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. Does the paper explore extraction from electronic health records?
Context 1: Introduction
The explosion of available scientific articles in the Biomedical domain has led to the rise of Biomedical Information Extraction (BioIE)  BioIE systems aim to extract information from a wide spectrum of articles including medical literature, biological literature, electronic health records, etc  that can be used by clinicians and researchers in the field  Often the outputs of BioIE systems are used to assist in the creation of databases, or to suggest new paths for research  For example, a ranked list of interacting proteins that are extracted from biomedical literature, but are not present in existing databases, can allow researchers to make informed decisions about which protein/gene to study further  Interactions between drugs are necessary for clinicians who simultaneously administer multiple drugs to their patients  A database of diseases, treatments and tests is beneficial for doctors consulting in complicated medical cases 
The main problems in BioIE are similar to those in Information Extraction:
This paper discusses, in each section, various methods that have been adopted to solve the listed problems  Each section also highlights the difficulty of Information Extraction tasks in the biomedical domain 
This paper is intended as a primer to Biomedical Information Extraction for current NLP researchers  It aims to highlight the diversity of the various techniques from Information Extraction that have been applied in the Biomedical domain  The state of biomedical text mining is reviewed regularly  For more extensive surveys, consult BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2  
Named Entity Recognition and Fact Extraction
Named Entity Recognition (NER) in the Biomedical domain usually includes recognition of entities such as proteins, genes, diseases, treatments, drugs, etc  Fact extraction involves extraction of Named Entities from a corpus, usually given a certain ontology  When compared to NER in the domain of general text, the biomedical domain has some characteristic challenges:
Some of the earliest systems were heavily dependent on hand-crafted features  The method proposed in BIBREF4 for recognition of protein names in text does not require any prepared dictionary  The work gives examples of diversity in protein names and lists multiple rules depending on simple word features as well as POS tags 
BIBREF5 adopt a machine learning approach for NER  Their NER system extracts medical problems, tests and treatments from discharge summaries and progress notes  They use a semi-Conditional Random Field (semi-CRF) BIBREF6 to output labels over all tokens in the sentence  They use a variety of token, context and sentence level features  They also use some concept mapping features using existing annotation tools, as well as Brown clustering to form 128 clusters over the unlabelled data  The dataset used is the i2b2 2010 challenge dataset  Their system achieves an F-Score of 0 85  BIBREF7 is an incremental paper on NER taggers  It uses 3 types of word-representation techniques (Brown clustering, distributional clustering, word vectors) to improve performance of the NER Conditional Random Field tagger, and achieves marginal F-Score improvements 
BIBREF8 propose a boostrapping mechanism to bootstrap biomedical ontologies using NELL BIBREF9 , which uses a coupled semi-supervised bootstrapping approach to extract facts from text, given an ontology and a small number of “seed” examples for each category  This interesting approach (called BioNELL) uses an ontology of over 100 categories  In contrast to NELL, BioNELL does not contain any relations in the ontology  BioNELL is motivated by the fact that a lot of scientific literature available online is highly reliable due to peer-review  The authors note that the algorithm used by NELL to bootstrap fails in BioNELL due to ambiguities in biomedical literature, and heavy semantic drift  One of the causes for this is that often common words such as “white”, “dad”, “arm” are used as names of genes- this can easily result in semantic drift in one iteration of the bootstrapping  In order to mitigate this, they use Pointwise Mutual Information scores for corpus level statistics, which attributes a small score to common words  In addition, in contrast to NELL, BioNELL only uses high instances as seeds in the next iteration, but adds low ranking instances to the knowledge base  Since evaluation is not possible using Mechanical Turk or a small number of experts (due to the complexity of the task), they use Freebase BIBREF10 , a knowledge base that has some biomedical concepts as well  The lexicon learned using BioNELL is used to train an NER system  The system shows a very high precision, thereby showing that BioNELL learns very few ambiguous terms 
More recently, deep learning techniques have been developed to further enhance the performance of NER systems  BIBREF11 explore recurrent neural networks for the problem of NER in biomedical text 
Relation Extraction
In Biomedical Information Extraction, Relation Extraction involves finding related entities of many different kinds  Some of these include protein-protein interactions, disease-gene relations and drug-drug interactions  Due to the explosion of available biomedical literature, it is impossible for one person to extract relevant relations from published material  Automatic extraction of relations assists in the process of database creation, by suggesting potentially related entities with links to the source article  For example, a database of drug-drug interactions is important for clinicians who administer multiple drugs simultaneously to their patients- it is imperative to know if one drug will have an adverse effect on the other  A variety of methods have been developed for relation extractions, and are often inspired by Relation Extraction in NLP tasks  These include rule-based approaches, hand-crafted patterns, feature-based and kernel machine learning methods, and more recently deep learning architectures  Relation Extraction systems over Biomedical Corpora are often affected by noisy extraction of entities, due to ambiguities in names of proteins, genes, drugs etc 
BIBREF12 was one of the first large scale Information Extraction efforts to study the feasibility of extraction of protein-protein interactions (such as “protein A activates protein B") from Biomedical text  Using 8 hand-crafted regular expressions over a fixed vocabulary, the authors were able to achieve a recall of 30% for interactions present in The Dictionary of Interacting Proteins (DIP) from abstracts in Medline  The method did not differentiate between the type of relation  The reasons for the low recall were the inconsistency in protein nomenclature, information not present in the abstract, and due to specificity of the hand-crafted patterns  On a small subset of extracted relations, they found that about 60% were true interactions between proteins not present in DIP 
BIBREF13 combine sentence level relation extraction for protein interactions with corpus level statistics  Similar to BIBREF12 , they do not consider the type of interaction between proteins- only whether they interact in the general sense of the word  They also do not differentiate between genes and their protein products (which may share the same name)  They use Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) for corpus level statistics to determine whether a pair of proteins occur together by chance or because they interact  They combine this with a confidence aggregator that takes the maximum of the confidence of the extractor over all extractions for the same protein-pair  The extraction uses a subsequence kernel based on BIBREF14   The integrated model, that combines PMI with aggregate confidence, gives the best performance  Kernel methods have widely been studied for Relation Extraction in Biomedical Literature  Common kernels used usually exploit linguistic information by utilising kernels based on the dependency tree BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF17  
