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 are models evaluated in this human-machine communication game?
Context 1: Introduction
Suppose a user wants to write a sentence “I will be 10 minutes late ” Ideally, she would type just a few keywords such as “10 minutes late” and an autocomplete system would be able to infer the intended sentence (Figure FIGREF1)  Existing left-to-right autocomplete systems BIBREF0, BIBREF1 can often be inefficient, as the prefix of a sentence (e g  “I will be”) fails to capture the core meaning of the sentence  Besides the practical goal of building a better autocomplete system, we are interested in exploring the tradeoffs inherent to such communication schemes between the efficiency of typing keywords, accuracy of reconstruction, and interpretability of keywords 
One approach to learn such schemes is to collect a supervised dataset of keywords-sentence pairs as a training set, but (i) it would be expensive to collect such data from users, and (ii) a static dataset would not capture a real user's natural predilection to adapt to the system BIBREF2  Another approach is to avoid supervision and jointly learn a user-system communication scheme to directly optimize the combination of efficiency and accuracy  However, learning in this way can lead to communication schemes that are uninterpretable to humans BIBREF3, BIBREF4 (see Appendix for additional related work) 
In this work, we propose a simple, unsupervised approach to an autocomplete system that is efficient, accurate, and interpretable  For interpretability, we restrict keywords to be subsequences of their source sentences based on the intuition that humans can infer most of the original meaning from a few keywords  We then apply multi-objective optimization approaches to directly control and achieve desirable tradeoffs between efficiency and accuracy 
We observe that naively optimizing a linear combination of efficiency and accuracy terms is unstable and leads to suboptimal schemes  Thus, we propose a new objective which optimizes for communication efficiency under an accuracy constraint  We show this new objective is more stable and efficient than the linear objective at all accuracy levels 
As a proof-of-concept, we build an autocomplete system within this framework which allows a user to write sentences by specifying keywords  We empirically show that our framework produces communication schemes that are 52 16% more accurate than rule-based baselines when specifying 77 37% of sentences, and 11 73% more accurate than a naive, weighted optimization approach when specifying 53 38% of sentences  Finally, we demonstrate that humans can easily adapt to the keyword-based autocomplete system and save nearly 50% of time compared to typing a full sentence in our user study 
Approach
Consider a communication game in which the goal is for a user to communicate a target sequence $x= (x_1,    , x_m)$ to a system by passing a sequence of keywords $z= (z_1,    , z_n)$  The user generates keywords $z$ using an encoding strategy $q_{\alpha }(z\mid x)$, and the system attempts to guess the target sequence $x$ via a decoding strategy $p_{\beta }(x\mid z)$ 
A good communication scheme $(q_{\alpha }, p_{\beta })$ should be both efficient and accurate  Specifically, we prefer schemes that use fewer keywords (cost), and the target sentence $x$ to be reconstructed with high probability (loss) where
Based on our assumption that humans have an intuitive sense of retaining important keywords, we restrict the set of schemes to be a (potentially noncontiguous) subsequence of the target sentence  Our hypothesis is that such subsequence schemes naturally ensure interpretability, as efficient human and machine communication schemes are both likely to involve keeping important content words 
Approach ::: Modeling with autoencoders 
To learn communication schemes without supervision, we model the cooperative communication between a user and system through an encoder-decoder framework  Concretely, we model the user's encoding strategy $q_{\alpha }(z\mid x)$ with an encoder which encodes the target sentence $x$ into the keywords $z$ by keeping a subset of the tokens  This stochastic encoder $q_{\alpha }(z\mid x)$ is defined by a model which returns the probability of each token retained in the final subsequence $z$  Then, we sample from Bernoulli distributions according to these probabilities to either keep or drop the tokens independently (see Appendix for an example) 
We model the autocomplete system's decoding strategy $p_{\beta }(x\mid z)$ as a probabilistic model which conditions on the keywords $z$ and returns a distribution over predictions $x$  We use a standard sequence-to-sequence model with attention and copying for the decoder, but any model architecture can be used (see Appendix for details) 
Approach ::: Multi-objective optimization 
Our goal now is to learn encoder-decoder pairs which optimally balance the communication cost and reconstruction loss  The simplest approach to balancing efficiency and accuracy is to weight $\mathrm {cost}(x, \alpha )$ and $\mathrm {loss}(x, \alpha , \beta )$ linearly using a weight $\lambda $ as follows,
where the expectation is taken over the population distribution of source sentences $x$, which is omitted to simplify notation  However, we observe that naively weighting and searching over $\lambda $ is suboptimal and highly unstable—even slight changes to the weighting results in degenerate schemes which keep all or none of its tokens  This instability motivates us to develop a new stable objective 
Our main technical contribution is to draw inspiration from the multi-objective optimization literature and view the tradeoff as a sequence of constrained optimization problems, where we minimize the expected cost subject to varying expected reconstruction error constraints $\epsilon $,
This greatly improves the stability of the training procedure  We empirically observe that the model initially keeps most of the tokens to meet the constraints, and slowly learns to drop uninformative words from the keywords to minimize the cost  Furthermore, $\epsilon $ in Eq (DISPLAY_FORM6) allows us to directly control the maximum reconstruction error of resulting schemes, whereas $\lambda $ in Eq (DISPLAY_FORM5) is not directly related to any of our desiderata 
To optimize the constrained objective, we consider the Lagrangian of Eq (DISPLAY_FORM6),
Much like the objective in Eq (DISPLAY_FORM5) we can compute unbiased gradients by replacing the expectations with their averages over random minibatches  Although gradient descent guarantees convergence on Eq (DISPLAY_FORM7) only when the objective is convex, we find that not only is the optimization stable, the resulting solution achieves better performance than the weighting approach in Eq (DISPLAY_FORM5) 
Approach ::: Optimization 
