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 models/frameworks do they compare to?
Context 1: Introduction
Deep neural networks (DNNs), in particular convolutional and recurrent neural networks, with huge architectures have been proven successful in wide range of tasks including audio processing such as speech to text [1 - 4], emotion recognition [5 - 8], speech/non-speech (e g , of non-speech include noise, music, etc ,) classification [9 - 12], etc 
Training these deep architectures require large amount of annotated data, as a result, they cannot be used in low data resource scenarios which is common in speech-based applications [13 - 15]  Apart from collecting large data corpus, annotating the data is also very difficult, and requires manual supervision and efforts  Especially, annotation of speech for tasks like emotion recognition also suffer from lack of agreement among the annotators [16]  Hence, there is a need to build reliable systems that can work in low resource scenario 
In this work, we propose a novel approach to address the task of classification in low data resource scenarios  Our approach involves simultaneously considering more than one sample (in this work, two samples are considered) to train the classifier  We call this approach as simultaneous two sample learning (s2sL)  The proposed approach is also applicable to low resource data suffering with data imbalance  The contributions of this paper are:
Proposed approach
The s2sL approach proposed to address low data resource problem is explained in this Section  In this work, we use MLP (modified to handle our data representation) as the base classifier  Here, we explain the s2sL approach by considering two-class classification task 
Data representation
Consider a two-class classification task with INLINEFORM0 denoting the set of class labels, and let INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 be the number of samples corresponding to INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 , respectively  In general, to train a classifier, the samples in the train set are provided as input-output pairs as follows  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 refers to the INLINEFORM1 -dimensional feature vector representing the INLINEFORM2 sample corresponding to INLINEFORM3 class label, and INLINEFORM4 , refers to output label of INLINEFORM5 class  In the proposed data representation format, called simultaneous two sample (s2s) representation, we will simultaneously consider two samples as follows  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 are the INLINEFORM2 -dimensional feature vectors representing the INLINEFORM3 sample in INLINEFORM4 class and INLINEFORM5 sample in the INLINEFORM6 class, respectively; and INLINEFORM7 , INLINEFORM8 refers to the output labels of INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 class, respectively 
Hence, in s2s data representation, we will have an input feature vector of length INLINEFORM0 i e , INLINEFORM1 , and output class labels as either INLINEFORM2 or INLINEFORM3   Each sample can be combined with all the samples (i e , with ( INLINEFORM4 ) samples) in the dataset  Therefore, by representing the data in the s2s format, the number of samples in the train set increases to INLINEFORM5 from INLINEFORM6 samples  We hypothesize that the s2s format is expected to help the network not only to learn the characteristics of the two classes separately, but also the difference and similarity in characteristics of the two classes 
Classifier training
MLP, the most commonly used feed forward neural network, is considered as the base classifier to validate our proposed s2s framework  Generally, MLPs are trained using the data format given by eq  INLINEFORM0   But to train the MLP on our s2s based data representation (as in eq  INLINEFORM1 ), the following modifications are made to the MLP architecture (refer to Figure FIGREF4 ) 
We have INLINEFORM0 units (instead of INLINEFORM1 units) in the input layer to accept the two samples i e , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 , simultaneously 
The structure of the hidden layer in this approach is similar to that of a regular MLP  The number of hidden layers and hidden units can be varied depending upon the complexity of the problem  The number of units in the hidden layer is selected empirically by varying the number of hidden units from 2 to twice the length of the input layer (i e , 2 to INLINEFORM0 ) and the unit at which the highest performance is obtained are selected  In this paper, we considered only a single hidden layer  Rectified linear units (ReLU) are used for hidden layer 
The output layer will consist of units equal to twice the considered number of classes in the classification task i e, the output layer will have four units for two-class classification task  The sigmoid activation function (not softmax) is used on the output layer units  Unlike regular MLP, we use sigmoid activation units in the output layer, with binary cross-entropy as the cost function, because the output labels in the proposed s2s based data representation will have more than one unit active at a time (not one-hot encoded output) and this condition cannot be handled using softmax function 
As can be seen from Figure FIGREF4 , the output layer in our proposed method has outputs INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 which corresponds to the outputs associated with the input feature vectors INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 , respectively  For a two-class classification problem, there will be four units in the output layer and the possible output labels are INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 , INLINEFORM7 corresponding to the class labels INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9 , respectively  This architecture is referred to as s2s-MLP  In s2sL, s2s-MLP is trained using the s2s data representation format  Further, the s2s-MLP is trained using adam optimizer 