BIBREF18 look at the extraction of diseases and their relevant genes  They use a dictionary from six public databases to annotate genes and diseases in Medline abstracts  In their work, the authors note that when both genes and diseases are correctly identified, they are related in 94% of the cases  The problem then reduces to filtering incorrect matches using the dictionary, which occurs due to false positives resulting from ambiguities in the names as well as ambiguities in abbreviations  To this end, they train a Max-Ent based NER classifier for the task, and get a 26% gain in precision over the unfiltered baseline, with a slight hit in recall  They use POS tags, expanded forms of abbreviations, indicators for Greek letters as well as suffixes and prefixes commonly used in biomedical terms 
BIBREF19 adopt a supervised feature-based approach for the extraction of drug-drug interaction (DDI) for the DDI-2013 dataset BIBREF20   They partition the data in subsets depending on the syntactic features, and train a different model for each  They use lexical, syntactic and verb based features on top of shallow parse features, in addition to a hand-crafted list of trigger words to define their features  An SVM classifier is then trained on the feature vectors, with a positive label if the drug pair interacts, and negative otherwise  Their method beats other systems on the DDI-2013 dataset  Some other feature-based approaches are described in BIBREF21 , BIBREF22  
Distant supervision methods have also been applied to relation extraction over biomedical corpora  In BIBREF23 , 10,000 neuroscience articles are distantly supervised using information from UMLS Semantic Network to classify brain-gene relations into geneExpression and otherRelation  They use lexical (bag of words, contextual) features as well as syntactic (dependency parse features)  They make the “at-least one” assumption, i e  at least one of the sentences extracted for a given entity-pair contains the relation in database  They model it as a multi-instance learning problem and adopt a graphical model similar to BIBREF24   They test using manually annotated examples  They note that the F-score achieved are much lesser than that achieved in the general domain in BIBREF24 , and attribute to generally poorer performance of NER tools in the biomedical domain, as well as less training examples  BIBREF25 explore distant supervision methods for protein-protein interaction extraction 
More recently, deep learning methods have been applied to relation extraction in the biomedical domain  One of the main advantages of such methods over traditional feature or kernel based learning methods is that they require minimal feature engineering  In BIBREF26 , skip-gram vectors BIBREF27 are trained over 5 6Gb of unlabelled text  They use these vectors to extract protein-protein interactions by converting them into features for entities, context and the entire sentence  Using an SVM for classification, their method is able to outperform many kernel and feature based methods over a variety of datasets 
BIBREF28 follow a similar method by using word vectors trained on PubMed articles  They use it for the task of relation extraction from clinical text for entities that include problem, treatment and medical test  For a given sentence, given labelled entities, they predict the type of relation exhibited (or None) by the entity pair  These types include “treatment caused medical problem”, “test conducted to investigate medical problem”, “medical problem indicates medical problems”, etc  They use a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) followed by feedforward neural network architecture for prediction  In addition to pre-trained word vectors as features, for each token they also add features for POS tags, distance from both the entities in the sentence, as well BIO tags for the entities  Their model performs better than a feature based SVM baseline that they train themselves 
The BioNLP'16 Shared Tasks has also introduced some Relation Extraction tasks, in particular the BB3-event subtask that involves predicting whether a “lives-in” relation holds for a Bacteria in a location  Some of the top performing models for this task are deep learning models  BIBREF29 train word embeddings with six billions words of scientific texts from PubMed  They then consider the shortest dependency path between the two entities (Bacteria and location)  For each token in the path, they use word embedding features, POS type embeddings and dependency type embeddings  They train a unidirectional LSTM BIBREF30 over the dependency path, that achieves an F-Score of 52 1% on the test set 
BIBREF31 improve the performance by making modifications to the above model  Instead of using the shortest dependency path, they modify the parse tree based on some pruning strategies  They also add feature embeddings for each token to represent the distance from the entities in the shortest path  They then train a Bidirectional LSTM on the path, and obtain an F-Score of 57 1% 
The recent success of deep learning models in Biomedical Relation Extraction that require minimal feature engineering is promising  This also suggests new avenues of research in the field  An approach as in BIBREF32 can be used to combine multi-instance learning and distant supervision with a neural architecture 
Event Extraction
Event Extraction in the Biomedical domain is a task that has gained more importance recently  Event Extraction goes beyond Relation Extraction  In Biomedical Event Extraction, events generally refer to a change in the state of biological molecules such as proteins and DNA  Generally, it includes detection of targeted event types such as gene expression, regulation, localisation and transcription  Each event type in addition can have multiple arguments that need to be detected  An additional layer of complexity comes from the fact that events can also be arguments of other events, giving rise to a nested structure  This helps to capture the underlying biology better BIBREF1   Detecting the event type often involves recognising and classifying trigger words  Often, these words are verbs such as “activates”, “inhibits”, “phosphorylation” that may indicate a single, or sometimes multiple event types  In this section, we will discuss some of the successful models for Event Extraction in some detail 
Event Extraction gained a lot of interest with the availability of an annotated corpus with the BioNLP'09 Shared Task on Event Extraction BIBREF34   The task involves prediction of trigger words over nine event types such as expression, transcription, catabolism, binding, etc  given only annotation of named entities (proteins, genes, etc )  For each event, its class, trigger expression and arguments need to be extracted  Since the events can be arguments to other events, the final output in general is a graph representation with events and named entities as nodes, and edges that correspond to event arguments  BIBREF33 present a pipeline based method that is heavily dependent on dependency parsing  Their pipeline approach consists of three steps: trigger detection, argument detection and semantic post-processing  While the first two components are learning based systems, the last component is a rule based system  For the BioNLP'09 corpus, only 5% of the events span multiple sentences  Hence the approach does not get affected severely by considering only single sentences  It is important to note that trigger words cannot simply be reduced to a dictionary lookup  This is because a specific word may belong to multiple classes, or may not always be a trigger word for an event  For example, “activate” is found to not be a trigger word in over 70% of the cases  A multi-class SVM is trained for trigger detection on each token, using a large feature set consisting of semantic and syntactic features  It is interesting to note that the hyperparameters of this classifier are optimised based on the performance of the entire end-to-end system 