Optimization with respect to $q_{\alpha }(z\mid x)$ is challenging as $z$ is discrete, and thus, we cannot differentiate $\alpha $ through $z$ via the chain rule  Because of this, we use the stochastic REINFORCE estimate BIBREF5 as follows:
We perform joint updates on $(\alpha , \beta , \lambda )$, where $\beta $ and $\lambda $ are updated via standard gradient computations, while $\alpha $ uses an unbiased, stochastic gradient estimate where we approximate the expectation in Eq (DISPLAY_FORM9)  We use a single sample from $q_{\alpha }(z\mid x)$ and moving-average of rewards as a baseline to reduce variance 
Experiments
We evaluate our approach by training an autocomplete system on 500K randomly sampled sentences from Yelp reviews BIBREF6 (see Appendix for details)  We quantify the efficiency of a communication scheme $(q_{\alpha },p_{\beta })$ by the retention rate of tokens, which is measured as the fraction of tokens that are kept in the keywords  The accuracy of a scheme is measured as the fraction of sentences generated by greedily decoding the model that exactly matches the target sentence 
Experiments ::: Effectiveness of constrained objective 
We first show that the linear objective in Eq (DISPLAY_FORM5) is suboptimal compared to the constrained objective in Eq (DISPLAY_FORM6)  Figure FIGREF10 compares the achievable accuracy and efficiency tradeoffs for the two objectives, which shows that the constrained objective results in more efficient schemes than the linear objective at every accuracy level (e g  11 73% more accurate at a 53 38% retention rate) 
We also observe that the linear objective is highly unstable as a function of the tradeoff parameter $\lambda $ and requires careful tuning  Even slight changes to $\lambda $ results in degenerate schemes that keep all or none of the tokens (e g  $\lambda \le 4 2$ and $\lambda \ge 4 4$)  On the other hand, the constrained objective is substantially more stable as a function of $\epsilon $ (e g  points for $\epsilon $ are more evenly spaced than $\lambda $) 
Experiments ::: Efficiency-accuracy tradeoff 
We quantify the efficiency-accuracy tradeoff compared to two rule-based baselines: Unif and Stopword  The Unif encoder randomly keeps tokens to generate keywords with the probability $\delta $  The Stopword encoder keeps all tokens but drops stop words (e g  `the', `a', `or') all the time ($\delta =0$) or half of the time ($\delta =0 5$)  The corresponding decoders for these encoders are optimized using gradient descent to minimize the reconstruction error (i e  $\mathrm {loss}(x, \alpha , \beta )$) 
Figure FIGREF10 shows that two baselines achieve similar tradeoff curves, while the constrained model achieves a substantial 52 16% improvement in accuracy at a 77 37% retention rate compared to Unif, thereby showing the benefits of jointly training the encoder and decoder 
Experiments ::: Robustness and analysis 
We provide additional experimental results on the robustness of learned communication schemes as well as in-depth analysis on the correlation between the retention rates of tokens and their properties, which we defer to Appendix and for space 
Experiments ::: User study 
We recruited 100 crowdworkers on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) and measured completion times and accuracies for typing randomly sampled sentences from the Yelp corpus  Each user was shown alternating autocomplete and writing tasks across 50 sentences (see Appendix for user interface)  For the autocomplete task, we gave users a target sentence and asked them to type a set of keywords into the system  The users were shown the top three suggestions from the autocomplete system, and were asked to mark whether each of these three suggestions was semantically equivalent to the target sentence  For the writing task, we gave users a target sentence and asked them to either type the sentence verbatim or a sentence that preserves the meaning of the target sentence 
Table TABREF13 shows two examples of the autocomplete task and actual user-provided keywords  Each column contains a set of keywords and its corresponding top three suggestions generated by the autocomplete system with beam search  We observe that the system is likely to propose generic sentences for under-specified keywords (left column) and almost the same sentences for over-specified keywords (right column)  For properly specified keywords (middle column), the system completes sentences accordingly by adding a verb, adverb, adjective, preposition, capitalization, and punctuation 
Overall, the autocomplete system achieved high accuracy in reconstructing the keywords  Users marked the top suggestion from the autocomplete system to be semantically equivalent to the target $80 6$% of the time, and one of the top 3 was semantically equivalent $90 11$% of the time  The model also achieved a high exact match accuracy of 18 39%  Furthermore, the system was efficient, as users spent $3 86$ seconds typing keywords compared to $5 76$ seconds for full sentences on average  The variance of the typing time was $0 08$ second for keywords and $0 12$ second for full sentences, indicating that choosing and typing keywords for the system did not incur much overhead 
Experiments ::: Acknowledgments
We thank the reviewers and Yunseok Jang for their insightful comments  This work was supported by NSF CAREER Award IIS-1552635 and an Intuit Research Award 
Experiments ::: Reproducibility
All code, data and experiments are available on CodaLab at https://bit ly/353fbyn 
Context 2: Introduction
With the increasing popularity of the Internet, online texts provided by social media platform (e g  Twitter) and news media sites (e g  Google news) have become important sources of real-world events  Therefore, it is crucial to automatically extract events from online texts 
Due to the high variety of events discussed online and the difficulty in obtaining annotated data for training, traditional template-based or supervised learning approaches for event extraction are no longer applicable in dealing with online texts  Nevertheless, newsworthy events are often discussed by many tweets or online news articles  Therefore, the same event could be mentioned by a high volume of redundant tweets or news articles  This property inspires the research community to devise clustering-based models BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 to discover new or previously unidentified events without extracting structured representations 
