ( INLINEFORM16 , INLINEFORM17 ) as the training data, we can also use ( INLINEFORM18 , INLINEFORM19 ) and ( INLINEFORM20 , INLINEFORM21 ) as the training data, which can provide richer supervision information for the model and make the model learn the align information between the source language and the target language better  After the data augmentation, we filtered the sentences which are longer than 50 or contain more than four clause pairs 
Dataset Creation  Finally, we split the dataset into three sets: training (Train), development (Dev) and testing (Test)  Note that the unaugmented dataset contains 517K aligned bilingual clause pairs from 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs  To keep all the sentences in different sets come from different articles, we split the 35K aligned bilingual paragraphs into Train, Dev and Test sets following these ratios respectively: 80%, 10%, 10%  Before data augmentation, the unaugmented Train set contains INLINEFORM0 aligned bilingual clause pairs from 28K aligned bilingual paragraphs  Then we augmented the Train, Dev and Test sets respectively  Note that the augmented Train, Dev and Test sets also contain the unaugmented data  The statistical information of the three data sets is shown in Table TABREF17   We show some examples of data in Figure FIGREF14  
RNN-based NMT model
We first briefly introduce the RNN based Neural Machine Translation (RNN-based NMT) model  The RNN-based NMT with attention mechanism BIBREF0 has achieved remarkable performance on many translation tasks  It consists of encoder and decoder part 
We firstly introduce the encoder part  The input word sequence of source language are individually mapped into a INLINEFORM0 -dimensional vector space INLINEFORM1   Then a bi-directional RNN BIBREF15 with GRU BIBREF16 or LSTM BIBREF17 cell converts these vectors into a sequences of hidden states INLINEFORM2  
For the decoder part, another RNN is used to generate target sequence INLINEFORM0   The attention mechanism BIBREF0 , BIBREF18 is employed to allow the decoder to refer back to the hidden state sequence and focus on a particular segment  The INLINEFORM1 -th hidden state INLINEFORM2 of decoder part is calculated as: DISPLAYFORM0
Here g INLINEFORM0 is a linear combination of attended context vector c INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 is the word embedding of (i-1)-th target word: DISPLAYFORM0
The attended context vector c INLINEFORM0 is computed as a weighted sum of the hidden states of the encoder: DISPLAYFORM0
The probability distribution vector of the next word INLINEFORM0 is generated according to the following: DISPLAYFORM0
We take this model as the basic RNN-based NMT model in the following experiments 
Transformer-NMT
Recently, the Transformer model BIBREF4 has made remarkable progress in machine translation  This model contains a multi-head self-attention encoder and a multi-head self-attention decoder 
As proposed by BIBREF4 , an attention function maps a query and a set of key-value pairs to an output, where the queries INLINEFORM0 , keys INLINEFORM1 , and values INLINEFORM2 are all vectors  The input consists of queries and keys of dimension INLINEFORM3 , and values of dimension INLINEFORM4   The attention function is given by: DISPLAYFORM0
Multi-head attention mechanism projects queries, keys and values to INLINEFORM0 different representation subspaces and calculates corresponding attention  The attention function outputs are concatenated and projected again before giving the final output  Multi-head attention allows the model to attend to multiple features at different positions 
The encoder is composed of a stack of INLINEFORM0 identical layers  Each layer has two sub-layers: multi-head self-attention mechanism and position-wise fully connected feed-forward network  Similarly, the decoder is also composed of a stack of INLINEFORM1 identical layers  In addition to the two sub-layers in each encoder layer, the decoder contains a third sub-layer which performs multi-head attention over the output of the encoder stack (see more details in BIBREF4 ) 
Experiments
Our experiments revolve around the following questions: Q1: As we consider three factors for clause alignment, do all these factors help? How does our method compare with previous methods? Q2: How does the NMT and SMT models perform on this new dataset we build?
Clause Alignment Results (Q1)
In order to evaluate our clause alignment algorithm, we manually aligned bilingual clauses from 37 bilingual ancient-modern Chinese articles, and finally got 4K aligned bilingual clauses as the Test set and 2K clauses as the Dev set 
Metrics  We used F1-score and precision score as the evaluation metrics  Suppose that we get INLINEFORM0 bilingual clause pairs after running the algorithm on the Test set, and there are INLINEFORM1 bilingual clause pairs of these INLINEFORM2 pairs are in the ground truth of the Test set, the precision score is defined as INLINEFORM3 (the algorithm gives INLINEFORM4 outputs, INLINEFORM5 of which are correct)  And suppose that the ground truth of the Test set contains INLINEFORM6 bilingual clause pairs, the recall score is INLINEFORM7 (there are INLINEFORM8 ground truth samples, INLINEFORM9 of which are output by the algorithm), then the F1-score is INLINEFORM10  
Baselines  Since the related work BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 can be seen as the ablation cases of our method (only statistical score INLINEFORM0 with dynamic programming), we compared the full proposed method with its variants on the Test set for ablation study  In addition, we also compared our method with the longest common subsequence (LCS) based approach proposed by BIBREF12   To the best of our knowledge, BIBREF12 is the latest related work which are designed for Ancient-Modern Chinese alignment 
Hyper-parameters  For the proposed method, we estimated INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 on all aligned paragraphs  The probability Pr INLINEFORM2 n-m INLINEFORM3 of each alignment mode n-m was estimated on the Dev set  For the hyper-parameters INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 , the grid search was applied to tune them on the Dev set  In order to show the effect of hyper-parameters INLINEFORM7 , INLINEFORM8 , and INLINEFORM9 , we reported the results of various hyper-parameters on the Dev set in Table TABREF26   Based on the results of grid search on the Dev set, we set INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , and INLINEFORM12 in the following experiment  The Jieba Chinese text segmentation is employed for modern Chinese word segmentation 
Results  The results on the Test set are shown in Table TABREF28 , the abbreviation w/o means removing a particular part from the setting  From the results, we can see that the lexical matching score is the most important among these three factors, and statistical information score is more important than edit distance score  Moreover, the dictionary term in lexical matching score significantly improves the performance  From these results, we obtain the best setting that involves all these three factors  We used this setting for dataset creation  Furthermore, the proposed method performs much better than LCS BIBREF12  
Translation Results (Q2)
In this experiment, we analyzed and compared the performance of the SMT and various NMT models on our built dataset  To verify the effectiveness of our data augmented method  We trained the NMT and SMT models on both unaugmented dataset (including 0 46M training pairs) and augmented dataset, and test all the models on the same Test set which is augmented  The models to be tested and their configurations are as follows:
SMT  The state-of-art Moses toolkit BIBREF19 was used to train SMT model  We used KenLM BIBREF20 to train a 5-gram language model, and the GIZA++ toolkit to align the data 
