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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What are the source and target domains?
Context 1: Introduction
In practice, it is often difficult and costly to annotate sufficient training data for diverse application domains on-the-fly  We may have sufficient labeled data in an existing domain (called the source domain), but very few or no labeled data in a new domain (called the target domain)  This issue has motivated research on cross-domain sentiment classification, where knowledge in the source domain is transferred to the target domain in order to alleviate the required labeling effort 
One key challenge of domain adaptation is that data in the source and target domains are drawn from different distributions  Thus, adaptation performance will decline with an increase in distribution difference  Specifically, in sentiment analysis, reviews of different products have different vocabulary  For instance, restaurants reviews would contain opinion words such as “tender”, “tasty”, or “undercooked” and movie reviews would contain “thrilling”, “horrific”, or “hilarious”  The intersection between these two sets of opinion words could be small which makes domain adaptation difficult 
Several techniques have been proposed for addressing the problem of domain shifting  The aim is to bridge the source and target domains by learning domain-invariant feature representations so that a classifier trained on a source domain can be adapted to another target domain  In cross-domain sentiment classification, many works BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 utilize a key intuition that domain-specific features could be aligned with the help of domain-invariant features (pivot features)  For instance, “hilarious” and “tasty” could be aligned as both of them are relevant to “good” 
Despite their promising results, these works share two major limitations  First, they highly depend on the heuristic selection of pivot features, which may be sensitive to different applications  Thus the learned new representations may not effectively reduce the domain difference  Furthermore, these works only utilize the unlabeled target data for representation learning while the sentiment classifier was solely trained on the source domain  There have not been many studies on exploiting unlabeled target data for refining the classifier, even though it may contain beneficial information  How to effectively leverage unlabeled target data still remains an important challenge for domain adaptation 
In this work, we argue that the information from unlabeled target data is beneficial for domain adaptation and we propose a novel Domain Adaptive Semi-supervised learning framework (DAS) to better exploit it  Our main intuition is to treat the problem as a semi-supervised learning task by considering target instances as unlabeled data, assuming the domain distance can be effectively reduced through domain-invariant representation learning  Specifically, the proposed approach jointly performs feature adaptation and semi-supervised learning in a multi-task learning setting  For feature adaptation, it explicitly minimizes the distance between the encoded representations of the two domains  On this basis, two semi-supervised regularizations – entropy minimization and self-ensemble bootstrapping – are jointly employed to exploit unlabeled target data for classifier refinement 
We evaluate our method rigorously under multiple experimental settings by taking label distribution and corpus size into consideration  The results show that our model is able to obtain significant improvements over strong baselines  We also demonstrate through a series of analysis that the proposed method benefits greatly from incorporating unlabeled target data via semi-supervised learning, which is consistent with our motivation  Our datasets and source code can be obtained from https://github com/ruidan/DAS 
Related Work
Domain Adaptation: The majority of feature adaptation methods for sentiment analysis rely on a key intuition that even though certain opinion words are completely distinct for each domain, they can be aligned if they have high correlation with some domain-invariant opinion words (pivot words) such as “excellent” or “terrible”  Blitzer et al  ( BIBREF0 ) proposed a method based on structural correspondence learning (SCL), which uses pivot feature prediction to induce a projected feature space that works well for both the source and the target domains  The pivot words are selected in a way to cover common domain-invariant opinion words  Subsequent research aims to better align the domain-specific words BIBREF1 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF3 such that the domain discrepancy could be reduced  More recently, Yu and Jiang ( BIBREF4 ) borrow the idea of pivot feature prediction from SCL and extend it to a neural network-based solution with auxiliary tasks  In their experiment, substantial improvement over SCL has been observed due to the use of real-valued word embeddings  Unsupervised representation learning with deep neural networks (DNN) such as denoising autoencoders has also been explored for feature adaptation BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   It has been shown that DNNs could learn transferable representations that disentangle the underlying factors of variation behind data samples 