To extract structured representations of events such as who did what, when, where and why, Bayesian approaches have made some progress  Assuming that each document is assigned to a single event, which is modeled as a joint distribution over the named entities, the date and the location of the event, and the event-related keywords, Zhou et al  zhou2014simple proposed an unsupervised Latent Event Model (LEM) for open-domain event extraction  To address the limitation that LEM requires the number of events to be pre-set, Zhou et al  zhou2017event further proposed the Dirichlet Process Event Mixture Model (DPEMM) in which the number of events can be learned automatically from data  However, both LEM and DPEMM have two limitations: (1) they assume that all words in a document are generated from a single event which can be represented by a quadruple INLINEFORM0 entity, location, keyword, date INLINEFORM1   However, long texts such news articles often describe multiple events which clearly violates this assumption; (2) During the inference process of both approaches, the Gibbs sampler needs to compute the conditional posterior distribution and assigns an event for each document  This is time consuming and takes long time to converge 
To deal with these limitations, in this paper, we propose the Adversarial-neural Event Model (AEM) based on adversarial training for open-domain event extraction  The principle idea is to use a generator network to learn the projection function between the document-event distribution and four event related word distributions (entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution)  Instead of providing an analytic approximation, AEM uses a discriminator network to discriminate between the reconstructed documents from latent events and the original input documents  This essentially helps the generator to construct a more realistic document from a random noise drawn from a Dirichlet distribution  Due to the flexibility of neural networks, the generator is capable of learning complicated nonlinear distributions  And the supervision signal provided by the discriminator will help generator to capture the event-related patterns  Furthermore, the discriminator also provides low-dimensional discriminative features which can be used to visualize documents and events 
The main contributions of the paper are summarized below:
Related Work
Our work is related to two lines of research, event extraction and Generative Adversarial Nets 
Event Extraction
Recently there has been much interest in event extraction from online texts, and approaches could be categorized as domain-specific and open-domain event extraction 
Domain-specific event extraction often focuses on the specific types of events (e g  sports events or city events)  Panem et al  panem2014structured devised a novel algorithm to extract attribute-value pairs and mapped them to manually generated schemes for extracting the natural disaster events  Similarly, to extract the city-traffic related event, Anantharam et al  anantharam2015extracting viewed the task as a sequential tagging problem and proposed an approach based on the conditional random fields  Zhang zhang2018event proposed an event extraction approach based on imitation learning, especially on inverse reinforcement learning 
Open-domain event extraction aims to extract events without limiting the specific types of events  To analyze individual messages and induce a canonical value for each event, Benson et al  benson2011event proposed an approach based on a structured graphical model  By representing an event with a binary tuple which is constituted by a named entity and a date, Ritter et al  ritter2012open employed some statistic to measure the strength of associations between a named entity and a date  The proposed system relies on a supervised labeler trained on annotated data  In BIBREF1 , Abdelhaq et al  developed a real-time event extraction system called EvenTweet, and each event is represented as a triple constituted by time, location and keywords  To extract more information, Wang el al  wang2015seeft developed a system employing the links in tweets and combing tweets with linked articles to identify events  Xia el al  xia2015new combined texts with the location information to detect the events with low spatial and temporal deviations  Zhou et al  zhou2014simple,zhou2017event represented event as a quadruple and proposed two Bayesian models to extract events from tweets 
Generative Adversarial Nets
As a neural-based generative model, Generative Adversarial Nets BIBREF3 have been extensively researched in natural language processing (NLP) community 
For text generation, the sequence generative adversarial network (SeqGAN) proposed in BIBREF4 incorporated a policy gradient strategy to optimize the generation process  Based on the policy gradient, Lin et al  lin2017adversarial proposed RankGAN to capture the rich structures of language by ranking and analyzing a collection of human-written and machine-written sentences  To overcome mode collapse when dealing with discrete data, Fedus et al  fedus2018maskgan proposed MaskGAN which used an actor-critic conditional GAN to fill in missing text conditioned on the surrounding context  Along this line, Wang et al  wang2018sentigan proposed SentiGAN to generate texts of different sentiment labels  Besides, Li et al  li2018learning improved the performance of semi-supervised text classification using adversarial training, BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 designed GAN-based models for distance supervision relation extraction 
Although various GAN based approaches have been explored for many applications, none of these approaches tackles open-domain event extraction from online texts  We propose a novel GAN-based event extraction model called AEM  Compared with the previous models, AEM has the following differences: (1) Unlike most GAN-based text generation approaches, a generator network is employed in AEM to learn the projection function between an event distribution and the event-related word distributions (entity, location, keyword, date)  The learned generator captures event-related patterns rather than generating text sequence; (2) Different from LEM and DPEMM, AEM uses a generator network to capture the event-related patterns and is able to mine events from different text sources (short and long)  Moreover, unlike traditional inference procedure, such as Gibbs sampling used in LEM and DPEMM, AEM could extract the events more efficiently due to the CUDA acceleration; (3) The discriminative features learned by the discriminator of AEM provide a straightforward way to visualize the extracted events 
Methodology
We describe Adversarial-neural Event Model (AEM) in this section  An event is represented as a quadruple < INLINEFORM0 >, where INLINEFORM1 stands for non-location named entities, INLINEFORM2 for a location, INLINEFORM3 for event-related keywords, INLINEFORM4 for a date, and each component in the tuple is represented by component-specific representative words 