RNN-based NMT  The basic RNN-based NMT model is based on BIBREF0 which is introduced above  Both the encoder and decoder used 2-layer RNN with 1024 LSTM cells, and the encoder is a bi-directional RNN  The batch size, threshold of element-wise gradient clipping and initial learning rate of Adam optimizer BIBREF21 were set to 128, 5 0 and 0 001  When trained the model on augmented dataset, we used 4-layer RNN  Several techniques were investigated to train the model, including layer-normalization BIBREF22 , RNN-dropout BIBREF23 , and learning rate decay BIBREF1   The hyper-parameters were chosen empirically and adjusted in the Dev set  Furthermore, we tested the basic NMT model with several techniques, such as target language reversal BIBREF24 (reversing the order of the words in all target sentences, but not source sentences), residual connection BIBREF25 and pre-trained word2vec BIBREF26   For word embedding pre-training, we collected an external ancient corpus which contains INLINEFORM0 134M tokens 
Transformer-NMT  We also trained the Transformer model BIBREF4 which is a strong baseline of NMT on both augmented and unaugmented parallel corpus  The training configuration of the Transformer model is shown in Table TABREF32   The hyper-parameters are set based on the settings in the paper BIBREF4 and the sizes of our training sets 
For the evaluation, we used the average of 1 to 4 gram BLEUs multiplied by a brevity penalty BIBREF27 which computed by multi-bleu perl in Moses as metrics  The results are reported in Table TABREF34   For RNN-based NMT, we can see that target language reversal, residual connection, and word2vec can further improve the performance of the basic RNN-based NMT model  However, we find that word2vec and reversal tricks seem no obvious improvement when trained the RNN-based NMT and Transformer models on augmented parallel corpus  For SMT, it performs better than NMT models when they were trained on the unaugmented dataset  Nevertheless, when trained on the augmented dataset, both the RNN-based NMT model and Transformer based NMT model outperform the SMT model  In addition, as with other translation tasks BIBREF4 , the Transformer also performs better than RNN-based NMT 
Because the Test set contains both augmented and unaugmented data, it is not surprising that the RNN-based NMT model and Transformer based NMT model trained on unaugmented data would perform poorly  In order to further verify the effect of data augmentation, we report the test results of the models on only unaugmented test data (including 48K test pairs) in Table TABREF35   From the results, it can be seen that the data augmentation can still improve the models 
Analysis
The generated samples of various models are shown in Figure FIGREF36   Besides BLEU scores, we analyze these examples from a human perspective and draw some conclusions  At the same time, we design different metrics and evaluate on the whole Test set to support our conclusions as follows:
On the one hand, we further compare the translation results from the perspective of people  We find that although the original meaning can be basically translated by SMT, its translation results are less smooth when compared with the other two NMT models (RNN-based NMT and Transformer)  For example, the translations of SMT are usually lack of auxiliary words, conjunctions and function words, which is not consistent with human translation habits  To further confirm this conclusion, the average length of the translation results of the three models are measured (RNN-based NMT:17 12, SMT:15 50, Transformer:16 78, Reference:16 47)  We can see that the average length of the SMT outputs is shortest, and the length gaps between the SMT outputs and the references are largest  Meanwhile, the average length of the sentences translated by Transformer is closest to the average length of references  These results indirectly verify our point of view, and show that the NMT models perform better than SMT in this task 
On the other hand, there still exists some problems to be solved  We observe that translating proper nouns and personal pronouns (such as names, place names and ancient-specific appellations) is very difficult for all of these models  For instance, the ancient Chinese appellation `Zhen' should be translated into `Wo' in modern Chinese  Unfortunately, we calculate the accurate rate of some special words (such as `Zhen',`Chen' and `Gua'), and find that this rate is very low (the accurate rate of translating `Zhen' are: RNN-based NMT:0 14, SMT:0 16, Transformer:0 05)  We will focus on this issue in the future 
Conclusion and Future Work
We propose an effective ancient-modern Chinese clause alignment method which achieves 94 2 F1-score on Test set  Based on it, we build a large scale parallel corpus which contains INLINEFORM0 1 24M bilingual sentence pairs  To our best knowledge, this is the first large high-quality ancient-modern Chinese dataset  In addition, we test the performance of the SMT and various NMT models on our built dataset and provide a strong NMT baseline for this task which achieves 27 16 BLEU score (4-gram)  We further analyze the performance of the SMT and various NMT models and summarize some specific problems that machine translation models will encounter when translating ancient Chinese 
For the future work, firstly, we are going to expand the dataset using the proposed method continually  Secondly, we will focus on solving the problem of proper noun translation and improve the translation system according to the features of ancient Chinese translation  Finally, we plan to introduce some techniques of statistical translation into neural machine translation to improve the performance 
This work is supported by National Natural Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholar (Grant No  61625204) and partially supported by the State Key Program of National Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos  61836006 and 61432014) 
Context 2: Introduction
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International License  License details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/ Deep neural networks have been widely used in text classification and have achieved promising results BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Most focus on content information and use models such as convolutional neural networks (CNN) BIBREF3 or recursive neural networks BIBREF4   However, for user-generated posts on social media like Facebook or Twitter, there is more information that should not be ignored  On social media platforms, a user can act either as the author of a post or as a reader who expresses his or her comments about the post 
In this paper, we classify posts taking into account post authorship, likes, topics, and comments  In particular, users and their “likes” hold strong potential for text mining  For example, given a set of posts that are related to a specific topic, a user's likes and dislikes provide clues for stance labeling  From a user point of view, users with positive attitudes toward the issue leave positive comments on the posts with praise or even just the post's content; from a post point of view, positive posts attract users who hold positive stances  We also investigate the influence of topics: different topics are associated with different stance labeling tendencies and word usage  For example we discuss women's rights and unwanted babies on the topic of abortion, but we criticize medicine usage or crime when on the topic of marijuana BIBREF5   Even for posts on a specific topic like nuclear power, a variety of arguments are raised: green energy, radiation, air pollution, and so on  As for comments, we treat them as additional text information  The arguments in the comments and the commenters (the users who leave the comments) provide hints on the post's content and further facilitate stance classification 
In this paper, we propose the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN), a deep learning model that utilizes user, topic, and comment information  We attempt to learn user and topic representations which encode user interactions and topic influences to further enhance text classification, and we also incorporate comment information  We evaluate this model on a post stance classification task on forum-style social media platforms  The contributions of this paper are as follows: 1  We propose UTCNN, a neural network for text in modern social media channels as well as legacy social media, forums, and message boards — anywhere that reveals users, their tastes, as well as their replies to posts  2  When classifying social media post stances, we leverage users, including authors and likers  User embeddings can be generated even for users who have never posted anything  3  We incorporate a topic model to automatically assign topics to each post in a single topic dataset  4  We show that overall, the proposed method achieves the highest performance in all instances, and that all of the information extracted, whether users, topics, or comments, still has its contributions 