Although the aforementioned methods aim to reduce the domain discrepancy, they do not explicitly minimize the distance between distributions, and some of them highly rely on the selection of pivot features  In our method, we formally construct an objective for this purpose  Similar ideas have been explored in many computer vision problems, where the representations of the underlying domains are encouraged to be similar through explicit objectives BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 such as maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) BIBREF14   In NLP tasks, Li et al  ( BIBREF15 ) and Chen et al  ( BIBREF16 ) both proposed using adversarial training framework for reducing domain difference  In their model, a sub-network is added as a domain discriminator while deep features are learned to confuse the discriminator  The feature adaptation component in our model shares similar intuition with MMD and adversary training  We will show a detailed comparison with them in our experiments 
Semi-supervised Learning: We attempt to treat domain adaptation as a semi-supervised learning task by considering the target instances as unlabeled data  Some efforts have been initiated on transfer learning from unlabeled data BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   In our model, we reduce the domain discrepancy by feature adaptation, and thereafter adopt semi-supervised learning techniques to learn from unlabeled data  Primarily motivated by BIBREF20 and BIBREF21 , we employed entropy minimization and self-ensemble bootstrapping as regularizations to incorporate unlabeled data  Our experimental results show that both methods are effective when jointly trained with the feature adaptation objective, which confirms to our motivation 
Notations and Model Overview
We conduct most of our experiments under an unsupervised domain adaptation setting, where we have no labeled data from the target domain  Consider two sets INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1   INLINEFORM2 is from the source domain with INLINEFORM3 labeled examples, where INLINEFORM4 is a one-hot vector representation of sentiment label and INLINEFORM5 denotes the number of classes  INLINEFORM6 is from the target domain with INLINEFORM7 unlabeled examples  INLINEFORM8 denotes the total number of training documents including both labeled and unlabeled  We aim to learn a sentiment classifier from INLINEFORM13 and INLINEFORM14 such that the classifier would work well on the target domain  We also present some results under a setting where we assume that a small number of labeled target examples are available (see Figure FIGREF27 ) 
For the proposed model, we denote INLINEFORM0 parameterized by INLINEFORM1 as a neural-based feature encoder that maps documents from both domains to a shared feature space, and INLINEFORM2 parameterized by INLINEFORM3 as a fully connected layer with softmax activation serving as the sentiment classifier  We aim to learn feature representations that are domain-invariant and at the same time discriminative on both domains, thus we simultaneously consider three factors in our objective: (1) minimize the classification error on the labeled source examples; (2) minimize the domain discrepancy; and (3) leverage unlabeled data via semi-supervised learning 
Suppose we already have the encoded features of documents INLINEFORM0 (see Section SECREF10 ), the objective function for purpose (1) is thus the cross entropy loss on the labeled source examples DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the predicted label distribution  In the following subsections, we will explain how to perform feature adaptation and domain adaptive semi-supervised learning in details for purpose (2) and (3) respectively 
Feature Adaptation
Unlike prior works BIBREF0 , BIBREF4 , our method does not attempt to align domain-specific words through pivot words  In our preliminary experiments, we found that word embeddings pre-trained on a large corpus are able to adequately capture this information  As we will later show in our experiments, even without adaptation, a naive neural network classifier with pre-trained word embeddings can already achieve reasonably good results 
We attempt to explicitly minimize the distance between the source and target feature representations ( INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 )  A few methods from literature can be applied such as Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) BIBREF14 or adversary training BIBREF15 , BIBREF16   The main idea of MMD is to estimate the distance between two distributions as the distance between sample means of the projected embeddings in Hilbert space  MMD is implicitly computed through a characteristic kernel, which is used to ensure that the sample mean is injective, leading to the MMD being zero if and only if the distributions are identical  In our implementation, we skip the mapping procedure induced by a characteristic kernel for simplifying the computation and learning  We simply estimate the distribution distance as the distance between the sample means in the current embedding space  Although this approximation cannot preserve all statistical features of the underlying distributions, we find it performs comparably to MMD on our problem  The following equations formally describe the feature adaptation loss INLINEFORM2 : DISPLAYFORM0