AEM is constituted by three components: (1) The document representation module, as shown at the top of Figure FIGREF4 , defines a document representation approach which converts an input document from the online text corpus into INLINEFORM0 which captures the key event elements; (2) The generator INLINEFORM1 , as shown in the lower-left part of Figure FIGREF4 , generates a fake document INLINEFORM2 which is constituted by four multinomial distributions using an event distribution INLINEFORM3 drawn from a Dirichlet distribution as input; (3) The discriminator INLINEFORM4 , as shown in the lower-right part of Figure FIGREF4 , distinguishes the real documents from the fake ones and its output is subsequently employed as a learning signal to update the INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6   The details of each component are presented below 
Document Representation
Each document INLINEFORM0 in a given corpus INLINEFORM1 is represented as a concatenation of 4 multinomial distributions which are entity distribution ( INLINEFORM2 ), location distribution ( INLINEFORM3 ), keyword distribution ( INLINEFORM4 ) and date distribution ( INLINEFORM5 ) of the document  As four distributions are calculated in a similar way, we only describe the computation of the entity distribution below as an example 
The entity distribution INLINEFORM0 is represented by a normalized INLINEFORM1 -dimensional vector weighted by TF-IDF, and it is calculated as: INLINEFORM2
where INLINEFORM0 is the pseudo corpus constructed by removing all non-entity words from INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 is the total number of distinct entities in a corpus, INLINEFORM3 denotes the number of INLINEFORM4 -th entity appeared in document INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 represents the number of documents in the corpus, and INLINEFORM7 is the number of documents that contain INLINEFORM8 -th entity, and the obtained INLINEFORM9 denotes the relevance between INLINEFORM10 -th entity and document INLINEFORM11  
Similarly, location distribution INLINEFORM0 , keyword distribution INLINEFORM1 and date distribution INLINEFORM2 of INLINEFORM3 could be calculated in the same way, and the dimensions of these distributions are denoted as INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 , respectively  Finally, each document INLINEFORM7 in the corpus is represented by a INLINEFORM8 -dimensional ( INLINEFORM9 = INLINEFORM10 + INLINEFORM11 + INLINEFORM12 + INLINEFORM13 ) vector INLINEFORM14 by concatenating four computed distributions 
Network Architecture
The generator network INLINEFORM0 is designed to learn the projection function between the document-event distribution INLINEFORM1 and the four document-level word distributions (entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution) 
More concretely, INLINEFORM0 consists of a INLINEFORM1 -dimensional document-event distribution layer, INLINEFORM2 -dimensional hidden layer and INLINEFORM3 -dimensional event-related word distribution layer  Here, INLINEFORM4 denotes the event number, INLINEFORM5 is the number of units in the hidden layer, INLINEFORM6 is the vocabulary size and equals to INLINEFORM7 + INLINEFORM8 + INLINEFORM9 + INLINEFORM10   As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , INLINEFORM11 firstly employs a random document-event distribution INLINEFORM12 as an input  To model the multinomial property of the document-event distribution, INLINEFORM13 is drawn from a Dirichlet distribution parameterized with INLINEFORM14 which is formulated as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the hyper-parameter of the dirichlet distribution, INLINEFORM1 is the number of events which should be set in AEM, INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 represents the proportion of event INLINEFORM4 in the document and INLINEFORM5  
Subsequently, INLINEFORM0 transforms INLINEFORM1 into a INLINEFORM2 -dimensional hidden space using a linear layer followed by layer normalization, and the transformation is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 represents the weight matrix of hidden layer, and INLINEFORM1 denotes the bias term, INLINEFORM2 is the parameter of LeakyReLU activation and is set to 0 1, INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 denote the normalized hidden states and the outputs of the hidden layer, and INLINEFORM5 represents the layer normalization 
Then, to project INLINEFORM0 into four document-level event related word distributions ( INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 shown in Figure FIGREF4 ), four subnets (each contains a linear layer, a batch normalization layer and a softmax layer) are employed in INLINEFORM5   And the exact transformation is based on the formulas below: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 means softmax layer, INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 denote the weight matrices of the linear layers in subnets, INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 , INLINEFORM7 and INLINEFORM8 represent the corresponding bias terms, INLINEFORM9 , INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 and INLINEFORM12 are state vectors  INLINEFORM13 , INLINEFORM14 , INLINEFORM15 and INLINEFORM16 denote the generated entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution, respectively, that correspond to the given event distribution INLINEFORM17   And each dimension represents the relevance between corresponding entity/location/keyword/date term and the input event distribution 
Finally, four generated distributions are concatenated to represent the generated document INLINEFORM0 corresponding to the input INLINEFORM1 : DISPLAYFORM0
The discriminator network INLINEFORM0 is designed as a fully-connected network which contains an input layer, a discriminative feature layer (discriminative features are employed for event visualization) and an output layer  In AEM, INLINEFORM1 uses fake document INLINEFORM2 and real document INLINEFORM3 as input and outputs the signal INLINEFORM4 to indicate the source of the input data (lower value denotes that INLINEFORM5 is prone to predict the input data as a fake document and vice versa) 
As have previously been discussed in BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , lipschitz continuity of INLINEFORM0 network is crucial to the training of the GAN-based approaches  To ensure the lipschitz continuity of INLINEFORM1 , we employ the spectral normalization technique BIBREF9   More concretely, for each linear layer INLINEFORM2 (bias term is omitted for simplicity) in INLINEFORM3 , the weight matrix INLINEFORM4 is normalized by INLINEFORM5   Here, INLINEFORM6 is the spectral norm of the weight matrix INLINEFORM7 with the definition below: DISPLAYFORM0
which is equivalent to the largest singular value of INLINEFORM0   The weight matrix INLINEFORM1 is then normalized using: DISPLAYFORM0