Extra-Linguistic Features for Stance Classification
In this paper we aim to use text as well as other features to see how they complement each other in a deep learning model  In the stance classification domain, previous work has showed that text features are limited, suggesting that adding extra-linguistic constraints could improve performance BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   For example, Hasan and Ng as well as Thomas et al  require that posts written by the same author have the same stance BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   The addition of this constraint yields accuracy improvements of 1–7% for some models and datasets  Hasan and Ng later added user-interaction constraints and ideology constraints BIBREF7 : the former models the relationship among posts in a sequence of replies and the latter models inter-topic relationships, e g , users who oppose abortion could be conservative and thus are likely to oppose gay rights 
For work focusing on online forum text, since posts are linked through user replies, sequential labeling methods have been used to model relationships between posts  For example, Hasan and Ng use hidden Markov models (HMMs) to model dependent relationships to the preceding post BIBREF9 ; Burfoot et al  use iterative classification to repeatedly generate new estimates based on the current state of knowledge BIBREF11 ; Sridhar et al  use probabilistic soft logic (PSL) to model reply links via collaborative filtering BIBREF12   In the Facebook dataset we study, we use comments instead of reply links  However, as the ultimate goal in this paper is predicting not comment stance but post stance, we treat comments as extra information for use in predicting post stance 
Deep Learning on Extra-Linguistic Features
In recent years neural network models have been applied to document sentiment classification BIBREF13 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF2   Text features can be used in deep networks to capture text semantics or sentiment  For example, Dong et al  use an adaptive layer in a recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment analysis, where targets are topics such as windows 7 or taylor swift BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 ; recursive neural tensor networks (RNTNs) utilize sentence parse trees to capture sentence-level sentiment for movie reviews BIBREF4 ; Le and Mikolov predict sentiment by using paragraph vectors to model each paragraph as a continuous representation BIBREF18   They show that performance can thus be improved by more delicate text models 
Others have suggested using extra-linguistic features to improve the deep learning model  The user-word composition vector model (UWCVM) BIBREF19 is inspired by the possibility that the strength of sentiment words is user-specific; to capture this they add user embeddings in their model  In UPNN, a later extension, they further add a product-word composition as product embeddings, arguing that products can also show different tendencies of being rated or reviewed BIBREF20   Their addition of user information yielded 2–10% improvements in accuracy as compared to the above-mentioned RNTN and paragraph vector methods  We also seek to inject user information into the neural network model  In comparison to the research of Tang et al  on sentiment classification for product reviews, the difference is two-fold  First, we take into account multiple users (one author and potentially many likers) for one post, whereas only one user (the reviewer) is involved in a review  Second, we add comment information to provide more features for post stance classification  None of these two factors have been considered previously in a deep learning model for text stance classification  Therefore, we propose UTCNN, which generates and utilizes user embeddings for all users — even for those who have not authored any posts — and incorporates comments to further improve performance 
Method
In this section, we first describe CNN-based document composition, which captures user- and topic-dependent document-level semantic representation from word representations  Then we show how to add comment information to construct the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN) 
User- and Topic-dependent Document Composition
As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , we use a general CNN BIBREF3 and two semantic transformations for document composition   We are given a document with an engaged user INLINEFORM0 , a topic INLINEFORM1 , and its composite INLINEFORM2 words, each word INLINEFORM3 of which is associated with a word embedding INLINEFORM4 where INLINEFORM5 is the vector dimension  For each word embedding INLINEFORM6 , we apply two dot operations as shown in Equation EQREF6 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 models the user reading preference for certain semantics, and INLINEFORM1 models the topic semantics; INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 are the dimensions of transformed user and topic embeddings respectively  We use INLINEFORM4 to model semantically what each user prefers to read and/or write, and use INLINEFORM5 to model the semantics of each topic  The dot operation of INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7 transforms the global representation INLINEFORM8 to a user-dependent representation  Likewise, the dot operation of INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 transforms INLINEFORM11 to a topic-dependent representation 
After the two dot operations on INLINEFORM0 , we have user-dependent and topic-dependent word vectors INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 , which are concatenated to form a user- and topic-dependent word vector INLINEFORM3   Then the transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM4 are used as the CNN input  Here we apply three convolutional layers on the concatenated transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM5 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the index of words; INLINEFORM1 is a non-linear activation function (we use INLINEFORM2 ); INLINEFORM5 is the convolutional filter with input length INLINEFORM6 and output length INLINEFORM7 , where INLINEFORM8 is the window size of the convolutional operation; and INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 are the output and bias of the convolution layer INLINEFORM11 , respectively  In our experiments, the three window sizes INLINEFORM12 in the three convolution layers are one, two, and three, encoding unigram, bigram, and trigram semantics accordingly 
After the convolutional layer, we add a maximum pooling layer among convolutional outputs to obtain the unigram, bigram, and trigram n-gram representations  This is succeeded by an average pooling layer for an element-wise average of the three maximized convolution outputs 
UTCNN Model Description
Figure FIGREF10 illustrates the UTCNN model  As more than one user may interact with a given post, we first add a maximum pooling layer after the user matrix embedding layer and user vector embedding layer to form a moderator matrix embedding INLINEFORM0 and a moderator vector embedding INLINEFORM1 for moderator INLINEFORM2 respectively, where INLINEFORM3 is used for the semantic transformation in the document composition process, as mentioned in the previous section  The term moderator here is to denote the pseudo user who provides the overall semantic/sentiment of all the engaged users for one document  The embedding INLINEFORM4 models the moderator stance preference, that is, the pattern of the revealed user stance: whether a user is willing to show his preference, whether a user likes to show impartiality with neutral statements and reasonable arguments, or just wants to show strong support for one stance  Ideally, the latent user stance is modeled by INLINEFORM5 for each user  Likewise, for topic information, a maximum pooling layer is added after the topic matrix embedding layer and topic vector embedding layer to form a joint topic matrix embedding INLINEFORM6 and a joint topic vector embedding INLINEFORM7 for topic INLINEFORM8 respectively, where INLINEFORM9 models the semantic transformation of topic INLINEFORM10 as in users and INLINEFORM11 models the topic stance tendency  The latent topic stance is also modeled by INLINEFORM12 for each topic 