Classifier testing
Generally, the feature vector corresponding to the test sample is provided as input to the trained MLP in the testing phase and the class label is decided based on the obtained output 
However, in s2sL method, the feature vector corresponding to the test sample should also be converted to the s2s data representation format to test the trained s2s-MLP  We propose a testing approach, where the given test sample is combined with a set of preselected reference samples, whose class label is known a priori, to generate multiple instances of the same test sample as follows  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 refer to the INLINEFORM2 -dimensional feature vector corresponding to the test sample and the INLINEFORM3 reference sample, respectively  INLINEFORM4 refers to the considered number of reference samples  These reference samples can be selected from any of the two classes 
For testing the s2s-MLP (as shown in Figure FIGREF4 ), each test sample INLINEFORM0 (same as ' INLINEFORM1 ' in (3)) is combined with all the INLINEFORM2 reference samples ( INLINEFORM3 ) to form INLINEFORM4 different instances of the same test sample INLINEFORM5   The corresponding outputs ( INLINEFORM6 ) obtained from s2s-MLP for the INLINEFORM7 generated instances of INLINEFORM8 are combined by voting-based decision approach to obtain the final decision INLINEFORM9   The class label that gets maximum votes is considered as the predicted output label 
Experiments
We validate the performance of the proposed s2sL by providing the preliminary results obtained on two different tasks namely, Speech/Music discrimination and emotion classification  We considered the GTZAN Music-Speech dataset [17], consisting of 120 audio files (60 speech and 60 music), for task of classifying speech and music  Each audio file (of 2 seconds duration) is represented using a 13-dimensional mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) vector, where each MFCC vector is the average of all the frame level (frame size of 30 msec and an overlap of 10 msec) MFCC vectors  It is to be noted that our main intention for this task is not better feature selection, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, in particular for low data scenarios 
The standard Berlin speech emotion database (EMO-DB) [18] consisting of 535 utterances corresponding to 7 different emotions is considered for the task of emotion classification  Each utterance is represented by a 19-dimensional feature vector obtained by using the feature selection algorithm from WEKA toolkit [19] on the 384-dimensional utterance level feature vector obtained using openSMILE toolkit [20]  For two class classification, we considered the two most confusing emotion pairs i e , (Neutral,Sad) and (Anger, Happy)  Data corresponding to Speech/Music classification (60 speech and 60 music samples) and Neutral/Sad classification (79 neutral and 62 sad utterances) is balanced whereas Anger/Happy classification task has data imbalance, with anger forming the majority class (127 samples) and happy forming the minority class (71 samples)  Therefore, we show the performance of s2sL on both, balanced and imbalanced datasets 
All experimental results are validated using 5-fold cross validation (80% of data for training and 20% for testing in each fold)  Further, to analyze the effectiveness of s2sL in low resource scenarios, different proportions of training data, within each fold, are considered to train the system  For this analysis, we considered 4 different proportions i e , INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 of the training data to train the classifier  For instance, INLINEFORM4 means considering only half of the original training data to train the classifier, and INLINEFORM5 means considering the complete training data  5-fold cross validation is considered for all data proportions  Accuracy (in %) is used as a performance measure for balanced data classification tasks (i e , Speech/Music classification and Neutral/Sad emotion classification), whereas the more preferred INLINEFORM6 measure [21] is used as a measure for imbalanced data classification task (i e , Anger/Happy emotion classification) 
Table TABREF14 show the results obtained for proposed s2sL approach in comparison to that of MLP for the tasks of Speech/Music and Neutral/Sad classification, by considering different proportions of training data  The values in Table TABREF14 are mean accuracies (in %) obtained by 5-fold cross validation  It can be observed from Table TABREF14 that for both tasks, s2sL method outperforms MLP, especially at low resource conditions  s2sL shows an absolute improvement in accuracy of INLINEFORM0 % and INLINEFORM1 % over MLP for Speech/Music and Neutral/Sad classification tasks, respectively, when INLINEFORM2 of the original training data is used in experiments 
Table TABREF14 show the results (in terms of INLINEFORM0 values) obtained for proposed s2sL approach in comparison to that of MLP for Anger/Happy classification (data imbalance problem)  Here, state-of-the-art methods i e , Eusboost [22] and MWMOTE [23] are also considered for comparison  It can be observed from Table TABREF14 that the s2sL method outperforms MLP, and also performs better than Eusboost and MWMOTE techniques on imbalanced data (around 3 % absolute improvement in INLINEFORM1 value for s2sL compared to MWMOTE, when INLINEFORM2 of the training data is considered)  In particular, at lower amounts of training data, s2sL outperforms all the other methods, illustrating its effectiveness even for low resourced data imbalance problems  s2sL method shows an absolute improvement of 6% ( INLINEFORM3 ) in INLINEFORM4 value over the second best ( INLINEFORM5 for MWMOTE), when only INLINEFORM6 of the training data is used 
Conclusions