For the second component to detect arguments, labels for edges between entities must be predicted  For the BioNLP'09 Shared Task, each directed edge from one event node to another event node, or from an event node to a named entity node are classified as “theme”, “cause”, or None  The second component of the pipeline makes these predictions independently  This is also trained using a multi-class SVM which involves heavy use of syntactic features, including the shortest dependency path between the nodes  The authors note that the precision-recall choice of the first component affects the performance of the second component: since the second component is only trained on Gold examples, any error by the first component will lead to a cascading of errors  The final component, which is a semantic post-processing step, consists of rules and heuristics to correct the output of the second component  Since the edge predictions are made independently, it is possible that some event nodes do not have any edges, or have an improper combination of edges  The rule based component corrects these and applies rules to break directed cycles in the graph, and some specific heuristics for different types of events  The final model gives a cumulative F-Score of 52% on the test set, and was the best model on the task 
BIBREF35 note that previous approaches on the task suffer due to the pipeline nature and the propagation of errors  To counter this, they adopt a joint inference method based on Markov Logic Networks BIBREF36 for the same task on BioNLP'09  The Markov Logic Network jointly predicts whether each token is a trigger word, and if yes, the class it belongs to; for each dependency edge, whether it is an argument path leading to a “theme” or a “cause”  By formulating the Event Extraction problem using an MLN, the approach becomes computationally feasible and only linear in the length of the sentence  They incorporate hard constraints to encode rules such as “an argument path must have an event”, “a cause path must start with a regulation event”, etc  In addition, they also include some domain specific soft constraints as well as some linguistically-motivated context-specific soft constraints  In order to train the MLN, stochastic gradient descent was used  Certain heuristic methods are implemented in order to deal with errors due to syntactic parsing, especially ambiguities in PP-attachment and coordination  Their final system is competitive and comes very close to the system by BIBREF33 with an average F-Score of 50%  To further improve the system, they suggest leveraging additional joint-inference opportunities and integrating the syntactic parser better  Some other more recent models for Biomedical Event Extraction include BIBREF37 , BIBREF38  
Conclusion
We have discussed some of the major problems and challenges in BioIE, and seen some of the diverse approaches adopted to solve them  Some interesting problems such as Pathway Extraction for Biological Systems BIBREF39 , BIBREF40 have not been discussed 
Biomedical Information Extraction is a challenging and exciting field for NLP researchers that demands application of state-of-the-art methods  Traditionally, there has been a dependence on hand-crafted features or heavily feature-engineered methods  However, with the advent of deep learning methods, a lot of BioIE tasks are seeing an improvement by adopting deep learning models such as Convolutional Neural Networks and LSTMs, which require minimal feature engineering  Rapid progress in developing better systems for BioIE will be extremely helpful for clinicians and researchers in the Biomedical domain 
Context 2: Introduction
Data imbalance is a common issue in a variety of NLP tasks such as tagging and machine reading comprehension  Table TABREF3 gives concrete examples: for the Named Entity Recognition (NER) task BIBREF2, BIBREF3, most tokens are backgrounds with tagging class $O$  Specifically, the number of tokens tagging class $O$ is 5 times as many as those with entity labels for the CoNLL03 dataset and 8 times for the OntoNotes5 0 dataset; Data-imbalanced issue is more severe for MRC tasks BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8 with the value of negative-positive ratio being 50-200 
Data imbalance results in the following two issues: (1) the training-test discrepancy: Without balancing the labels, the learning process tends to converge to a point that strongly biases towards class with the majority label  This actually creates a discrepancy between training and test: at training time, each training instance contributes equally to the objective function while at test time, F1 score concerns more about positive examples; (2) the overwhelming effect of easy-negative examples  As pointed out by meng2019dsreg, significantly large number of negative examples also means that the number of easy-negative example is large  The huge number of easy examples tends to overwhelm the training, making the model not sufficiently learned to distinguish between positive examples and hard-negative examples  The cross-entropy objective (CE for short) or maximum likelihood (MLE) objective, which is widely adopted as the training objective for data-imbalanced NLP tasks BIBREF9, BIBREF10, BIBREF11, BIBREF12, BIBREF13, BIBREF14, BIBREF15, handles neither of the issues 
To handle the first issue, we propose to replace CE or MLE with losses based on the Sørensen–Dice coefficient BIBREF0 or Tversky index BIBREF1  The Sørensen–Dice coefficient, dice loss for short, is the harmonic mean of precision and recall  It attaches equal importance to false positives (FPs) and false negatives (FNs) and is thus more immune to data-imbalanced datasets  Tversky index extends dice loss by using a weight that trades precision and recall, which can be thought as the approximation of the $F_{\beta }$ score, and thus comes with more flexibility  Therefore, We use dice loss or Tversky index to replace CE loss to address the first issue 
Only using dice loss or Tversky index is not enough since they are unable to address the dominating influence of easy-negative examples  This is intrinsically because dice loss is actually a hard version of the F1 score  Taking the binary classification task as an example, at test time, an example will be classified as negative as long as its probability is smaller than 0 5, but training will push the value to 0 as much as possible  This gap isn't a big issue for balanced datasets, but is extremely detrimental if a big proportion of training examples are easy-negative ones: easy-negative examples can easily dominate training since their probabilities can be pushed to 0 fairly easily  Meanwhile, the model can hardly distinguish between hard-negative examples and positive ones  Inspired by the idea of focal loss BIBREF16 in computer vision, we propose a dynamic weight adjusting strategy, which associates each training example with a weight in proportion to $(1-p)$, and this weight dynamically changes as training proceeds  This strategy helps to deemphasize confident examples during training as their $p$ approaches the value of 1, makes the model attentive to hard-negative examples, and thus alleviates the dominating effect of easy-negative examples 
Combing both strategies, we observe significant performance boosts on a wide range of data imbalanced NLP tasks  Notably, we are able to achieve SOTA results on CTB5 (97 92, +1 86), CTB6 (96 57, +1 80) and UD1 4 (96 98, +2 19) for the POS task; SOTA results on CoNLL03 (93 33, +0 29), OntoNotes5 0 (92 07, +0 96)), MSRA 96 72(+0 97) and OntoNotes4 0 (84 47,+2 36) for the NER task; along with competitive results on the tasks of machine reading comprehension and paraphrase identification 
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: related work is presented in Section 2  We describe different training objectives in Section 3  Experimental results are presented in Section 4  We perform ablation studies in Section 5, followed by a brief conclusion in Section 6 
Related Work ::: Data Resample