As for comments, we view them as short documents with authors only but without likers nor their own comments  Therefore we apply document composition on comments although here users are commenters (users who comment)  It is noticed that the word embeddings INLINEFORM0 for the same word in the posts and comments are the same, but after being transformed to INLINEFORM1 in the document composition process shown in Figure FIGREF4 , they might become different because of their different engaged users  The output comment representation together with the commenter vector embedding INLINEFORM2 and topic vector embedding INLINEFORM3 are concatenated and a maximum pooling layer is added to select the most important feature for comments  Instead of requiring that the comment stance agree with the post, UTCNN simply extracts the most important features of the comment contents; they could be helpful, whether they show obvious agreement or disagreement  Therefore when combining comment information here, the maximum pooling layer is more appropriate than other pooling or merging layers  Indeed, we believe this is one reason for UTCNN's performance gains 
Finally, the pooled comment representation, together with user vector embedding INLINEFORM0 , topic vector embedding INLINEFORM1 , and document representation are fed to a fully connected network, and softmax is applied to yield the final stance label prediction for the post 
Experiment
We start with the experimental dataset and then describe the training process as well as the implementation of the baselines  We also implement several variations to reveal the effects of features: authors, likers, comment, and commenters  In the results section we compare our model with related work 
Dataset
We tested the proposed UTCNN on two different datasets: FBFans and CreateDebate  FBFans is a privately-owned, single-topic, Chinese, unbalanced, social media dataset, and CreateDebate is a public, multiple-topic, English, balanced, forum dataset  Results using these two datasets show the applicability and superiority for different topics, languages, data distributions, and platforms 
The FBFans dataset contains data from anti-nuclear-power Chinese Facebook fan groups from September 2013 to August 2014, including posts and their author and liker IDs  There are a total of 2,496 authors, 505,137 likers, 33,686 commenters, and 505,412 unique users  Two annotators were asked to take into account only the post content to label the stance of the posts in the whole dataset as supportive, neutral, or unsupportive (hereafter denoted as Sup, Neu, and Uns)  Sup/Uns posts were those in support of or against anti-reconstruction; Neu posts were those evincing a neutral standpoint on the topic, or were irrelevant  Raw agreement between annotators is 0 91, indicating high agreement  Specifically, Cohen’s Kappa for Neu and not Neu labeling is 0 58 (moderate), and for Sup or Uns labeling is 0 84 (almost perfect)  Posts with inconsistent labels were filtered out, and the development and testing sets were randomly selected from what was left  Posts in the development and testing sets involved at least one user who appeared in the training set  The number of posts for each stance is shown on the left-hand side of Table TABREF12   About twenty percent of the posts were labeled with a stance, and the number of supportive (Sup) posts was much larger than that of the unsupportive (Uns) ones: this is thus highly skewed data, which complicates stance classification  On average, 161 1 users were involved in one post  The maximum was 23,297 and the minimum was one (the author)  For comments, on average there were 3 comments per post  The maximum was 1,092 and the minimum was zero 
To test whether the assumption of this paper – posts attract users who hold the same stance to like them – is reliable, we examine the likes from authors of different stances  Posts in FBFans dataset are used for this analysis  We calculate the like statistics of each distinct author from these 32,595 posts  As the numbers of authors in the Sup, Neu and Uns stances are largely imbalanced, these numbers are normalized by the number of users of each stance  Table TABREF13 shows the results  Posts with stances (i e , not neutral) attract users of the same stance  Neutral posts also attract both supportive and neutral users, like what we observe in supportive posts, but just the neutral posts can attract even more neutral likers  These results do suggest that users prefer posts of the same stance, or at least posts of no obvious stance which might cause annoyance when reading, and hence support the user modeling in our approach 
The CreateDebate dataset was collected from an English online debate forum discussing four topics: abortion (ABO), gay rights (GAY), Obama (OBA), and marijuana (MAR)  The posts are annotated as for (F) and against (A)  Replies to posts in this dataset are also labeled with stance and hence use the same data format as posts  The labeling results are shown in the right-hand side of Table TABREF12   We observe that the dataset is more balanced than the FBFans dataset  In addition, there are 977 unique users in the dataset  To compare with Hasan and Ng's work, we conducted five-fold cross-validation and present the annotation results as the average number of all folds BIBREF9 , BIBREF5  
The FBFans dataset has more integrated functions than the CreateDebate dataset; thus our model can utilize all linguistic and extra-linguistic features  For the CreateDebate dataset, on the other hand, the like and comment features are not available (as there is a stance label for each reply, replies are evaluated as posts as other previous work) but we still implemented our model using the content, author, and topic information 
Settings
In the UTCNN training process, cross-entropy was used as the loss function and AdaGrad as the optimizer  For FBFans dataset, we learned the 50-dimensional word embeddings on the whole dataset using GloVe BIBREF21 to capture the word semantics; for CreateDebate dataset we used the publicly available English 50-dimensional word embeddings, pre-trained also using GloVe  These word embeddings were fixed in the training process  The learning rate was set to 0 03  All user and topic embeddings were randomly initialized in the range of [-0 1 0 1]  Matrix embeddings for users and topics were sized at 250 ( INLINEFORM0 ); vector embeddings for users and topics were set to length 10 
We applied the LDA topic model BIBREF22 on the FBFans dataset to determine the latent topics with which to build topic embeddings, as there is only one general known topic: nuclear power plants  We learned 100 latent topics and assigned the top three topics for each post  For the CreateDebate dataset, which itself constitutes four topics, the topic labels for posts were used directly without additionally applying LDA 
For the FBFans data we report class-based f-scores as well as the macro-average f-score ( INLINEFORM0 ) shown in equation EQREF19   DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are the average precision and recall of the three class  We adopted the macro-average f-score as the evaluation metric for the overall performance because (1) the experimental dataset is severely imbalanced, which is common for contentious issues; and (2) for stance classification, content in minor-class posts is usually more important for further applications  For the CreateDebate dataset, accuracy was adopted as the evaluation metric to compare the results with related work BIBREF7 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF12  
Baselines