In this paper, we introduced a novel s2s framework to effectively learn the class discriminative characteristics, even from low data resources  In this framework, more than one sample (here, two samples) are simultaneously considered to train the classifier  Further, this framework allows to generate multiple instances of the same test sample, by considering preselected reference samples, to achieve a more profound decision making  We illustrated the significance of our approach by providing the experimental results for two different tasks namely, speech/music discrimination and emotion classification  Further, we showed that the s2s framework can also handle the low resourced data imbalance problem 
References
[1] Hinton, G , Deng, L , Yu, D , Dahl, G  E , Mohamed, A  R , Jaitly, N , Senior, A , Vanhoucke, V , Nguyen, P , Sainath, T  N  & Kingsbury, B  (2012) Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups  IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pp  82–97 
[2] Vinyals, O , Ravuri, S  V  & Povey, D  (2012) Revisiting recurrent neural networks for robust ASR  In Proc  IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp  4085–4088 
[3] Lu, L , Zhang, X , Cho K  & Renals, S  (2015) A study of the recurrent neural network encoder-decoder for large vocabulary speech recognition  In Proc  INTERSPEECH, pp  3249–3253 
[4] Zhang, Y , Pezeshki, M , Brakel, P , Zhang, S , Bengio, C L Y  & Courville, A  (2017) Towards end-to-end speech recognition with deep convolutional neural networks  arXiv preprint, arXiv:1701 02720 
[5] Han, K , Yu, D  & Tashev, I  (2014) Speech emotion recognition using deep neural network and extreme learning machine  In Proc  Interspeech, pp  223–227 
[6] Trigeorgis, G , Ringeval, F , Brueckner, R , Marchi, E , Nicolaou, M  A , Schuller, B , & Zafeiriou, S  (2016) Adieu features? End-to-end speech emotion recognition using a deep convolutional recurrent network  In Proc  ICASSP, pp  5200–5204) 
[7] Huang, Che-Wei, & Shrikanth S  Narayanan  (2016) Attention Assisted Discovery of Sub-Utterance Structure in Speech Emotion Recognition  In Proc  INTERSPEECH, pp  1387–1391 
[8] Zhang, Z , Ringeval, F , Han, J , Deng, J , Marchi, E  & Schuller, B  (2016) Facing realism in spontaneous emotion recognition from speech: Feature enhancement by autoencoder with LSTM neural networks  In Proc  INTERSPEECH, pp  3593–3597 
[9] Scheirer, E  D  & Slaney, M  (2003) Multi-feature speech/music discrimination system  U S  Patent 6,570,991 
[10] Pikrakis, A  & Theodoridis S  (2014) Speech-music discrimination: A deep learning perspective  In Proc  European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), pp  616–620 
[11] Choi, K , Fazekas, G  & Sandler, M  (2016) Automatic tagging using deep convolutional neural networks  arXiv preprint, arXiv:1606 00298 
[12] Zazo Candil, R , Sainath, T N , Simko, G  & Parada, C  (2016) Feature learning with raw-waveform CLDNNs for Voice Activity Detection  In Proc  Interspeech, pp  3668–3672 
[13] Tian, L , Moore, JD  & Lai, C  (2015) Emotion recognition in spontaneous and acted dialogues  In Proc  International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp  698–704 
[14] Dumpala, S H , Chakraborty, R  & Kopparapu, S K  (2017) k-FFNN: A priori knowledge infused feed-forward neural networks  arXiv preprint, arXiv:1704 07055 
[15] Dumpala, S H , Chakraborty, R  & Kopparapu, S K  (2018) Knowledge-driven feed-forward neural network for audio affective content analysis  To appear in AAAI-2018 workshop on Affective Content Analysis 
[16] Deng, J , Zhang, Z , Marchi, E  & Schuller, B  (2013) Sparse autoencoder-based feature transfer learning for speech emotion recognition  In Proc  Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp  511–516 
[17] George Tzanetakis, Gtzan musicspeech  Availabe on-line at http://marsyas info/download/datasets 
[18] Burkhardt, F , Paeschke, A , Rolfes, M , Sendlmeier, W F  & Weiss, B  (2005) A database of german emotional speech  In Proc  Interspeech, pp  1517–1520 
[19] Hall, M , Frank, E , Holmes, G , Pfahringer, B , Reutemann, P  & Witten, I H  (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update  ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter, 11(1), pp  10–18 
[20] Eyben, F , Weninger, F , Gross, F  & Schuller, B  (2013) Recent developments in opensmile, the munich open-source multimedia feature extractor  In Proc  ACM international conference on Multimedia, pp  835–838 
[21] Maratea, A , Petrosino, A  & Manzo, M  (2014) Adjusted f-measure and kernel scaling for imbalanced data learning  Information Sciences 257:331–341 
[22] Galar, M , Fernandez, A , Barrenechea, E  & Herrera, F  (2013) Eusboost: Enhancing ensembles for highly imbalanced data-sets by evolutionary undersampling  Pattern Recognition 46(12):3460–3471 
[23] Barua, S , Islam, M  M , Yao, X  & Murase, K  (2014) Mwmote–majority weighted minority oversampling technique for imbalanced data set learning  IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 26(2):405–425 
Context 2: Introduction
Twitter is a widely used microblogging platform, where users post and interact with messages, “tweets”  Understanding the semantic representation of tweets can benefit a plethora of applications such as sentiment analysis BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , hashtag prediction BIBREF2 , paraphrase detection BIBREF3 and microblog ranking BIBREF4 , BIBREF5   However, tweets are difficult to model as they pose several challenges such as short length, informal words, unusual grammar and misspellings  Recently, researchers are focusing on leveraging unsupervised representation learning methods based on neural networks to solve this problem  Once these representations are learned, we can use off-the-shelf predictors taking the representation as input to solve the downstream task BIBREF6 , BIBREF7   These methods enjoy several advantages: (1) they are cheaper to train, as they work with unlabelled data, (2) they reduce the dependence on domain level experts, and (3) they are highly effective across multiple applications, in practice 