Obviously, the normalized weight matrix INLINEFORM0 satisfies that INLINEFORM1 and further ensures the lipschitz continuity of the INLINEFORM2 network BIBREF9   To reduce the high cost of computing spectral norm INLINEFORM3 using singular value decomposition at each iteration, we follow BIBREF10 and employ the power iteration method to estimate INLINEFORM4 instead  With this substitution, the spectral norm can be estimated with very small additional computational time 
Objective and Training Procedure
The real document INLINEFORM0 and fake document INLINEFORM1 shown in Figure FIGREF4 could be viewed as random samples from two distributions INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 , and each of them is a joint distribution constituted by four Dirichlet distributions (corresponding to entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution)  The training objective of AEM is to let the distribution INLINEFORM4 (produced by INLINEFORM5 network) to approximate the real data distribution INLINEFORM6 as much as possible 
To compare the different GAN losses, Kurach kurach2018gan takes a sober view of the current state of GAN and suggests that the Jansen-Shannon divergence used in BIBREF3 performs more stable than variant objectives  Besides, Kurach also advocates that the gradient penalty (GP) regularization devised in BIBREF8 will further improve the stability of the model  Thus, the objective function of the proposed AEM is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the discriminator loss, INLINEFORM1 represents the gradient penalty regularization loss, INLINEFORM2 is the gradient penalty coefficient which trade-off the two components of objective, INLINEFORM3 could be obtained by sampling uniformly along a straight line between INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 denotes the corresponding distribution 
The training procedure of AEM is presented in Algorithm SECREF15 , where INLINEFORM0 is the event number, INLINEFORM1 denotes the number of discriminator iterations per generator iteration, INLINEFORM2 is the batch size, INLINEFORM3 represents the learning rate, INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5 are hyper-parameters of Adam BIBREF11 , INLINEFORM6 denotes INLINEFORM7   In this paper, we set INLINEFORM8 , INLINEFORM9 , INLINEFORM10   Moreover, INLINEFORM11 , INLINEFORM12 and INLINEFORM13 are set as 0 0002, 0 5 and 0 999 
[!h] Training procedure for AEM [1] INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 the trained INLINEFORM7 and INLINEFORM8   Initial INLINEFORM9 parameters INLINEFORM10 and INLINEFORM11 parameter INLINEFORM12 INLINEFORM13 has not converged INLINEFORM14 INLINEFORM15 Sample INLINEFORM16 , Sample a random INLINEFORM17 Sample a random number INLINEFORM18 INLINEFORM19 INLINEFORM20 INLINEFORM21 INLINEFORM22 INLINEFORM23 INLINEFORM24 Sample INLINEFORM25 noise INLINEFORM26 INLINEFORM27
Event Generation
After the model training, the generator INLINEFORM0 learns the mapping function between the document-event distribution and the document-level event-related word distributions (entity, location, keyword and date)  In other words, with an event distribution INLINEFORM1 as input, INLINEFORM2 could generate the corresponding entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution 
In AEM, we employ event seed INLINEFORM0 , an INLINEFORM1 -dimensional vector with one-hot encoding, to generate the event related word distributions  For example, in ten event setting, INLINEFORM2 represents the event seed of the first event  With the event seed INLINEFORM3 as input, the corresponding distributions could be generated by INLINEFORM4 based on the equation below: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 denote the entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution of the first event respectively 
Experiments
In this section, we firstly describe the datasets and baseline approaches used in our experiments and then present the experimental results 
Experimental Setup
To validate the effectiveness of AEM for extracting events from social media (e g  Twitter) and news media sites (e g  Google news), three datasets (FSD BIBREF12 , Twitter, and Google datasets) are employed  Details are summarized below:
FSD dataset (social media) is the first story detection dataset containing 2,499 tweets  We filter out events mentioned in less than 15 tweets since events mentioned in very few tweets are less likely to be significant  The final dataset contains 2,453 tweets annotated with 20 events 
Twitter dataset (social media) is collected from tweets published in the month of December in 2010 using Twitter streaming API  It contains 1,000 tweets annotated with 20 events 
Google dataset (news article) is a subset of GDELT Event Database INLINEFORM0 , documents are retrieved by event related words  For example, documents which contain `malaysia', `airline', `search' and `plane' are retrieved for event MH370  By combining 30 events related documents, the dataset contains 11,909 news articles 
We choose the following three models as the baselines:
K-means is a well known data clustering algorithm, we implement the algorithm using sklearn toolbox, and represent documents using bag-of-words weighted by TF-IDF 
LEM BIBREF13 is a Bayesian modeling approach for open-domain event extraction  It treats an event as a latent variable and models the generation of an event as a joint distribution of its individual event elements  We implement the algorithm with the default configuration 
DPEMM BIBREF14 is a non-parametric mixture model for event extraction  It addresses the limitation of LEM that the number of events should be known beforehand  We implement the model with the default configuration 
For social media text corpus (FSD and Twitter), a named entity tagger specifically built for Twitter is used to extract named entities including locations from tweets  A Twitter Part-of-Speech (POS) tagger BIBREF15 is used for POS tagging and only words tagged with nouns, verbs and adjectives are retained as keywords  For the Google dataset, we use the Stanford Named Entity Recognizer to identify the named entities (organization, location and person)  Due to the `date' information not being provided in the Google dataset, we further divide the non-location named entities into two categories (`person' and `organization') and employ a quadruple <organization, location, person, keyword> to denote an event in news articles  We also remove common stopwords and only keep the recognized named entities and the tokens which are verbs, nouns or adjectives 
Experimental Results
To evaluate the performance of the proposed approach, we use the evaluation metrics such as precision, recall and F-measure  Precision is defined as the proportion of the correctly identified events out of the model generated events  Recall is defined as the proportion of correctly identified true events  For calculating the precision of the 4-tuple, we use following criteria:
(1) Do the entity/organization, location, date/person and keyword that we have extracted refer to the same event?