We pit our model against the following baselines: 1) SVM with unigram, bigram, and trigram features, which is a standard yet rather strong classifier for text features; 2) SVM with average word embedding, where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the embeddings of the composite words; 3) SVM with average transformed word embeddings (the INLINEFORM0 in equation EQREF6 ), where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the transformed embeddings of the composite words; 4) two mature deep learning models on text classification, CNN BIBREF3 and Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks (RCNN) BIBREF0 , where the hyperparameters are based on their work; 5) the above SVM and deep learning models with comment information; 6) UTCNN without user information, representing a pure-text CNN model where we use the same user matrix and user embeddings INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 for each user; 7) UTCNN without the LDA model, representing how UTCNN works with a single-topic dataset; 8) UTCNN without comments, in which the model predicts the stance label given only user and topic information  All these models were trained on the training set, and parameters as well as the SVM kernel selections (linear or RBF) were fine-tuned on the development set  Also, we adopt oversampling on SVMs, CNN and RCNN because the FBFans dataset is highly imbalanced 
Results on FBFans Dataset
In Table TABREF22 we show the results of UTCNN and the baselines on the FBFans dataset  Here Majority yields good performance on Neu since FBFans is highly biased to the neutral class  The SVM models perform well on Sup and Neu but perform poorly for Uns, showing that content information in itself is insufficient to predict stance labels, especially for the minor class  With the transformed word embedding feature, SVM can achieve comparable performance as SVM with n-gram feature  However, the much fewer feature dimension of the transformed word embedding makes SVM with word embeddings a more efficient choice for modeling the large scale social media dataset  For the CNN and RCNN models, they perform slightly better than most of the SVM models but still, the content information is insufficient to achieve a good performance on the Uns posts  As to adding comment information to these models, since the commenters do not always hold the same stance as the author, simply adding comments and post contents together merely adds noise to the model 
Among all UTCNN variations, we find that user information is most important, followed by topic and comment information  UTCNN without user information shows results similar to SVMs — it does well for Sup and Neu but detects no Uns  Its best f-scores on both Sup and Neu among all methods show that with enough training data, content-based models can perform well; at the same time, the lack of user information results in too few clues for minor-class posts to either predict their stance directly or link them to other users and posts for improved performance  The 17 5% improvement when adding user information suggests that user information is especially useful when the dataset is highly imbalanced  All models that consider user information predict the minority class successfully  UCTNN without topic information works well but achieves lower performance than the full UTCNN model  The 4 9% performance gain brought by LDA shows that although it is satisfactory for single topic datasets, adding that latent topics still benefits performance: even when we are discussing the same topic, we use different arguments and supporting evidence  Lastly, we get 4 8% improvement when adding comment information and it achieves comparable performance to UTCNN without topic information, which shows that comments also benefit performance  For platforms where user IDs are pixelated or otherwise hidden, adding comments to a text model still improves performance  In its integration of user, content, and comment information, the full UTCNN produces the highest f-scores on all Sup, Neu, and Uns stances among models that predict the Uns class, and the highest macro-average f-score overall  This shows its ability to balance a biased dataset and supports our claim that UTCNN successfully bridges content and user, topic, and comment information for stance classification on social media text  Another merit of UTCNN is that it does not require a balanced training data  This is supported by its outperforming other models though no oversampling technique is applied to the UTCNN related experiments as shown in this paper  Thus we can conclude that the user information provides strong clues and it is still rich even in the minority class 
We also investigate the semantic difference when a user acts as an author/liker or a commenter  We evaluated a variation in which all embeddings from the same user were forced to be identical (this is the UTCNN shared user embedding setting in Table TABREF22 )  This setting yielded only a 2 5% improvement over the model without comments, which is not statistically significant  However, when separating authors/likers and commenters embeddings (i e , the UTCNN full model), we achieved much greater improvements (4 8%)  We attribute this result to the tendency of users to use different wording for different roles (for instance author vs commenter)  This is observed when the user, acting as an author, attempts to support her argument against nuclear power by using improvements in solar power; when acting as a commenter, though, she interacts with post contents by criticizing past politicians who supported nuclear power or by arguing that the proposed evacuation plan in case of a nuclear accident is ridiculous  Based on this finding, in the final UTCNN setting we train two user matrix embeddings for one user: one for the author/liker role and the other for the commenter role 
Results on CreateDebate Dataset
Table TABREF24 shows the results of UTCNN, baselines as we implemented on the FBFans datset and related work on the CreateDebate dataset  We do not adopt oversampling on these models because the CreateDebate dataset is almost balanced  In previous work, integer linear programming (ILP) or linear-chain conditional random fields (CRFs) were proposed to integrate text features, author, ideology, and user-interaction constraints, where text features are unigram, bigram, and POS-dependencies; the author constraint tends to require that posts from the same author for the same topic hold the same stance; the ideology constraint aims to capture inferences between topics for the same author; the user-interaction constraint models relationships among posts via user interactions such as replies BIBREF7 , BIBREF9  
The SVM with n-gram or average word embedding feature performs just similar to the majority  However, with the transformed word embedding, it achieves superior results  It shows that the learned user and topic embeddings really capture the user and topic semantics  This finding is not so obvious in the FBFans dataset and it might be due to the unfavorable data skewness for SVM  As for CNN and RCNN, they perform slightly better than most SVMs as we found in Table TABREF22 for FBFans 
Compared to the ILP BIBREF7 and CRF BIBREF9 methods, the UTCNN user embeddings encode author and user-interaction constraints, where the ideology constraint is modeled by the topic embeddings and text features are modeled by the CNN  The significant improvement achieved by UTCNN suggests the latent representations are more effective than overt model constraints 
The PSL model BIBREF12 jointly labels both author and post stance using probabilistic soft logic (PSL) BIBREF23 by considering text features and reply links between authors and posts as in Hasan and Ng's work  Table TABREF24 reports the result of their best AD setting, which represents the full joint stance/disagreement collective model on posts and is hence more relevant to UTCNN  In contrast to their model, the UTCNN user embeddings represent relationships between authors, but UTCNN models do not utilize link information between posts  Though the PSL model has the advantage of being able to jointly label the stances of authors and posts, its performance on posts is lower than the that for the ILP or CRF models  UTCNN significantly outperforms these models on posts and has the potential to predict user stances through the generated user embeddings 