Despite this, there is a lack of prior work which surveys the tweet-specific unsupervised representation learning models  In this work, we attempt to fill this gap by investigating the models in an organized fashion  Specifically, we group the models based on the objective function it optimizes  We believe this work can aid the understanding of the existing literature  We conclude the paper by presenting interesting future research directions, which we believe are fruitful in advancing this field by building high-quality tweet representation learning models 
Unsupervised Tweet Representation Models
There are various models spanning across different model architectures and objective functions in the literature to compute tweet representation in an unsupervised fashion  These models work in a semi-supervised way - the representations generated by the model is fed to an off-the-shelf predictor like Support Vector Machines (SVM) to solve a particular downstream task  These models span across a wide variety of neural network based architectures including average of word vectors, convolutional-based, recurrent-based and so on  We believe that the performance of these models is highly dependent on the objective function it optimizes – predicting adjacent word (within-tweet relationships), adjacent tweet (inter-tweet relationships), the tweet itself (autoencoder), modeling from structured resources like paraphrase databases and weak supervision  In this section, we provide the first of its kind survey of the recent tweet-specific unsupervised models in an organized fashion to understand the literature  Specifically, we categorize each model based on the optimized objective function as shown in Figure FIGREF1   Next, we study each category one by one 
Modeling within-tweet relationships
Motivation: Every tweet is assumed to have a latent topic vector, which influences the distribution of the words in the tweet  For example, though the appearance of the phrase catch the ball is frequent in the corpus, if we know that the topic of a tweet is about “technology”, we can expect words such as bug or exception after the word catch (ignoring the) instead of the word ball since catch the bug/exception is more plausible under the topic “technology”  On the other hand, if the topic of the tweet is about “sports”, then we can expect ball after catch  These intuitions indicate that the prediction of neighboring words for a given word strongly relies on the tweet also 
Models: BIBREF8 's work is the first to exploit this idea to compute distributed document representations that are good at predicting words in the document  They propose two models: PV-DM and PV-DBOW, that are extensions of Continuous Bag Of Words (CBOW) and Skip-gram model variants of the popular Word2Vec model BIBREF9 respectively – PV-DM inserts an additional document token (which can be thought of as another word) which is shared across all contexts generated from the same document; PV-DBOW attempts to predict the sampled words from the document given the document representation  Although originally employed for paragraphs and documents, these models work better than the traditional models: BOW BIBREF10 and LDA BIBREF11 for tweet classification and microblog retrieval tasks BIBREF12   The authors in BIBREF12 make the PV-DM and PV-DBOW models concept-aware (a rich semantic signal from a tweet) by augmenting two features: attention over contextual words and conceptual tweet embedding, which jointly exploit concept-level senses of tweets to compute better representations  Both the discussed works have the following characteristics: (1) they use a shallow architecture, which enables fast training, (2) computing representations for test tweets requires computing gradients, which is time-consuming for real-time Twitter applications, and (3) most importantly, they fail to exploit textual information from related tweets that can bear salient semantic signals 
Modeling inter-tweet relationships
Motivation: To capture rich tweet semantics, researchers are attempting to exploit a type of sentence-level Distributional Hypothesis BIBREF10 , BIBREF13   The idea is to infer the tweet representation from the content of adjacent tweets in a related stream like users' Twitter timeline, topical, retweet and conversational stream  This approach significantly alleviates the context insufficiency problem caused due to the ambiguous and short nature of tweets BIBREF0 , BIBREF14  
Models: Skip-thought vectors BIBREF15 (STV) is a widely popular sentence encoder, which is trained to predict adjacent sentences in the book corpus BIBREF16   Although the testing is cheap as it involves a cheap forward propagation of the test sentence, STV is very slow to train thanks to its complicated model architecture  To combat this computational inefficiency, FastSent BIBREF17 propose a simple additive (log-linear) sentence model, which predicts adjacent sentences (represented as BOW) taking the BOW representation of some sentence in context  This model can exploit the same signal, but at a much lower computational expense  Parallel to this work, Siamase CBOW BIBREF18 develop a model which directly compares the BOW representation of two sentence to bring the embeddings of a sentence closer to its adjacent sentence, away from a randomly occurring sentence in the corpus  For FastSent and Siamese CBOW, the test sentence representation is a simple average of word vectors obtained after training  Both of these models are general purpose sentence representation models trained on book corpus, yet give a competitive performance over previous models on the tweet semantic similarity computation task  BIBREF14 's model attempt to exploit these signals directly from Twitter

ground_truth: MLP

Eusboost, MWMOTE

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 dataset do they use?