(2) If the extracted representation contains keywords, are they informative enough to tell us what happened?
Table TABREF35 shows the event extraction results on the three datasets  The statistics are obtained with the default parameter setting that INLINEFORM0 is set to 5, number of hidden units INLINEFORM1 is set to 200, and INLINEFORM2 contains three fully-connected layers  The event number INLINEFORM3 for three datasets are set to 25, 25 and 35, respectively  The examples of extracted events are shown in Table  TABREF36  
It can be observed that K-means performs the worst over all three datasets  On the social media datasets, AEM outpoerforms both LEM and DPEMM by 6 5% and 1 7% respectively in F-measure on the FSD dataset, and 4 4% and 3 7% in F-measure on the Twitter dataset  We can also observe that apart from K-means, all the approaches perform worse on the Twitter dataset compared to FSD, possibly due to the limited size of the Twitter dataset  Moreover, on the Google dataset, the proposed AEM performs significantly better than LEM and DPEMM  It improves upon LEM by 15 5% and upon DPEMM by more than 30% in F-measure  This is because: (1) the assumption made by LEM and DPEMM that all words in a document are generated from a single event is not suitable for long text such as news articles; (2) DPEMM generates too many irrelevant events which leads to a very low precision score  Overall, we see the superior performance of AEM across all datasets, with more significant improvement on the for Google datasets (long text) 
We next visualize the detected events based on the discriminative features learned by the trained INLINEFORM0 network in AEM  The t-SNE BIBREF16 visualization results on the datasets are shown in Figure FIGREF19   For clarity, each subplot is plotted on a subset of the dataset containing ten randomly selected events  It can be observed that documents describing the same event have been grouped into the same cluster 
To further evaluate if a variation of the parameters INLINEFORM0 (the number of discriminator iterations per generator iteration), INLINEFORM1 (the number of units in hidden layer) and the structure of generator INLINEFORM2 will impact the extraction performance, additional experiments have been conducted on the Google dataset, with INLINEFORM3 set to 5, 7 and 10, INLINEFORM4 set to 100, 150 and 200, and three INLINEFORM5 structures (3, 4 and 5 layers)  The comparison results on precision, recall and F-measure are shown in Figure FIGREF20   From the results, it could be observed that AEM with the 5-layer generator performs the best and achieves 96 7% in F-measure, and the worst F-measure obtained by AEM is 85 7%  Overall, the AEM outperforms all compared approaches acorss various parameter settings, showing relatively stable performance 
Finally, we compare in Figure FIGREF37 the training time required for each model, excluding the constant time required by each model to load the data  We could observe that K-means runs fastest among all four approaches  Both LEM and DPEMM need to sample the event allocation for each document and update the relevant counts during Gibbs sampling which are time consuming  AEM only requires a fraction of the training time compared to LEM and DPEMM  Moreover, on a larger dataset such as the Google dataset, AEM appears to be far more efficient compared to LEM and DPEMM 
Conclusions and Future Work
In this paper, we have proposed a novel approach based on adversarial training to extract the structured representation of events from online text  The experimental comparison with the state-of-the-art methods shows that AEM achieves improved extraction performance, especially on long text corpora with an improvement of 15% observed in F-measure  AEM only requires a fraction of training time compared to existing Bayesian graphical modeling approaches  In future work, we will explore incorporating external knowledge (e g  word relatedness contained in word embeddings) into the learning framework for event extraction  Besides, exploring nonparametric neural event extraction approaches and detecting the evolution of events over time from news articles are other promising future directions 
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions  This work was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC1306704), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61772132), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (BK20161430) 
Context 3: Introduction
Conventional automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems typically consist of several independently learned components: an acoustic model to predict context-dependent sub-phoneme states (senones) from audio, a graph structure to map senones to phonemes, and a pronunciation model to map phonemes to words  Hybrid systems combine hidden Markov models to model state dependencies with neural networks to predict states BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   Newer approaches such as end-to-end (E2E) systems reduce the overall complexity of the final system 
Our research builds on prior work that has explored using time-delay neural networks (TDNN), other forms of convolutional neural networks, and Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) loss BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6   We took inspiration from wav2letter BIBREF6 , which uses 1D-convolution layers  Liptchinsky et al  BIBREF7 improved wav2letter by increasing the model depth to 19 convolutional layers and adding Gated Linear Units (GLU) BIBREF8 , weight normalization BIBREF9 and dropout 
By building a deeper and larger capacity network, we aim to demonstrate that we can match or outperform non end-to-end models on the LibriSpeech and 2000hr Fisher+Switchboard tasks  Like wav2letter, our architecture, Jasper, uses a stack of 1D-convolution layers, but with ReLU and batch normalization BIBREF10   We find that ReLU and batch normalization outperform other activation and normalization schemes that we tested for convolutional ASR  As a result, Jasper's architecture contains only 1D convolution, batch normalization, ReLU, and dropout layers – operators highly optimized for training and inference on GPUs 
It is possible to increase the capacity of the Jasper model by stacking these operations  Our largest version uses 54 convolutional layers (333M parameters), while our small model uses 34 (201M parameters)  We use residual connections to enable this level of depth  We investigate a number of residual options and propose a new residual connection topology we call Dense Residual (DR) 