For the CreateDebate dataset, we also evaluated performance when not using topic embeddings or user embeddings; as replies in this dataset are viewed as posts, the setting without comment embeddings is not available  Table TABREF24 shows the same findings as Table TABREF22 : the 21% improvement in accuracy demonstrates that user information is the most vital  This finding also supports the results in the related work: user constraints are useful and can yield 11 2% improvement in accuracy BIBREF7   Further considering topic information yields 3 4% improvement, suggesting that knowing the subject of debates provides useful information  In sum, Table TABREF22 together with Table TABREF24 show that UTCNN achieves promising performance regardless of topic, language, data distribution, and platform 
Conclusion
We have proposed UTCNN, a neural network model that incorporates user, topic, content and comment information for stance classification on social media texts  UTCNN learns user embeddings for all users with minimum active degree, i e , one post or one like  Topic information obtained from the topic model or the pre-defined labels further improves the UTCNN model  In addition, comment information provides additional clues for stance classification  We have shown that UTCNN achieves promising and balanced results  In the future we plan to explore the effectiveness of the UTCNN user embeddings for author stance classification 
Acknowledgements
Research of this paper was partially supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under the contract MOST 104-2221-E-001-024-MY2 
Context 3: Introduction
We posses a wealth of prior knowledge about many natural language processing tasks  For example, in text categorization, we know that words such as NBA, player, and basketball are strong indicators of the sports category BIBREF0 , and words like terrible, boring, and messing indicate a negative polarity while words like perfect, exciting, and moving suggest a positive polarity in sentiment classification 
A key problem arisen here, is how to leverage such knowledge to guide the learning process, an interesting problem for both NLP and machine learning communities  Previous studies addressing the problem fall into several lines  First, to leverage prior knowledge to label data BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Second, to encode prior knowledge with a prior on parameters, which can be commonly seen in many Bayesian approaches BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   Third, to formalise prior knowledge with additional variables and dependencies BIBREF5   Last, to use prior knowledge to control the distributions over latent output variables BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , which makes the output variables easily interpretable 
However, a crucial problem, which has rarely been addressed, is the bias in the prior knowledge that we supply to the learning model  Would the model be robust or sensitive to the prior knowledge? Or, which kind of knowledge is appropriate for the task? Let's see an example: we may be a baseball fan but unfamiliar with hockey so that we can provide a few number of feature words of baseball, but much less of hockey for a baseball-hockey classification task  Such prior knowledge may mislead the model with heavy bias to baseball  If the model cannot handle this situation appropriately, the performance may be undesirable 
In this paper, we investigate into the problem in the framework of Generalized Expectation Criteria BIBREF7   The study aims to reveal the factors of reducing the sensibility of the prior knowledge and therefore to make the model more robust and practical  To this end, we introduce auxiliary regularization terms in which our prior knowledge is formalized as distribution over output variables  Recall the example just mentioned, though we do not have enough knowledge to provide features for class hockey, it is easy for us to provide some neutral words, namely words that are not strong indicators of any class, like player here  As one of the factors revealed in this paper, supplying neutral feature words can boost the performance remarkably, making the model more robust 
More attractively, we do not need manual annotation to label these neutral feature words in our proposed approach 
More specifically, we explore three regularization terms to address the problem: (1) a regularization term associated with neutral features; (2) the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term; and (3) the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution  For the first manner, we simply use the most common features as neutral features and assume the neutral features are distributed uniformly over class labels  For the second and third one, we assume we have some knowledge about the class distribution which will be detailed soon later 
To summarize, the main contributions of this work are as follows:
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we briefly describe the generalized expectation criteria and present the proposed regularization terms  In Section 3, we conduct extensive experiments to justify the proposed methods  We survey related work in Section 4, and summarize our work in Section 5 
Method
We address the robustness problem on top of GE-FL BIBREF0 , a GE method which leverages labeled features as prior knowledge  A labeled feature is a strong indicator of a specific class and is manually provided to the classifier  For example, words like amazing, exciting can be labeled features for class positive in sentiment classification 
Generalized Expectation Criteria
Generalized expectation (GE) criteria BIBREF7 provides us a natural way to directly constrain the model in the preferred direction  For example, when we know the proportion of each class of the dataset in a classification task, we can guide the model to predict out a pre-specified class distribution 
Formally, in a parameter estimation objective function, a GE term expresses preferences on the value of some constraint functions about the model's expectation  Given a constraint function $G({\rm x}, y)$ , a conditional model distribution $p_\theta (y|\rm x)$ , an empirical distribution $\tilde{p}({\rm x})$ over input samples and a score function $S$ , a GE term can be expressed as follows:
$$S(E_{\tilde{p}({\rm x})}[E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]])$$   (Eq  4)
Learning from Labeled Features
Druck et al  ge-fl proposed GE-FL to learn from labeled features using generalized expectation criteria  When given a set of labeled features $K$ , the reference distribution over classes of these features is denoted by $\hat{p}(y| x_k), k \in K$   GE-FL introduces the divergence between this reference distribution and the model predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ , as a term of the objective function:
$$\mathcal {O} = \sum _{k \in K} KL(\hat{p}(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) + \sum _{y,i} \frac{\theta _{yi}^2}{2 \sigma ^2}$$   (Eq  6)
where $\theta _{yi}$ is the model parameter which indicates the importance of word $i$ to class $y$   The predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ can be expressed as follows: $ p_\theta (y | x_k) = \frac{1}{C_k} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y|{\rm x})I(x_k) $
in which $I(x_k)$ is 1 if feature $k$ occurs in instance ${\rm x}$ and 0 otherwise, $C_k = \sum _{\rm x} I(x_k)$ is the number of instances with a non-zero value of feature $k$ , and $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ takes a softmax form as follows: $ p_\theta (y|{\rm x}) = \frac{1}{Z(\rm x)}\exp (\sum _i \theta _{yi}x_i)  $
To solve the optimization problem, L-BFGS can be used for parameter estimation 
In the framework of GE, this term can be obtained by setting the constraint function $G({\rm x}, y) = \frac{1}{C_k} \vec{I} (y)I(x_k)$ , where $\vec{I}(y)$ is an indicator vector with 1 at the index corresponding to label $y$ and 0 elsewhere 
Regularization Terms
GE-FL reduces the heavy load of instance annotation and performs well when we provide prior knowledge with no bias  In our experiments, we observe that comparable numbers of labeled features for each class have to be supplied  But as mentioned before, it is often the case that we are not able to provide enough knowledge for some of the classes  For the baseball-hockey classification task, as shown before, GE-FL will predict most of the instances as baseball  In this section, we will show three terms to make the model more robust 