The idea of weighting training examples has a long history  Importance sampling BIBREF17 assigns weights to different samples and changes the data distribution  Boosting algorithms such as AdaBoost BIBREF18 select harder examples to train subsequent classifiers  Similarly, hard example mining BIBREF19 downsamples the majority class and exploits the most difficult examples  Oversampling BIBREF20, BIBREF21 is used to balance the data distribution  Another line of data resampling is to dynamically control the weights of examples as training proceeds  For example, focal loss BIBREF16 used a soft weighting scheme that emphasizes harder examples during training  In self-paced learning BIBREF22, example weights are obtained through optimizing the weighted training loss which encourages learning easier examples first  At each training step, self-paced learning algorithm optimizes model parameters and example weights jointly  Other works BIBREF23, BIBREF24 adjusted the weights of different training examples based on training loss  Besides, recent work BIBREF25, BIBREF26 proposed to learn a separate network to predict sample weights 
Related Work ::: Data Imbalance Issue in Object Detection
The background-object label imbalance issue is severe and thus well studied in the field of object detection BIBREF27, BIBREF28, BIBREF29, BIBREF30, BIBREF31  The idea of hard negative mining (HNM) BIBREF30 has gained much attention recently  shrivastava2016ohem proposed the online hard example mining (OHEM) algorithm in an iterative manner that makes training progressively more difficult, and pushes the model to learn better  ssd2016liu sorted all of the negative samples based on the confidence loss and picking the training examples with the negative-positive ratio at 3:1  pang2019rcnn proposed a novel method called IoU-balanced sampling and aploss2019chen designed a ranking model to replace the conventional classification task with a average-precision loss to alleviate the class imbalance issue  The efforts made on object detection have greatly inspired us to solve the data imbalance issue in NLP 
Losses ::: Notation
For illustration purposes, we use the binary classification task to demonstrate how different losses work  The mechanism can be easily extended to multi-class classification 
Let $\lbrace x_i\rbrace $ denote a set of instances  Each $x_i$ is associated with a golden label vector $y_i = [y_{i0},y_{i1} ]$, where $y_{i1}\in \lbrace 0,1\rbrace $ and $y_{i0}\in \lbrace 0,1\rbrace $ respectively denote the positive and negative classes, and thus $y_i$ can be either $[0,1]$ or $[0,1]$  Let $p_i = [p_{i0},p_{i1} ]$ denote the probability vector, and $p_{i1}$ and $p_{i0}$ respectively denote the probability that a model assigns the positive and negative label to $x_i$ 
Losses ::: Cross Entropy Loss
The vanilla cross entropy (CE) loss is given by:
As can be seen from Eq DISPLAY_FORM8, each $x_i$ contributes equally to the final objective  Two strategies are normally used to address the the case where we wish that not all $x_i$ are treated equal: associating different classes with different weighting factor $\alpha $ or resampling the datasets  For the former, Eq DISPLAY_FORM8 is adjusted as follows:
where $\alpha _i\in [0,1]$ may be set by the inverse class frequency or treated as a hyperparameter to set by cross validation  In this work, we use $\lg (\frac{n-n_t}{n_t}+K)$ to calculate the coefficient $\alpha $, where $n_t$ is the number of samples with class $t$ and $n$ is the total number of samples in the training set  $K$ is a hyperparameter to tune  The data resampling strategy constructs a new dataset by sampling training examples from the original dataset based on human-designed criteria, e g , extract equal training samples from each class  Both strategies are equivalent to changing the data distribution and thus are of the same nature  Empirically, these two methods are not widely used due to the trickiness of selecting $\alpha $ especially for multi-class classification tasks and that inappropriate selection can easily bias towards rare classes BIBREF32 
Losses ::: Dice coefficient and Tversky index
Sørensen–Dice coefficient BIBREF0, BIBREF33, dice coefficient (DSC) for short, is a F1-oriented statistic used to gauge the similarity of two sets  Given two sets $A$ and $B$, the dice coefficient between them is given as follows:
In our case, $A$ is the set that contains of all positive examples predicted by a specific model, and $B$ is the set of all golden positive examples in the dataset  When applied to boolean data with the definition of true positive (TP), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN), it can be then written as follows:
For an individual example $x_i$, its corresponding DSC loss is given as follows:
As can be seen, for a negative example with $y_{i1}=0$, it does not contribute to the objective  For smoothing purposes, it is common to add a $\gamma $ factor to both the nominator and the denominator, making the form to be as follows:
As can be seen, negative examples, with $y_{i1}$ being 0 and DSC being $\frac{\gamma }{ p_{i1}+\gamma }$, also contribute to the training  Additionally, milletari2016v proposed to change the denominator to the square form for faster convergence, which leads to the following dice loss (DL):
Another version of DL is to directly compute set-level dice coefficient instead of the sum of individual dice coefficient  We choose the latter due to ease of optimization 
Tversky index (TI), which can be thought as the approximation of the $F_{\beta }$ score, extends dice coefficient to a more general case  Given two sets $A$ and $B$, tversky index is computed as follows:
Tversky index offers the flexibility in controlling the tradeoff between false-negatives and false-positives  It degenerates to DSC if $\alpha =\beta =0 5$  The Tversky loss (TL) for the training set $\lbrace x_i,y_i\rbrace $ is thus as follows:
Losses ::: Self-adusting Dice Loss
Consider a simple case where the dataset consists of only one example $x_i$, which is classified as positive as long as $p_{i1}$ is larger than 0 5  The computation of $F1$ score is actually as follows:
Comparing Eq DISPLAY_FORM14 with Eq DISPLAY_FORM22, we can see that Eq DISPLAY_FORM14 is actually a soft form of $F1$, using a continuous $p$ rather than the binary $\mathbb {I}( p_{i1}>0 5)$  This gap isn't a big issue for balanced datasets, but is extremely detrimental if a big proportion of training examples are easy-negative ones: easy-negative examples can easily dominate training since their probabilities can be pushed to 0 fairly easily  Meanwhile, the model can hardly distinguish between hard-negative examples and positive ones, which has a huge negative effect on the final F1 performance 
To address this issue, we propose to multiply the soft probability $p$ with a decaying factor $(1-p)$, changing Eq DISPLAY_FORM22 to the following form:
One can think $(1-p_{i1})$ as a weight associated with each example, which changes as training proceeds  The intuition of changing $p_{i1}$ to $(1-p_{i1}) p_{i1}$ is to push down the weight of easy examples  For easy examples whose probability are approaching 0 or 1, $(1-p_{i1}) p_{i1}$ makes the model attach significantly less focus to them  Figure FIGREF23 gives gives an explanation from the perspective in derivative: the derivative of $\frac{(1-p)p}{1+(1-p)p}$ with respect to $p$ approaches 0 immediately after $p$ approaches 0, which means the model attends less to examples once they are correctly classified 
A close look at Eq DISPLAY_FORM14 reveals that it actually mimics the idea of focal loss (FL for short) BIBREF16 for object detection in vision  Focal loss was proposed for one-stage object detector to handle foreground-background tradeoff encountered during training  It down-weights the loss assigned to well-classified examples by adding a $(1-p)^{\beta }$ factor, leading the final loss to be $(1-p)^{\beta }\log p$ 
In Table TABREF18, we show the losses used in our experiments, which is described in the next section 
Experiments
We evaluate the proposed method on four NLP tasks: part-of-speech tagging, named entity recognition, machine reading comprehension and paraphrase identification  Baselines in our experiments are optimized by using the standard cross-entropy training objective 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging
Part-of-speech tagging (POS) is the task of assigning a label (e g , noun, verb, adjective) to each word in a given text  In this paper, we choose BERT as the backbone and conduct experiments on three Chinese POS datasets  We report the span-level micro-averaged precision, recall and F1 for evaluation  Hyperparameters are tuned on the corresponding development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging ::: Datasets
We conduct experiments on the widely used Chinese Treebank 5 0, 6 0 as well as UD1 4 
CTB5 is a Chinese dataset for tagging and parsing, which contains 507,222 words, 824,983 characters and 18,782 sentences extracted from newswire sources 
CTB6 is an extension of CTB5, containing 781,351 words, 1,285,149 characters and 28,295 sentences 
UD is the abbreviation of Universal Dependencies, which is a framework for consistent annotation of grammar (parts of speech, morphological features, and syntactic dependencies) across different human languages  In this work, we use UD1 4 for Chinese POS tagging 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging ::: Baselines
We use the following baselines:
Joint-POS: shao2017character jointly learns Chinese word segmentation and POS 
Lattice-LSTM: lattice2018zhang constructs a word-character lattice 
Bert-Tagger: devlin2018bert treats part-of-speech as a tagging task
Context 3: Introduction
Grammar induction is the task of inducing hierarchical syntactic structure from data  Statistical approaches to grammar induction require specifying a probabilistic grammar (e g  formalism, number and shape of rules), and fitting its parameters through optimization  Early work found that it was difficult to induce probabilistic context-free grammars (PCFG) from natural language data through direct methods, such as optimizing the log likelihood with the EM algorithm BIBREF0 , BIBREF1   While the reasons for the failure are manifold and not completely understood, two major potential causes are the ill-behaved optimization landscape and the overly strict independence assumptions of PCFGs  More successful approaches to grammar induction have thus resorted to carefully-crafted auxiliary objectives BIBREF2 , priors or non-parametric models BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , and manually-engineered features BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 to encourage the desired structures to emerge 
We revisit these aforementioned issues in light of advances in model parameterization and inference  First, contrary to common wisdom, we find that parameterizing a PCFG's rule probabilities with neural networks over distributed representations makes it possible to induce linguistically meaningful grammars by simply optimizing log likelihood  While the optimization problem remains non-convex, recent work suggests that there are optimization benefits afforded by over-parameterized models BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , and we indeed find that this neural PCFG is significantly easier to optimize than the traditional PCFG  Second, this factored parameterization makes it straightforward to incorporate side information into rule probabilities through a sentence-level continuous latent vector, which effectively allows different contexts in a derivation to coordinate  In this compound PCFG—continuous mixture of PCFGs—the context-free assumptions hold conditioned on the latent vector but not unconditionally, thereby obtaining longer-range dependencies within a tree-based generative process 
To utilize this approach, we need to efficiently optimize the log marginal likelihood of observed sentences  While compound PCFGs break efficient inference, if the latent vector is known the distribution over trees reduces to a standard PCFG  This property allows us to perform grammar induction using a collapsed approach where the latent trees are marginalized out exactly with dynamic programming  To handle the latent vector, we employ standard amortized inference using reparameterized samples from a variational posterior approximated from an inference network BIBREF12 , BIBREF13  
On standard benchmarks for English and Chinese, the proposed approach is found to perform favorably against recent neural network-based approaches to grammar induction BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF17  
Probabilistic Context-Free Grammars
We consider context-free grammars (CFG) consisting of a 5-tuple INLINEFORM0 where INLINEFORM1 is the distinguished start symbol, INLINEFORM2 is a finite set of nonterminals, INLINEFORM3 is a finite set of preterminals, INLINEFORM6 is a finite set of terminal symbols, and INLINEFORM7 is a finite set of rules of the form,
INLINEFORM0
A probabilistic context-free grammar (PCFG) consists of a grammar INLINEFORM0 and rule probabilities INLINEFORM1 such that INLINEFORM2 is the probability of the rule INLINEFORM3   Letting INLINEFORM4 be the set of all parse trees of INLINEFORM5 , a PCFG defines a probability distribution over INLINEFORM6 via INLINEFORM7 where INLINEFORM8 is the set of rules used in the derivation of INLINEFORM9   It also defines a distribution over string of terminals INLINEFORM10 via
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , i e  the set of trees INLINEFORM1 such that INLINEFORM2 's leaves are INLINEFORM3   We will slightly abuse notation and use
INLINEFORM0
to denote the posterior distribution over the unobserved latent trees given the observed sentence INLINEFORM0 , where INLINEFORM1 is the indicator function 
Compound PCFGs
A compound probability distribution BIBREF19 is a distribution whose parameters are themselves random variables  These distributions generalize mixture models to the continuous case, for example in factor analysis which assumes the following generative process,
INLINEFORM0
Compound distributions provide the ability to model rich generative processes, but marginalizing over the latent parameter can be computationally intractable unless conjugacy can be exploited 
In this work, we study compound probabilistic context-free grammars whose distribution over trees arises from the following generative process: we first obtain rule probabilities via
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is a prior with parameters INLINEFORM1 (spherical Gaussian in this paper), and INLINEFORM2 is a neural network that concatenates the input symbol embeddings with INLINEFORM3 and outputs the sentence-level rule probabilities INLINEFORM4 ,
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes vector concatenation  Then a tree/sentence is sampled from a PCFG with rule probabilities given by INLINEFORM1 ,
INLINEFORM0
This can be viewed as a continuous mixture of PCFGs, or alternatively, a Bayesian PCFG with a prior on sentence-level rule probabilities parameterized by INLINEFORM0   Importantly, under this generative model the context-free assumptions hold conditioned on INLINEFORM3 , but they do not hold unconditionally  This is shown in Figure FIGREF3 (right) where there is a dependence path through INLINEFORM4 if it is not conditioned upon  Compound PCFGs give rise to a marginal distribution over parse trees INLINEFORM5 via
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0   The subscript in INLINEFORM1 denotes the fact that the rule probabilities depend on INLINEFORM2   Compound PCFGs are clearly more expressive than PCFGs as each sentence has its own set of rule probabilities  However, it still assumes a tree-based generative process, making it possible to learn latent tree structures 
Our motivation for the compound PCFG is based on the observation that for grammar induction, context-free assumptions are generally made not because they represent an adequate model of natural language, but because they allow for tractable training  We can in principle model richer dependencies through vertical/horizontal Markovization BIBREF21 , BIBREF22 and lexicalization BIBREF23   However such dependencies complicate training due to the rapid increase in the number of rules  Under this view, we can interpret the compound PCFG as a restricted version of some lexicalized, higher-order PCFG where a child can depend on structural and lexical context through a shared latent vector

ground_truth: Yes

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 method improvements of F1 for paraphrase identification?