Integrating our best acoustic model with a Transformer-XL BIBREF11 language model allows us to obtain new state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on LibriSpeech BIBREF12 test-clean of 2 95% WER and SOTA results among end-to-end models on LibriSpeech test-other  We show competitive results on Wall Street Journal (WSJ), and 2000hr Fisher+Switchboard (F+S)  Using only greedy decoding without a language model we achieve 3 86% WER on LibriSpeech test-clean 
This paper makes the following contributions:
Jasper Architecture
Jasper is a family of end-to-end ASR models that replace acoustic and pronunciation models with a convolutional neural network  Jasper uses mel-filterbank features calculated from 20ms windows with a 10ms overlap, and outputs a probability distribution over characters per frame  Jasper has a block architecture: a Jasper INLINEFORM0 x INLINEFORM1 model has INLINEFORM2 blocks, each with INLINEFORM3 sub-blocks  Each sub-block applies the following operations: a 1D-convolution, batch norm, ReLU, and dropout  All sub-blocks in a block have the same number of output channels 
Each block input is connected directly into the last sub-block via a residual connection  The residual connection is first projected through a 1x1 convolution to account for different numbers of input and output channels, then through a batch norm layer  The output of this batch norm layer is added to the output of the batch norm layer in the last sub-block  The result of this sum is passed through the activation function and dropout to produce the output of the sub-block 
The sub-block architecture of Jasper was designed to facilitate fast GPU inference  Each sub-block can be fused into a single GPU kernel: dropout is not used at inference-time and is eliminated, batch norm can be fused with the preceding convolution, ReLU clamps the result, and residual summation can be treated as a modified bias term in this fused operation 
All Jasper models have four additional convolutional blocks: one pre-processing and three post-processing  See Figure FIGREF7 and Table TABREF8 for details 
We also build a variant of Jasper, Jasper Dense Residual (DR)

ground_truth: by training an autocomplete system on 500K randomly sampled sentences from Yelp reviews

efficiency of a communication scheme $(q_{\alpha },p_{\beta })$ by the retention rate of tokens, which is measured as the fraction of tokens that are kept in the keywords, accuracy of a scheme is measured as the fraction of sentences generated by greedily decoding the model that exactly matches the target sentence

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. Do they report results only on English data?
Context 3:  Jasper DR follows DenseNet BIBREF15 and DenseRNet BIBREF16 , but instead of having dense connections within a block, the output of a convolution block is added to the inputs of all the following blocks  While DenseNet and DenseRNet concatenates the outputs of different layers, Jasper DR adds them in the same way that residuals are added in ResNet  As explained below, we find addition to be as effective as concatenation 
Normalization and Activation
In our study, we evaluate performance of models with:
3 types of normalization: batch norm BIBREF10 , weight norm BIBREF9 , and layer norm BIBREF17
3 types of rectified linear units: ReLU, clipped ReLU (cReLU), and leaky ReLU (lReLU)
2 types of gated units: gated linear units (GLU) BIBREF8 , and gated activation units (GAU) BIBREF18
All experiment results are shown in Table TABREF15   We first experimented with a smaller Jasper5x3 model to pick the top 3 settings before training on larger Jasper models  We found that layer norm with GAU performed the best on the smaller model  Layer norm with ReLU and batch norm with ReLU came second and third in our tests  Using these 3, we conducted further experiments on a larger Jasper10x4  For larger models, we noticed that batch norm with ReLU outperformed other choices  Thus, leading us to decide on batch normalization and ReLU for our architecture 
During batching, all sequences are padded to match the longest sequence  These padded values caused issues when using layer norm  We applied a sequence mask to exclude padding values from the mean and variance calculation  Further, we computed mean and variance over both the time dimension and channels similar to the sequence-wise normalization proposed by Laurent et al  BIBREF19   In addition to masking layer norm, we additionally applied masking prior to the convolution operation, and masking the mean and variance calculation in batch norm  These results are shown in Table TABREF16   Interestingly, we found that while masking before convolution gives a lower WER, using masks for both convolutions and batch norm results in worse performance 
As a final note, we found that training with weight norm was very unstable leading to exploding activations 
Residual Connections
For models deeper than Jasper 5x3, we observe consistently that residual connections are necessary for training to converge  In addition to the simple residual and dense residual model described above, we investigated DenseNet BIBREF15 and DenseRNet BIBREF16 variants of Jasper  Both connect the outputs of each sub-block to the inputs of following sub-blocks within a block  DenseRNet, similar to Dense Residual, connects the output of each output of each block to the input of all following blocks  DenseNet and DenseRNet combine residual connections using concatenation whereas Residual and Dense Residual use addition  We found that Dense Residual and DenseRNet perform similarly with each performing better on specific subsets of LibriSpeech  We decided to use Dense Residual for subsequent experiments  The main reason is that due to concatenation, the growth factor for DenseNet and DenseRNet requires tuning for deeper models whereas Dense Residual simply just repeats a sub-blocks 
Language Model
A language model (LM) is a probability distribution over arbitrary symbol sequences INLINEFORM0 such that more likely sequences are assigned high probabilities  LMs are frequently used to condition beam search  During decoding, candidates are evaluated using both acoustic scores and LM scores  Traditional N-gram LMs have been augmented with neural LMs in recent work BIBREF20 , BIBREF21 , BIBREF22  
We experiment with statistical N-gram language models BIBREF23 and neural Transformer-XL BIBREF11 models  Our best results use acoustic and word-level N-gram language models to generate a candidate list using beam search with a width of 2048  Next, an external Transformer-XL LM rescores the final list

ground_truth: Unanswerable

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. what were the baselines?