Neutral features are features that are not informative indicator of any classes, for instance, word player to the baseball-hockey classification task  Such features are usually frequent words across all categories  When we set the preference distribution of the neutral features to be uniform distributed, these neutral features will prevent the model from biasing to the class that has a dominate number of labeled features 
Formally, given a set of neutral features $K^{^{\prime }}$ , the uniform distribution is $\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) = \frac{1}{|C|}, k \in K^{^{\prime }}$ , where $|C|$ is the number of classes  The objective function with the new term becomes
$$\mathcal {O}_{NE} = \mathcal {O} + \sum _{k \in K^{^{\prime }}} KL(\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) $$   (Eq  9)
Note that we do not need manual annotation to provide neutral features  One simple way is to take the most common features as neutral features  Experimental results show that this strategy works successfully 
Another way to prevent the model from drifting from the desired direction is to constrain the predicted class distribution on unlabeled data  When lacking knowledge about the class distribution of the data, one feasible way is to take maximum entropy principle, as below:
$$\mathcal {O}_{ME} = \mathcal {O} + \lambda \sum _{y} p(y) \log p(y)$$   (Eq  11)
where $p(y)$ is the predicted class distribution, given by $ p(y) = \frac{1}{|X|} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y | \rm x)  $ To control the influence of this term on the overall objective function, we can tune $\lambda $ according to the difference in the number of labeled features of each class  In this paper, we simply set $\lambda $ to be proportional to the total number of labeled features, say $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This maximum entropy term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$   Therefore, $E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]$ is just the model distribution $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ and its expectation with the empirical distribution $\tilde{p}(\rm x)$ is simply the average over input samples, namely $p(y)$   When $S$ takes the maximum entropy form, we can derive the objective function as above 
Sometimes, we have already had much knowledge about the corpus, and can estimate the class distribution roughly without labeling instances  Therefore, we introduce the KL divergence between the predicted and reference class distributions into the objective function 
Given the preference class distribution $\hat{p}(y)$ , we modify the objective function as follows:
$$\mathcal {O}_{KL} &= \mathcal {O} + \lambda KL(\hat{p}(y) || p(y))$$   (Eq  13)
Similarly, we set $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This divergence term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$ and setting the score function to $S(\hat{p}, p) = \sum _i \hat{p}_i \log \frac{\hat{p}_i}{p_i}$ , where $p$ and $\hat{p}$ are distributions  Note that this regularization term involves the reference class distribution which will be discussed later 
Experiments
In this section, we first justify the approach when there exists unbalance in the number of labeled features or in class distribution  Then, to test the influence of $\lambda $ , we conduct some experiments with the method which incorporates the KL divergence of class distribution  Last, we evaluate our approaches in 9 commonly used text classification datasets  We set $\lambda = 5|K|$ by default in all experiments unless there is explicit declaration  The baseline we choose here is GE-FL BIBREF0 , a method based on generalization expectation criteria 
Data Preparation
We evaluate our methods on several commonly used datasets whose themes range from sentiment, web-page, science to medical and healthcare  We use bag-of-words feature and remove stopwords in the preprocess stage  Though we have labels of all documents, we do not use them during the learning process, instead, we use the label of features 
The movie dataset, in which the task is to classify the movie reviews as positive or negtive, is used for testing the proposed approaches with unbalanced labeled features, unbalanced datasets or different $\lambda $ parameters  All unbalanced datasets are constructed based on the movie dataset by randomly removing documents of the positive class  For each experiment, we conduct 10-fold cross validation 
As described in BIBREF0 , there are two ways to obtain labeled features  The first way is to use information gain  We first calculate the mutual information of all features according to the labels of the documents and select the top 20 as labeled features for each class as a feature pool  Note that using information gain requires the document label, but this is only to simulate how we human provide prior knowledge to the model  The second way is to use LDA BIBREF9 to select features  We use the same selection process as BIBREF0 , where they first train a LDA on the dataset, and then select the most probable features of each topic (sorted by $P(w_i|t_j)$ , the probability of word $w_i$ given topic $t_j$ ) 
Similar to BIBREF10 , BIBREF0 , we estimate the reference distribution of the labeled features using a heuristic strategy  If there are $|C|$ classes in total, and $n$ classes are associated with a feature $k$ , the probability that feature $k$ is related with any one of the $n$ classes is $\frac{0 9}{n}$ and with any other class is $\frac{0 1}{|C| - n}$  
Neutral features are the most frequent words after removing stop words, and their reference distributions are uniformly distributed  We use the top 10 frequent words as neutral features in all experiments 
With Unbalanced Labeled Features
In this section, we evaluate our approach when there is unbalanced knowledge on the categories to be classified  The labeled features are obtained through information gain  Two settings are chosen:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
As shown in Figure 1 , Maximum entropy principle shows improvement only on the balanced case  An obvious reason is that maximum entropy only favors uniform distribution 
Incorporating Neutral features performs similarly to maximum entropy since we assume that neutral words are uniformly distributed  Its accuracy decreases slowly when the number of labeled features becomes larger ( $t>4$ ) (Figure 1 (a)), suggesting that the model gradually biases to the class with more labeled features, just like GE-FL 
Incorporating the KL divergence of class distribution performs much better than GE-FL on both balanced and unbalanced datasets  This shows that it is effective to control the unbalance in labeled features and in the dataset 
With Balanced Labeled Features
We also compare with the baseline when the labeled features are balanced  Similar to the experiment above, the labeled features are obtained by information gain  Two settings are experimented with:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for each class, and conduct comparisons on the original balanced movie dataset (positive:negtive=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the class distribution is unbalanced, by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 2   When the dataset is balanced (Figure 2 (a)), there is little difference between GE-FL and our methods  The reason is that the proposed regularization terms provide no additional knowledge to the model and there is no bias in the labeled features  On the unbalanced dataset (Figure 2 (b)), incorporating KL divergence is much better than GE-FL since we provide additional knowledge(the true class distribution), but maximum entropy and neutral features are much worse because forcing the model to approach the uniform distribution misleads it 
With Unbalanced Class Distributions
Our methods are also evaluated on datasets with different unbalanced class distributions  We manually construct several movie datasets with class distributions of 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 by randomly removing 50%, 67%, 75% positive documents  The original balanced movie dataset is used as a control group  We test with both balanced and unbalanced labeled features  For the balanced case, we randomly select 10 features from the feature pool for each class, and for the unbalanced case, we select 10 features for one class, and 1 feature for the other  Results are shown in Figure 3  