Context 2: 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging ::: Results
Table presents the experimental results on the POS task  As can be seen, the proposed DSC loss outperforms the best baseline results by a large margin, i e , outperforming BERT-tagger by +1 86 in terms of F1 score on CTB5, +1 80 on CTB6 and +2 19 on UD1 4  As far as we are concerned, we are achieving SOTA performances on the three datasets  Weighted cross entropy and focal loss only gain a little performance improvement on CTB5 and CTB6, and the dice loss obtains huge gain on CTB5 but not on CTB6, which indicates the three losses are not consistently robust in resolving the data imbalance issue  The proposed DSC loss performs robustly on all the three datasets 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition
Named entity recognition (NER) refers to the task of detecting the span and semantic category of entities from a chunk of text  Our implementation uses the current state-of-the-art BERT-MRC model proposed by xiaoya2019ner as a backbone  For English datasets, we use BERT$_\text{Large}$ English checkpoints, while for Chinese we use the official Chinese checkpoints  We report span-level micro-averaged precision, recall and F1-score  Hyperparameters are tuned on the development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition ::: Datasets
For the NER task, we consider both Chinese datasets, i e , OntoNotes4 0 BIBREF34 and MSRA BIBREF35, and English datasets, i e , CoNLL2003 BIBREF36 and OntoNotes5 0 BIBREF37 
CoNLL2003 is an English dataset with 4 entity types: Location, Organization, Person and Miscellaneous  We followed data processing protocols in BIBREF14 
English OntoNotes5 0 consists of texts from a wide variety of sources and contains 18 entity types  We use the standard train/dev/test split of CoNLL2012 shared task 
Chinese MSRA performs as a Chinese benchmark dataset containing 3 entity types  Data in MSRA is collected from news domain  Since the development set is not provided in the original MSRA dataset, we randomly split the training set into training and development splits by 9:1  We use the official test set for evaluation 
Chinese OntoNotes4 0 is a Chinese dataset and consists of texts from news domain, which has 18 entity types  In this paper, we take the same data split as wu2019glyce did 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition ::: Baselines
We use the following baselines:
ELMo: a tagging model from peters2018deep 
Lattice-LSTM: lattice2018zhang constructs a word-character lattice, only used in Chinese datasets 
CVT: from kevin2018cross, which uses Cross-View Training(CVT) to improve the representations of a Bi-LSTM encoder 
Bert-Tagger: devlin2018bert treats NER as a tagging task 
Glyce-BERT: wu2019glyce combines glyph information with BERT pretraining 
BERT-MRC: The current SOTA model for both Chinese and English NER datasets proposed by xiaoya2019ner, which formulate NER as machine reading comprehension task 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition ::: Results
Table shows experimental results on NER datasets  For English datasets including CoNLL2003 and OntoNotes5 0, our proposed method outperforms BERT-MRCBIBREF38 by +0 29 and +0 96 respectively  We observe huge performance boosts on Chinese datasets, achieving F1 improvements by +0 97 and +2 36 on MSRA and OntoNotes4 0, respectively  As far as we are concerned, we are setting new SOTA performances on all of the four NER datasets 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension
Machine reading comprehension (MRC) BIBREF39, BIBREF40, BIBREF41, BIBREF40, BIBREF42, BIBREF15 has become a central task in natural language understanding  MRC in the SQuAD-style is to predict the answer span in the passage given a question and the passage  In this paper, we choose the SQuAD-style MRC task and report Extract Match (EM) in addition to F1 score on validation set  All hyperparameters are tuned on the development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension ::: Datasets
The following five datasets are used for MRC task: SQuAD v1 1, SQuAD v2 0 BIBREF4, BIBREF6 and Quoref BIBREF8 
SQuAD v1 1 and SQuAD v2 0 are the most widely used QA benchmarks  SQuAD1 1 is a collection of 100K crowdsourced question-answer pairs, and SQuAD2 0 extends SQuAD1 1 allowing no short answer exists in the provided passage 
Quoref is a QA dataset which tests the coreferential reasoning capability of reading comprehension systems, containing 24K questions over 4 7K paragraphs from Wikipedia 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension ::: Baselines
We use the following baselines:
QANet: qanet2018 builds a model based on convolutions and self-attention  Convolution to model local interactions and self-attention to model global interactions 
BERT: devlin2018bert treats NER as a tagging task 
XLNet: xlnet2019 proposes a generalized autoregressive pretraining method that enables learning bidirectional contexts 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension ::: Results
Table shows the experimental results for MRC tasks  With either BERT or XLNet, our proposed DSC loss obtains significant performance boost on both EM and F1  For SQuADv1 1, our proposed method outperforms XLNet by +1 25 in terms of F1 score and +0 84 in terms of EM and achieves 87 65 on EM and 89 51 on F1 for SQuAD v2 0  Moreover, on QuoRef, the proposed method surpasses XLNet results by +1 46 on EM and +1 41 on F1  Another observation is that, XLNet outperforms BERT by a huge margin, and the proposed DSC loss can obtain further performance improvement by an average score above 1 0 in terms of both EM and F1, which indicates the DSC loss is complementary to the model structures 
Experiments ::: Paraphrase Identification
Paraphrases are textual expressions that have the same semantic meaning using different surface words  Paraphrase identification (PI) is the task of identifying whether two sentences have the same meaning or not  We use BERT BIBREF11 and XLNet BIBREF43 as backbones and report F1 score for comparison  Hyperparameters are tuned on the development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Paraphrase Identification ::: Datasets
We conduct experiments on two widely used datasets for PI task: MRPC BIBREF44 and QQP 
MRPC is a corpus of sentence pairs automatically extracted from online news sources, with human annotations of whether the sentence pairs are semantically equivalent  The MRPC dataset has imbalanced classes (68% positive, 32% for negative) 
QQP is a collection of question pairs from the community question-answering website Quora  The class distribution in QQP is also unbalanced (37% positive, 63% negative) 
Experiments ::: Paraphrase Identification ::: Results
Table shows the results for PI task  We find that replacing the training objective with DSC introduces performance boost for both BERT and XLNet  Using DSC loss improves the F1 score by +0 58 for MRPC and +0 73 for QQP 
Ablation Studies ::: The Effect of Dice Loss on Accuracy-oriented Tasks
We argue that the most commonly used cross-entropy objective is actually accuracy-oriented, whereas the proposed dice loss (DL) performs as a hard version of F1-score  To explore the effect of the dice loss on accuracy-oriented tasks such as text classification, we conduct experiments on the Stanford Sentiment Treebank sentiment classification datasets including SST-2 and SST-5  We fine-tune BERT$_\text{Large}$ with different training objectives  Experiment results for SST are shown in   For SST-5, BERT with CE achieves 55 57 in terms of accuracy, with DL and DSC losses slightly degrade the accuracy performance and achieve 54 63 and 55 19, respectively  For SST-2, BERT with CE achieves 94 9 in terms of accuracy  The same as SST-5, we observe a slight performance drop with DL and DSC, which means that the dice loss actually works well for F1 but not for accuracy 