Context 3:  All LMs were trained on datasets independently from acoustic models  We show results with the neural LM in our Results section  We observed a strong correlation between the quality of the neural LM (measured by perplexity) and WER as shown in Figure FIGREF20  
NovoGrad
For training, we use either Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) with momentum or our own NovoGrad, an optimizer similar to Adam BIBREF14 , except that its second moments are computed per layer instead of per weight  Compared to Adam, it reduces memory consumption and we find it to be more numerically stable 
At each step INLINEFORM0 , NovoGrad computes the stochastic gradient INLINEFORM1 following the regular forward-backward pass  Then the second-order moment INLINEFORM2 is computed for each layer INLINEFORM3 similar to ND-Adam BIBREF27 : DISPLAYFORM0
The second-order moment INLINEFORM0 is used to re-scale gradients INLINEFORM1 before calculating the first-order moment INLINEFORM2 : DISPLAYFORM0
If L2-regularization is used, a weight decay INLINEFORM0 is added to the re-scaled gradient (as in AdamW BIBREF28 ): DISPLAYFORM0
Finally, new weights are computed using the learning rate INLINEFORM0 : DISPLAYFORM0
Using NovoGrad instead of SGD with momentum, we decreased the WER on dev-clean LibriSpeech from 4 00% to 3 64%, a relative improvement of 9% for Jasper DR 10x5  We will further analyze NovoGrad in forthcoming work 
Results
We evaluate Jasper across a number of datasets in various domains  In all experiments, we use dropout and weight decay as regularization  At training time, we use speed perturbation with fixed +/-10% BIBREF29 for LibriSpeech  For WSJ and Hub5'00, we use a random speed perturbation factor between [-10%, 10%] as each utterance is fed into the model  All models have been trained on NVIDIA DGX-1 in mixed precision BIBREF30 using OpenSeq2Seq BIBREF31   Source code, training configurations, and pretrained models are available 
Read Speech
We evaluated the performance of Jasper on two read speech datasets: LibriSpeech and Wall Street Journal (WSJ)  For LibriSpeech, we trained Jasper DR 10x5 using our NovoGrad optimizer for 400 epochs  We achieve SOTA performance on the test-clean subset and SOTA among end-to-end speech recognition models on test-other 
We trained a smaller Jasper 10x3 model with SGD with momentum optimizer for 400 epochs on a combined WSJ dataset (80 hours): LDC93S6A (WSJ0) and LDC94S13A (WSJ1)  The results are provided in Table TABREF29  
Conversational Speech
We also evaluate the Jasper model's performance on a conversational English corpus  The Hub5 Year 2000 (Hub5'00) evaluation (LDC2002S09, LDC2005S13) is widely used in academia  It is divided into two subsets: Switchboard (SWB) and Callhome (CHM)  The training data for both the acoustic and language models consisted of the 2000hr Fisher+Switchboard training data (LDC2004S13, LDC2005S13, LDC97S62)  Jasper DR 10x5 was trained using SGD with momentum for 50 epochs  We compare to other models trained using the same data and report Hub5'00 results in Table TABREF31  
We obtain good results for SWB  However, there is work to be done to improve WER on harder tasks such as CHM 
Conclusions
We have presented a new family of neural architectures for end-to-end speech recognition  Inspired by wav2letter's convolutional approach, we build a deep and scalable model, which requires a well-designed residual topology, effective regularization, and a strong optimizer  As our architecture studies demonstrated, a combination of standard components leads to SOTA results on LibriSpeech and competitive results on other benchmarks  Our Jasper architecture is highly efficient for training and inference, and serves as a good baseline approach on top of which to explore more sophisticated regularization, data augmentation, loss functions, language models, and optimization strategies  We are interested to see if our approach can continue to scale to deeper models and larger datasets 

ground_truth: Unanswerable

LF-MMI Attention
Seq2Seq 
RNN-T 
Char E2E LF-MMI 
Phone E2E LF-MMI 
CTC + Gram-CTC