Figure 3 (a) shows that when the dataset and the labeled features are both balanced, there is little difference between our methods and GE-FL(also see Figure 2 (a))  But when the class distribution becomes more unbalanced, the difference becomes more remarkable  Performance of neutral features and maximum entropy decrease significantly but incorporating KL divergence increases remarkably  This suggests if we have more accurate knowledge about class distribution, KL divergence can guide the model to the right direction 
Figure 3 (b) shows that when the labeled features are unbalanced, our methods significantly outperforms GE-FL  Incorporating KL divergence is robust enough to control unbalance both in the dataset and in labeled features while the other three methods are not so competitive 
The Influence of λ\lambda 
We present the influence of $\lambda $ on the method that incorporates KL divergence in this section  Since we simply set $\lambda = \beta |K|$ , we just tune $\beta $ here  Note that when $\beta = 0$ , the newly introduced regularization term is disappeared, and thus the model is actually GE-FL  Again, we test the method with different $\lambda $ in two settings:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other class  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 4   As expected, $\lambda $ reflects how strong the regularization is  The model tends to be closer to our preferences with the increasing of $\lambda $ on both cases 
Using LDA Selected Features
We compare our methods with GE-FL on all the 9 datasets in this section  Instead of using features obtained by information gain, we use LDA to select labeled features  Unlike information gain, LDA does not employ any instance labels to find labeled features  In this setting, we can build classification models without any instance annotation, but just with labeled features 
Table 1 shows that our three methods significantly outperform GE-FL  Incorporating neutral features performs better than GE-FL on 7 of the 9 datasets, maximum entropy is better on 8 datasets, and KL divergence better on 7 datasets 
LDA selects out the most predictive features as labeled features without considering the balance among classes  GE-FL does not exert any control on such an issue, so the performance is severely suffered  Our methods introduce auxiliary regularization terms to control such a bias problem and thus promote the model significantly 
Related Work
There have been much work that incorporate prior knowledge into learning, and two related lines are surveyed here  One is to use prior knowledge to label unlabeled instances and then apply a standard learning algorithm  The other is to constrain the model directly with prior knowledge 
Liu et al text manually labeled features which are highly predictive to unsupervised clustering assignments and use them to label unlabeled data  Chang et al guiding proposed constraint driven learning  They first used constraints and the learned model to annotate unlabeled instances, and then updated the model with the newly labeled data  Daumé daume2008cross proposed a self training method in which several models are trained on the same dataset, and only unlabeled instances that satisfy the cross task knowledge constraints are used in the self training process 
MaCallum et al gec proposed generalized expectation(GE) criteria which formalised the knowledge as constraint terms about the expectation of the model into the objective function Graça et al pr proposed posterior regularization(PR) framework which projects the model's posterior onto a set of distributions that satisfy the auxiliary constraints  Druck et al ge-fl explored constraints of labeled features in the framework of GE by forcing the model's predicted feature distribution to approach the reference distribution  Andrzejewski et al andrzejewski2011framework proposed a framework in which general domain knowledge can be easily incorporated into LDA  Altendorf et al altendorf2012learning explored monotonicity constraints to improve the accuracy while learning from sparse data  Chen et al chen2013leveraging tried to learn comprehensible topic models by leveraging multi-domain knowledge 
Mann and McCallum simple,generalized incorporated not only labeled features but also other knowledge like class distribution into the objective function of GE-FL  But they discussed only from the semi-supervised perspective and did not investigate into the robustness problem, unlike what we addressed in this paper 
There are also some active learning methods trying to use prior knowledge  Raghavan et al feedback proposed to use feedback on instances and features interlacedly, and demonstrated that feedback on features boosts the model much  Druck et al active proposed an active learning method which solicits labels on features rather than on instances and then used GE-FL to train the model 
Conclusion and Discussions
This paper investigates into the problem of how to leverage prior knowledge robustly in learning models  We propose three regularization terms on top of generalized expectation criteria  As demonstrated by the experimental results, the performance can be considerably improved when taking into account these factors  Comparative results show that our proposed methods is more effective and works more robustly against baselines  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to address the robustness problem of leveraging knowledge, and may inspire other research 
We then present more detailed discussions about the three regularization methods  Incorporating neutral features is the simplest way of regularization, which doesn't require any modification of GE-FL but just finding out some common features  But as Figure 1 (a) shows, only using neutral features are not strong enough to handle extremely unbalanced labeled features 
The maximum entropy regularization term shows the strong ability of controlling unbalance 
This method doesn't need any extra knowledge, and is thus suitable when we know nothing about the corpus  But this method assumes that the categories are uniformly distributed, which may not be the case in practice, and it will have a degraded performance if the assumption is violated (see Figure 1 (b), Figure 2 (b), Figure 3 (a)) 
The KL divergence performs much better on unbalanced corpora than other methods  The reason is that KL divergence utilizes the reference class distribution and doesn't make any assumptions  The fact suggests that additional knowledge does benefit the model 
However, the KL divergence term requires providing the true class distribution  Sometimes, we may have the exact knowledge about the true distribution, but sometimes we may not  Fortunately, the model is insensitive to the true distribution and therefore a rough estimation of the true distribution is sufficient  In our experiments, when the true class distribution is 1:2, where the reference class distribution is set to 1:1 5/1:2/1:2 5, the accuracy is 0 755/0 756/0 760 respectively  This provides us the possibility to perform simple computing on the corpus to obtain the distribution in reality  Or, we can set the distribution roughly with domain expertise 

ground_truth: ancient Chinese history records in several dynasties (about 1000BC-200BC) and articles written by celebrities of that era

Ancient Chinese history records in several dynasties and articles written by celebrities during 1000BC-200BC collected from the internet 

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What are the baselines?
Context 4: 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

ground_truth: SVM with unigram, bigram, and trigram features, SVM with average word embedding, SVM with average transformed word embeddings, CNN, ecurrent Convolutional Neural Networks, SVM and deep learning models with comment information

SVM with unigram, bigram, trigram features, with average word embedding, with average transformed word embeddings, CNN and RCNN, SVM, CNN, RCNN with comment information

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What NLP tasks do they consider?
Context 4:  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 

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