Context 2:  With the help of attention technique and learned user representation, this log-linear model is able to capture salient semantic information from chronologically adjacent tweets of a target tweet in users' Twitter timeline 
Modeling from structured resources
Motivation: In recent times, building representation models based on supervision from richly structured resources such as Paraphrase Database (PPDB) BIBREF19 (containing noisy phrase pairs) has yielded high quality sentence representations  These methods work by maximizing the similarity of the sentences in the learned semantic space 
Models: CHARAGRAM BIBREF20 embeds textual sequences by learning a character-based compositional model that involves addition of the vectors of its character n-grams followed by an elementwise nonlinearity  This simpler architecture trained on PPDB is able to beat models with complex architectures like CNN, LSTM on SemEval 2015 Twitter textual similarity task by a large margin  This result emphasizes the importance of character-level models that address differences due to spelling variation and word choice  The authors in their subsequent work BIBREF21 conduct a comprehensive analysis of models spanning the range of complexity from word averaging to LSTMs for its ability to do transfer and supervised learning after optimizing a margin based loss on PPDB  For transfer learning, they find models based on word averaging perform well on both the in-domain and out-of-domain textual similarity tasks, beating LSTM model by a large margin  On the other hand, the word averaging models perform well for both sentence similarity and textual entailment tasks, outperforming the LSTM  However, for sentiment classification task, they find LSTM (trained on PPDB) to beat the averaging models to establish a new state of the art  The above results suggest that structured resources play a vital role in computing general-purpose embeddings useful in downstream applications 
Modeling as an autoencoder
Motivation: The autoencoder based approach learns latent (or compressed) representation by reconstructing its own input  Since textual data like tweets contain discrete input signals, sequence-to-sequence models BIBREF22 like STV can be used to build the solution  The encoder model which encodes the input tweet can typically be a CNN BIBREF23 , recurrent models like RNN, GRU, LSTM BIBREF24 or memory networks BIBREF25   The decoder model which generates the output tweet can typically be a recurrent model that predicts a output token at every time step 
Models: Sequential Denoising Autoencoders (SDAE) BIBREF17 is a LSTM-based sequence-to-sequence model, which is trained to recover the original data from the corrupted version  SDAE produces robust representations by learning to represent the data in terms of features that explain its important factors of variation  Tweet2Vec BIBREF3 is a recent model which uses a character-level CNN-LSTM encoder-decoder architecture trained to construct the input tweet directly  This model outperforms competitive models that work on word-level like PV-DM, PV-DBOW on semantic similarity computation and sentiment classification tasks, thereby showing that the character-level nature of Tweet2Vec is best-suited to deal with the noise and idiosyncrasies of tweets  Tweet2Vec controls the generalization error by using a data augmentation technique, wherein tweets are replicated and some of the words in the replicated tweets are replaced with their synonyms  Both SDAE and Tweet2Vec has the advantage that they don't need a coherent inter-sentence narrative (like STV), which is hard to obtain in Twitter 
Modeling using weak supervision
Motivation: In a weakly supervised setup, we create labels for a tweet automatically and predict them to learn potentially sophisticated models than those obtained by unsupervised learning alone  Examples of labels include sentiment of the overall tweet, words like hashtag present in the tweet and so on  This technique can create a huge labeled dataset especially for building data-hungry, sophisticated deep learning models 
Models: BIBREF26 learns sentiment-specific word embedding (SSWE), which encodes the polarity information in the word representations so that words with contrasting polarities and similar syntactic context (like good and bad) are pushed away from each other in the semantic space that it learns  SSWE utilizes the massive distant-supervised tweets collected by positive and negative emoticons to build a powerful tweet representation, which are shown to be useful in tasks such as sentiment classification and word similarity computation in sentiment lexicon  BIBREF2 observes that hashtags in tweets can be considered as topics and hence tweets with similar hashtags must come closer to each other  Their model predicts the hashtags by using a Bi-GRU layer to embed the tweets from its characters  Due to subword modeling, such character-level models can approximate the representations for rare words and new words (words not seen during training) in the test tweets really well  This model outperforms the word-level baselines for hashtag prediction task, thereby concluding that exploring character-level models for tweets is a worthy research direction to pursue  Both these works fail to study the model's generality BIBREF27 , i e , the ability of the model to transfer the learned representations to diverse tasks 
Future Directions
In this section we present the future research directions which we believe can be worth pursuing to generate high quality tweet embeddings 
Conclusion
In this work we study the problem of learning unsupervised tweet representations  We believe our survey of the existing works based on the objective function can give vital perspectives to researchers and aid their understanding of the field  We also believe the future research directions studied in this work can help in breaking the barriers in building high quality, general purpose tweet representation models 
Context 3: 10pt
1 10pt