Ablation Studies ::: The Effect of Hyperparameters in Tversky index
As mentioned in Section SECREF10, Tversky index (TI) offers the flexibility in controlling the tradeoff between false-negatives and false-positives  In this subsection, we explore the effect of hyperparameters (i e , $\alpha $ and $\beta $) in TI to test how they manipulate the tradeoff  We conduct experiments on the Chinese OntoNotes4 0 NER dataset and English QuoRef MRC dataset to examine the influence of tradeoff between precision and recall  Experiment results are shown in Table   The highest F1 for Chinese OntoNotes4 0 is 84 67 when $\alpha $ is set to 0 6 while for QuoRef, the highest F1 is 68 44 when $\alpha $ is set to 0 4  In addition, we can observe that the performance varies a lot as $\alpha $ changes in distinct datasets, which shows that the hyperparameters $\alpha ,\beta $ play an important role in the proposed method 
Conclusion
In this paper, we alleviate the severe data imbalance issue in NLP tasks  We propose to use dice loss in replacement of the standard cross-entropy loss, which performs as a soft version of F1 score  Using dice loss can help narrow the gap between training objectives and evaluation metrics  Empirically, we show that the proposed training objective leads to significant performance boost for part-of-speech, named entity recognition, machine reading comprehension and paraphrase identification tasks 
Context 3:  We hypothesize that this dependence among siblings is especially useful in grammar induction from words, where (for example) if we know that watched is used as a verb then the noun phrase is likely to be a movie 
In contrast to the usual Bayesian treatment of PCFGs which places priors on global rule probabilities BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF6 , the compound PCFG assumes a prior on local, sentence-level rule probabilities  It is therefore closely related to the Bayesian grammars studied by BIBREF25 and BIBREF26 , who also sample local rule probabilities from a logistic normal prior for training dependency models with valence (DMV) BIBREF27  
Experimental Setup
Results and Discussion
Table TABREF23 shows the unlabeled INLINEFORM0 scores for our models and various baselines  All models soundly outperform right branching baselines, and we find that the neural PCFG/compound PCFG are strong models for grammar induction  In particular the compound PCFG outperforms other models by an appreciable margin on both English and Chinese  We again note that we were unable to induce meaningful grammars through a traditional PCFG with the scalar parameterization despite a thorough hyperparameter search  See lab:full for the full results (including corpus-level INLINEFORM1 ) broken down by sentence length 
Table TABREF27 analyzes the learned tree structures  We compare similarity as measured by INLINEFORM0 against gold, left, right, and “self" trees (top), where self INLINEFORM1 score is calculated by averaging over all 6 pairs obtained from 4 different runs  We find that PRPN is particularly consistent across multiple runs  We also observe that different models are better at identifying different constituent labels, as measured by label recall (Table TABREF27 , bottom)  While left as future work, this naturally suggests an ensemble approach wherein the empirical probabilities of constituents (obtained by averaging the predicted binary constituent labels from the different models) are used either to supervise another model or directly as potentials in a CRF constituency parser  Finally, all models seemed to have some difficulty in identifying SBAR/VP constituents which typically span more words than NP constituents 
Related Work
Grammar induction has a long and rich history in natural language processing  Early work on grammar induction with pure unsupervised learning was mostly negative BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF74 , though BIBREF75 reported some success on partially bracketed data  BIBREF76 and BIBREF2 were some of the first successful statistical approaches to grammar induction  In particular, the constituent-context model (CCM) of BIBREF2 , which explicitly models both constituents and distituents, was the basis for much subsequent work BIBREF27 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   Other works have explored imposing inductive biases through Bayesian priors BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , modified objectives BIBREF42 , and additional constraints on recursion depth BIBREF77 , BIBREF48  
While the framework of specifying the structure of a grammar and learning the parameters is common, other methods exist  BIBREF43 consider a nonparametric-style approach to unsupervised parsing by using random subsets of training subtrees to parse new sentences  BIBREF46 utilize an incremental algorithm to unsupervised parsing which makes local decisions to create constituents based on a complex set of heuristics  BIBREF47 induce parse trees through cascaded applications of finite state models 
More recently, neural network-based approaches to grammar induction have shown promising results on inducing parse trees directly from words  BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 learn tree structures through soft gating layers within neural language models, while BIBREF16 combine recursive autoencoders with the inside-outside algorithm  BIBREF17 train unsupervised recurrent neural network grammars with a structured inference network to induce latent trees, and BIBREF78 utilize image captions to identify and ground constituents 
Our work is also related to latent variable PCFGs BIBREF79 , BIBREF80 , BIBREF81 , which extend PCFGs to the latent variable setting by splitting nonterminal symbols into latent subsymbols  In particular, latent vector grammars BIBREF82 and compositional vector grammars BIBREF83 also employ continuous vectors within their grammars  However these approaches have been employed for learning supervised parsers on annotated treebanks, in contrast to the unsupervised setting of the current work 
Conclusion
This work explores grammar induction with compound PCFGs, which modulate rule probabilities with per-sentence continuous latent vectors  The latent vector induces marginal dependencies beyond the traditional first-order context-free assumptions within a tree-based generative process, leading to improved performance  The collapsed amortized variational inference approach is general and can be used for generative models which admit tractable inference through partial conditioning  Learning deep generative models which exhibit such conditional Markov properties is an interesting direction for future work 
Acknowledgments
We thank Phil Blunsom for initial discussions which seeded many of the core ideas in the present work  We also thank Yonatan Belinkov and Shay Cohen for helpful feedback, and Andrew Drozdov for providing the parsed dataset from their DIORA model  YK is supported by a Google Fellowship  AMR acknowledges the support of NSF 1704834, 1845664, AWS, and Oracle

ground_truth: Using DSC loss improves the F1 score by +0.58 for MRPC and +0.73 for QQP

+0.58

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. which chinese datasets were used?