[ Characterizing Political Fake News in Twitter by its Meta-DataJulio Amador Díaz LópezAxel Oehmichen Miguel Molina-Solana( j amador, axelfrancois oehmichen11, mmolinas@imperial ac uk ) Imperial College London This article presents a preliminary approach towards characterizing political fake news on Twitter through the analysis of their meta-data  In particular, we focus on more than 1 5M tweets collected on the day of the election of Donald Trump as 45th president of the United States of America  We use the meta-data embedded within those tweets in order to look for differences between tweets containing fake news and tweets not containing them  Specifically, we perform our analysis only on tweets that went viral, by studying proxies for users' exposure to the tweets, by characterizing accounts spreading fake news, and by looking at their polarization  We found significant differences on the distribution of followers, the number of URLs on tweets, and the verification of the users 
]
Introduction
While fake news, understood as deliberately misleading pieces of information, have existed since long ago (e g  it is not unusual to receive news falsely claiming the death of a celebrity), the term reached the mainstream, particularly so in politics, during the 2016 presidential election in the United States BIBREF0   Since then, governments and corporations alike (e g  Google BIBREF1 and Facebook BIBREF2 ) have begun efforts to tackle fake news as they can affect political decisions BIBREF3   Yet, the ability to define, identify and stop fake news from spreading is limited 
Since the Obama campaign in 2008, social media has been pervasive in the political arena in the United States  Studies report that up to 62% of American adults receive their news from social media BIBREF4   The wide use of platforms such as Twitter and Facebook has facilitated the diffusion of fake news by simplifying the process of receiving content with no significant third party filtering, fact-checking or editorial judgement  Such characteristics make these platforms suitable means for sharing news that, disguised as legit ones, try to confuse readers 
Such use and their prominent rise has been confirmed by Craig Silverman, a Canadian journalist who is a prominent figure on fake news BIBREF5 : “In the final three months of the US presidential campaign, the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlet” 
Our current research hence departs from the assumption that social media is a conduit for fake news and asks the question of whether fake news (as spam was some years ago) can be identified, modelled and eventually blocked  In order to do so, we use a sample of more that 1 5M tweets collected on November 8th 2016 —election day in the United States— with the goal of identifying features that tweets containing fake news are likely to have  As such, our paper aims to provide a preliminary characterization of fake news in Twitter by looking into meta-data embedded in tweets  Considering meta-data as a relevant factor of analysis is in line with findings reported by Morris et al  BIBREF6   We argue that understanding differences between tweets containing fake news and regular tweets will allow researchers to design mechanisms to block fake news in Twitter 
Specifically, our goals are: 1) compare the characteristics of tweets labelled as containing fake news to tweets labelled as not containing them, 2) characterize, through their meta-data, viral tweets containing fake news and the accounts from which they originated, and 3) determine the extent to which tweets containing fake news expressed polarized political views 
For our study, we used the number of retweets to single-out those that went viral within our sample  Tweets within that subset (viral tweets hereafter) are varied and relate to different topics  We consider that a tweet contains fake news if its text falls within any of the following categories described by Rubin et al  BIBREF7 (see next section for the details of such categories): serious fabrication, large-scale hoaxes, jokes taken at face value, slanted reporting of real facts and stories where the truth is contentious  The dataset BIBREF8 , manually labelled by an expert, has been publicly released and is available to researchers and interested parties 
From our results, the following main observations can be made:
Our findings resonate with similar work done on fake news such as the one from Allcot and Gentzkow BIBREF9   Therefore, even if our study is a preliminary attempt at characterizing fake news on Twitter using only their meta-data, our results provide external validity to previous research  Moreover, our work not only stresses the importance of using meta-data, but also underscores which parameters may be useful to identify fake news on Twitter 
The rest of the paper is organized as follows  The next section briefly discusses where this work is located within the literature on fake news and contextualizes the type of fake news we are studying  Then, we present our hypotheses, the data, and the methodology we follow  Finally, we present our findings, conclusions of this study, and future lines of work 
Defining Fake news
Our research is connected to different strands of academic knowledge related to the phenomenon of fake news  In relation to Computer Science, a recent survey by Conroy and colleagues BIBREF10 identifies two popular approaches to single-out fake news  On the one hand, the authors pointed to linguistic approaches consisting in using text, its linguistic characteristics and machine learning techniques to automatically flag fake news  On the other, these researchers underscored the use of network approaches, which make use of network characteristics and meta-data, to identify fake news 
With respect to social sciences, efforts from psychology, political science and sociology, have been dedicated to understand why people consume and/or believe misinformation BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 , BIBREF14   Most of these studies consistently reported that psychological biases such as priming effects and confirmation bias play an important role in people ability to discern misinformation 
In relation to the production and distribution of fake news, a recent paper in the field of Economics BIBREF9 found that most fake news sites use names that resemble those of legitimate organizations, and that sites supplying fake news tend to be short-lived  These authors also noticed that fake news items are more likely shared than legitimate articles coming from trusted sources, and they tend to exhibit a larger level of polarization 
The conceptual issue of how to define fake news is a serious and unresolved issue  As the focus of our work is not attempting to offer light on this, we will rely on work by other authors to describe what we consider as fake news  In particular, we use the categorization provided by Rubin et al  BIBREF7   The five categories they described, together with illustrative examples from our dataset, are as follows:
Research Hypotheses
Previous works on the area (presented in the section above) suggest that there may be important determinants for the adoption and diffusion of fake news  Our hypotheses builds on them and identifies three important dimensions that may help distinguishing fake news from legit information:
Taking those three dimensions into account, we propose the following hypotheses about the features that we believe can help to identify tweets containing fake news from those not containing them  They will be later tested over our collected dataset 
Exposure 
Characterization 
Polarization 
Data and Methodology
For this study, we collected publicly available tweets using Twitter's public API  Given the nature of the data, it is important to emphasize that such tweets are subject to Twitter's terms and conditions which indicate that users consent to the collection, transfer, manipulation, storage, and disclosure of data  Therefore, we do not expect ethical, legal, or social implications from the usage of the tweets  Our data was collected using search terms related to the presidential election held in the United States on November 8th 2016  Particularly, we queried Twitter's streaming API, more precisely the filter endpoint of the streaming API, using the following hashtags and user handles: #MyVote2016, #ElectionDay, #electionnight, @realDonaldTrump and @HillaryClinton  The data collection ran for just one day (Nov 8th 2016) 
One straightforward way of sharing information on Twitter is by using the retweet functionality, which enables a user to share a exact copy of a tweet with his followers  Among the reasons for retweeting, Body et al  BIBREF15 reported the will to: 1) spread tweets to a new audience, 2) to show one’s role as a listener, and 3) to agree with someone or validate the thoughts of others  As indicated, our initial interest is to characterize tweets containing fake news that went viral (as they are the most harmful ones, as they reach a wider audience), and understand how it differs from other viral tweets (that do not contain fake news)  For our study, we consider that a tweet went viral if it was retweeted more than 1000 times 
Once we have the dataset of viral tweets, we eliminated duplicates (some of the tweets were collected several times because they had several handles) and an expert manually inspected the text field within the tweets to label them as containing fake news, or not containing them (according to the characterization presented before)  This annotated dataset BIBREF8 is publicly available and can be freely reused 
Finally, we use the following fields within tweets (from the ones returned by Twitter's API) to compare their distributions and look for differences between viral tweets containing fake news and viral tweets not containing fake news:
In the following section, we provide graphical descriptions of the distribution of each of the identified attributes for the two sets of tweets (those labelled as containing fake news and those labelled as not containing them)  Where appropriate, we normalized and/or took logarithms of the data for better representation  To gain a better understanding of the significance of those differences, we use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with the null hypothesis that both distributions are equal 
Results
The sample collected consisted on 1 785 855 tweets published by 848 196 different users  Within our sample, we identified 1327 tweets that went viral (retweeted more than 1000 times by the 8th of November 2016) produced by 643 users  Such small subset of viral tweets were retweeted on 290 841 occasions in the observed time-window 
The 1327 `viral' tweets were manually annotated as containing fake news or not  The annotation was carried out by a single person in order to obtain a consistent annotation throughout the dataset  Out of those 1327 tweets, we identified 136 as potentially containing fake news (according to the categories previously described), and the rest were classified as `non containing fake news'  Note that the categorization is far from being perfect given the ambiguity of fake news themselves and human judgement involved in the process of categorization  Because of this, we do not claim that this dataset can be considered a ground truth 
The following results detail characteristics of these tweets along the previously mentioned dimensions  Table TABREF23 reports the actual differences (together with their associated p-values) of the distributions of viral tweets containing fake news and viral tweets not containing them for every variable considered 
Exposure
Figure FIGREF24 shows that, in contrast to other kinds of viral tweets, those containing fake news were created more recently  As such, Twitter users were exposed to fake news related to the election for a shorter period of time 
However, in terms of retweets, Figure FIGREF25 shows no apparent difference between containing fake news or not containing them  That is confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test, which does not discard the hypothesis that the associated distributions are equal 
In relation to the number of favourites, users that generated at least a viral tweet containing fake news appear to have, on average, less favourites than users that do not generate them  Figure FIGREF26 shows the distribution of favourites  Despite the apparent visual differences, the difference are not statistically significant 
Finally, the number of hashtags used in viral fake news appears to be larger than those in other viral tweets  Figure FIGREF27 shows the density distribution of the number of hashtags used  However, once again, we were not able to find any statistical difference between the average number of hashtags in a viral tweet and the average number of hashtags in viral fake news 
Characterization
We found that 82 users within our sample were spreading fake news (i e  they produced at least one tweet which was labelled as fake news)  Out of those, 34 had verified accounts, and the rest were unverified  From the 48 unverified accounts, 6 have been suspended by Twitter at the date of writing, 3 tried to imitate legitimate accounts of others, and 4 accounts have been already deleted  Figure FIGREF28 shows the proportion of verified accounts to unverified accounts for viral tweets (containing fake news vs  not containing fake news)  From the chart, it is clear that there is a higher chance of fake news coming from unverified accounts 