Context 3: 
Model Parameterization
We associate an input embedding INLINEFORM0 for each symbol INLINEFORM1 on the left side of a rule (i e  INLINEFORM2 ) and run a neural network over INLINEFORM3 to obtain the rule probabilities  Concretely, each rule type INLINEFORM4 is parameterized as follows, INLINEFORM5
where INLINEFORM0 is the product space INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 are MLPs with two residual layers, INLINEFORM3
The bias terms for the above expressions (including for the rule probabilities) are omitted for notational brevity  In Figure FIGREF3 we use the following to refer to rule probabilities of different rule types, INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the set of rules with INLINEFORM1 on the left hand side 
The compound PCFG rule probabilities INLINEFORM0 given a latent vector INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2
Again the bias terms are omitted for brevity, and INLINEFORM0 are as before where the first layer's input dimensions are appropriately changed to account for concatenation with INLINEFORM1  
Corpus/Sentence F 1 F_1 by Sentence Length
For completeness we show the corpus-level and sentence-level INLINEFORM0 broken down by sentence length in Table TABREF44 , averaged across 4 different runs of each model 
Experiments with RNNGs
For experiments on supervising RNNGs with induced trees, we use the parameterization and hyperparameters from BIBREF17 , which uses a 2-layer 650-dimensional stack LSTM (with dropout of 0 5) and a 650-dimensional tree LSTM BIBREF88 , BIBREF90 as the composition function 
Concretely, the generative story is as follows: first, the stack representation is used to predict the next action (shift or reduce) via an affine transformation followed by a sigmoid  If shift is chosen, we obtain a distribution over the vocabulary via another affine transformation over the stack representation followed by a softmax  Then we sample the next word from this distribution and shift the generated word onto the stack using the stack LSTM  If reduce is chosen, we pop the last two elements off the stack and use the tree LSTM to obtain a new representation  This new representation is shifted onto the stack via the stack LSTM  Note that this RNNG parameterization is slightly different than the original from BIBREF53 , which does not ignore constituent labels and utilizes a bidirectional LSTM as the composition function instead of a tree LSTM  As our RNNG parameterization only works with binary trees, we binarize the gold trees with right binarization for the RNNG trained on gold trees (trees from the unsupervised methods explored in this paper are already binary)  The RNNG also trains a discriminative parser alongside the generative model for evaluation with importance sampling  We use a CRF parser whose span score parameterization is similar similar to recent works BIBREF89 , BIBREF87 , BIBREF85 : position embeddings are added to word embeddings, and a bidirectional LSTM with 256 hidden dimensions is run over the input representations to obtain the forward and backward hidden states  The score INLINEFORM0 for a constituent spanning the INLINEFORM1 -th and INLINEFORM2 -th word is given by,
INLINEFORM0
where the MLP has a single hidden layer with INLINEFORM0 nonlinearity followed by layer normalization BIBREF84  
For experiments on fine-tuning the RNNG with the unsupervised RNNG, we take the discriminative parser (which is also pretrained alongside the RNNG on induced trees) to be the structured inference network for optimizing the evidence lower bound  We refer the reader to BIBREF17 and their open source implementation for additional details  We also observe that as noted by BIBREF17 , a URNNG trained from scratch on this version of PTB without punctuation failed to outperform a right-branching baseline 
The LSTM language model baseline is the same size as the stack LSTM (i e  2 layers, 650 hidden units, dropout of 0 5), and is therefore equivalent to an RNNG with completely right branching trees  The PRPN/ON baselines for perplexity/syntactic evaluation in Table TABREF30 also have 2 layers with 650 hidden units and 0 5 dropout  Therefore all models considered in Table TABREF30 have roughly the same capacity  For all models we share input/output word embeddings BIBREF86   Perplexity estimation for the RNNGs and the compound PCFG uses 1000 importance-weighted samples 
For grammaticality judgment, we modify the publicly available dataset from BIBREF56 to only keep sentence pairs that did not have any unknown words with respect to our PTB vocabulary of 10K words  This results in 33K sentence pairs for evaluation 
Nonterminal/Preterminal Alignments
Figure FIGREF50 shows the part-of-speech alignments and Table TABREF46 shows the nonterminal label alignments for the compound PCFG/neural PCFG 
Subtree Analysis
Table TABREF53 lists more examples of constituents within each subtree as the top principical component is varied  Due to data sparsity, the subtree analysis is performed on the full dataset  See section UID36 for more details 

ground_truth: Answer with content missing: (Data section) Chinese with version 5.1 of the Chinese Penn Treebank (CTB)