Turning to friends, accounts distributing fake news appear to have, on average, the same number of friends than those distributing tweets with no fake news  However, the density distribution of friends from the accounts (Figure FIGREF29 ) shows that there is indeed a statistically significant difference in their distributions 
If we take into consideration the number of followers, accounts generating viral tweets with fake news do have a very different distribution on this dimension, compared to those accounts generating viral tweets with no fake news (see Figure FIGREF30 )  In fact, such differences are statistically significant 
A useful representation for friends and followers is the ratio between friends/followers  Figures FIGREF31 and FIGREF32 show this representation  Notice that accounts spreading viral tweets with fake news have, on average, a larger ratio of friends/followers  The distribution of those accounts not generating fake news is more evenly distributed 
With respect to the number of mentions, Figure FIGREF33 shows that viral tweets labelled as containing fake news appear to use mentions to other users less frequently than viral tweets not containing fake news  In other words, tweets containing fake news mostly contain 1 mention, whereas other tweets tend to have two)  Such differences are statistically significant 
The analysis (Figure FIGREF34 ) of the presence of media in the tweets in our dataset shows that tweets labelled as not containing fake news appear to present more media elements than those labelled as fake news  However, the difference is not statistically significant 
On the other hand, Figure FIGREF35 shows that viral tweets containing fake news appear to include more URLs to other sites than viral tweets that do not contain fake news  In fact, the difference between the two distributions is statistically significant (assuming INLINEFORM0 ) 
Polarization
Finally, manual inspection of the text field of those viral tweets labelled as containing fake news shows that 117 of such tweets expressed support for Donald Trump, while only 8 supported Hillary Clinton  The remaining tweets contained fake news related to other topics, not expressing support for any of the candidates 
Discussion
As a summary, and constrained by our existing dataset, we made the following observations regarding differences between viral tweets labelled as containing fake news and viral tweets labelled as not containing them:
These findings (related to our initial hypothesis in Table TABREF44 ) clearly suggest that there are specific pieces of meta-data about tweets that may allow the identification of fake news  One such parameter is the time of exposure  Viral tweets containing fake news are shorter-lived than those containing other type of content  This notion seems to resonate with our findings showing that a number of accounts spreading fake news have already been deleted or suspended by Twitter by the time of writing  If one considers that researchers using different data have found similar results BIBREF9 , it appears that the lifetime of accounts, together with the age of the questioned viral content could be useful to identify fake news  In the light of this finding, accounts newly created should probably put under higher scrutiny than older ones  This in fact, would be a nice a-priori bias for a Bayesian classifier 
Accounts spreading fake news appear to have a larger proportion of friends/followers (i e  they have, on average, the same number of friends but a smaller number of followers) than those spreading viral content only  Together with the fact that, on average, tweets containing fake news have more URLs than those spreading viral content, it is possible to hypothesize that, both, the ratio of friends/followers of the account producing a viral tweet and number of URLs contained in such a tweet could be useful to single-out fake news in Twitter  Not only that, but our finding related to the number of URLs is in line with intuitions behind the incentives to create fake news commonly found in the literature BIBREF9 (in particular that of obtaining revenue through click-through advertising) 
Finally, it is interesting to notice that the content of viral fake news was highly polarized  This finding is also in line with those of Alcott et al  BIBREF9   This feature suggests that textual sentiment analysis of the content of tweets (as most researchers do), together with the above mentioned parameters from meta-data, may prove useful for identifying fake news 
Conclusions
With the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the concept of fake news has become a broadly-known phenomenon that is getting tremendous attention from governments and media companies  We have presented a preliminary study on the meta-data of a publicly available dataset of tweets that became viral during the day of the 2016 US presidential election  Our aim is to advance the understanding of which features might be characteristic of viral tweets containing fake news in comparison with viral tweets without fake news 
We believe that the only way to automatically identify those deceitful tweets (i e  containing fake news) is by actually understanding and modelling them  Only then, the automation of the processes of tagging and blocking these tweets can be successfully performed  In the same way that spam was fought, we anticipate fake news will suffer a similar evolution, with social platforms implementing tools to deal with them  With most works so far focusing on the actual content of the tweets, ours is a novel attempt from a different, but also complementary, angle 
Within the used dataset, we found there are differences around exposure, characteristics of accounts spreading fake news and the tone of the content  Those findings suggest that it is indeed possible to model and automatically detect fake news  We plan to replicate and validate our experiments in an extended sample of tweets (until 4 months after the US election), and tests the predictive power of the features we found relevant within our sample 
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interest exist 

ground_truth: Unanswerable

 Paraphrase Database (PPDB) ,  book corpus

Unanswerable

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How is the ground truth for fake news established?
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: Ground truth is not established in the paper