INLINEFORM0 normalization is applied on the mean representations INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 , rescaling the vectors such that all entries sum to 1  We adopt a symmetric version of KL divergence BIBREF12 as the distance function  Given two distribution vectors INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4  
Domain Adaptive Semi-supervised Learning (DAS)
We attempt to exploit the information in target data through semi-supervised learning objectives, which are jointly trained with INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1   Normally, to incorporate target data, we can minimize the cross entropy loss between the true label distributions INLINEFORM2 and the predicted label distributions INLINEFORM3 over target samples  The challenge here is that INLINEFORM4 is unknown, and thus we attempt to estimate it via semi-supervised learning  We use entropy minimization and bootstrapping for this purpose  We will later show in our experiments that both methods are effective, and jointly employing them overall yields the best results 
Entropy Minimization: In this method, INLINEFORM0 is estimated as the predicted label distribution INLINEFORM1 , which is a function of INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3   The loss can thus be written as DISPLAYFORM0
Assume the domain discrepancy can be effectively reduced through feature adaptation, by minimizing the entropy penalty, training of the classifier is influenced by the unlabeled target data and will generally maximize the margins between the target examples and the decision boundaries, increasing the prediction confidence on the target domain 
Self-ensemble Bootstrapping: Another way to estimate INLINEFORM0 corresponds to bootstrapping  The idea is to estimate the unknown labels as the predictions of the model learned from the previous round of training  Bootstrapping has been explored for domain adaptation in previous works BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   However, in their methods, domain discrepancy was not explicitly minimized via feature adaptation  Applying bootstrapping or other semi-supervised learning techniques in this case may worsen the results as the classifier can perform quite bad on the target data 
[t] Pseudocode for training DAS INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 INLINEFORM4 = ensembling momentum, INLINEFORM5 INLINEFORM6 = weight ramp-up function INLINEFORM7 INLINEFORM8 INLINEFORM9 each minibatch INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , INLINEFORM12 in
INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 compute loss INLINEFORM3 on INLINEFORM4 compute loss INLINEFORM5 on INLINEFORM6 compute loss INLINEFORM7 on INLINEFORM8 compute loss INLINEFORM9 on INLINEFORM10 INLINEFORM11
update network parameters INLINEFORM0 , for INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2 INLINEFORM3
Inspired by the ensembling method proposed in BIBREF21 , we estimate INLINEFORM0 by forming ensemble predictions of labels during training, using the outputs on different training epochs  The loss is formulated as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the estimated labels computed on the ensemble predictions from different epochs  The loss is applied on all documents  It serves for bootstrapping on the unlabeled target data, and it also serves as a regularization that encourages the network predictions to be consistent in different training epochs  INLINEFORM1 is jointly trained with INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 , and INLINEFORM4   Algorithm SECREF6 illustrates the overall training process of the proposed domain adaptive semi-supervised learning (DAS) framework 
In Algorithm SECREF6 , INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 are weights to balance the effects of INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 , and INLINEFORM5 respectively  INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7 are constant hyper-parameters  We set INLINEFORM8 as a Gaussian curve to ramp up the weight from 0 to INLINEFORM9   This is to ensure the ramp-up of the bootstrapping loss component is slow enough in the beginning of the training  After each training epoch, we compute INLINEFORM10 which denotes the predictions made by the network in current epoch, and then the ensemble prediction INLINEFORM11 is updated as a weighted average of the outputs from previous epochs and the current epoch, with recent epochs having larger weight  For generating estimated labels INLINEFORM12 , INLINEFORM13 is converted to a one-hot vector where the entry with the maximum value is set to one and other entries are set to zeros  The self-ensemble bootstrapping is a generalized version of bootstrappings that only use the outputs from the previous round of training BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   The ensemble prediction is likely to be closer to the correct, unknown labels of the target data 
CNN Encoder Implementation
We have left the feature encoder INLINEFORM0 unspecified, for which, a few options can be considered  In our implementation, we adopt a one-layer CNN structure from previous works BIBREF22 , BIBREF4 , as it has been demonstrated to work well for sentiment classification tasks  Given a review document INLINEFORM1 consisting of INLINEFORM2 words, we begin by associating each word with a continuous word embedding BIBREF23 INLINEFORM3 from an embedding matrix INLINEFORM4 , where INLINEFORM5 is the vocabulary size and INLINEFORM6 is the embedding dimension  INLINEFORM7 is jointly updated with other network parameters during training  Given a window of dense word embeddings INLINEFORM8 , the convolution layer first concatenates these vectors to form a vector INLINEFORM9 of length INLINEFORM10 and then the output vector is computed by Equation ( EQREF11 ): DISPLAYFORM0
INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 is the parameter set of the encoder INLINEFORM2 and is shared across all windows of the sequence  INLINEFORM3 is an element-wise non-linear activation function  The convolution operation can capture local contextual dependencies of the input sequence and the extracted feature vectors are similar to INLINEFORM4 -grams  After the convolution operation is applied to the whole sequence, we obtain a list of hidden vectors INLINEFORM5   A max-over-time pooling layer is applied to obtain the final vector representation INLINEFORM6 of the input document 
Datasets and Experimental Settings
Existing benchmark datasets such as the Amazon benchmark BIBREF0 typically remove reviews with neutral labels in both domains  This is problematic as the label information of the target domain is not accessible in an unsupervised domain adaptation setting  Furthermore, removing neutral instances may bias the dataset favorably for max-margin-based algorithms like ours, since the resulting dataset has all uncertain labels removed, leaving only high confidence examples  Therefore, we construct new datasets by ourselves  The results on the original Amazon benchmark is qualitatively similar, and we present them in Appendix SECREF6 for completeness since most of previous works reported results on it 
Small-scale datasets: Our new dataset was derived from the large-scale Amazon datasets released by McAuley et al  ( BIBREF24 )  It contains four domains: Book (BK), Electronics (E), Beauty (BT), and Music (M)  Each domain contains two datasets  Set 1 contains 6000 instances with exactly balanced class labels, and set 2 contains 6000 instances that are randomly sampled from the large dataset, preserving the original label distribution, which we believe better reflects the label distribution in real life  The examples in these two sets do not overlap  Detailed statistics of the generated datasets are given in Table TABREF9  
In all our experiments on the small-scale datasets, we use set 1 of the source domain as the only source with sentiment label information during training, and we evaluate the trained model on set 1 of the target domain  Since we cannot control the label distribution of unlabeled data during training, we consider two different settings:
Setting (1): Only set 1 of the target domain is used as the unlabeled set  This tells us how the method performs in a condition when the target domain has a close-to-balanced label distribution  As we also evaluate on set 1 of the target domain, this is also considered as a transductive setting 
Setting (2): Set 2 from both the source and target domains are used as unlabeled sets  Since set 2 is directly sampled from millions of reviews, it better reflects real-life sentiment distribution 
Large-scale datasets: We further conduct experiments on four much larger datasets: IMDB (I), Yelp2014 (Y), Cell Phone (C), and Baby (B)  IMDB and Yelp2014 were previously used in BIBREF25 , BIBREF26   Cell phone and Baby are from the large-scale Amazon dataset BIBREF24 , BIBREF27   Detailed statistics are summarized in Table TABREF9   We keep all reviews in the original datasets and consider a transductive setting where all target examples are used for both training (without label information) and evaluation  We perform sampling to balance the classes of labeled source data in each minibatch INLINEFORM3 during training 
Selection of Development Set
Ideally, the development set should be drawn from the same distribution as the test set  However, under the unsupervised domain adaptation setting, we do not have any labeled target data at training phase which could be used as development set  In all of our experiments, for each pair of domains, we instead sample 1000 examples from the training set of the source domain as development set  We train the network for a fixed number of epochs, and the model with the minimum classification error on this development set is saved for evaluation  This approach works well on most of the problems since the target domain is supposed to behave like the source domain if the domain difference is effectively reduced 
Another problem is how to select the values for hyper-parameters  If we tune INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 directly on the development set from the source domain, most likely both of them will be set to 0, as unlabeled target data is not helpful for improving in-domain accuracy of the source domain  Other neural network models also have the same problem for hyper-parameter tuning  Therefore, our strategy is to use the development set from the target domain to optimize INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 for one problem (e g , we only do this on E INLINEFORM4 BK), and fix their values on the other problems  This setting assumes that we have at least two labeled domains such that we can optimize the hyper-parameters, and then we fix them for other new unlabeled domains to transfer to 
Training Details and Hyper-parameters
We initialize word embeddings using the 300-dimension GloVe vectors supplied by Pennington et al , ( BIBREF28 ), which were trained on 840 billion tokens from the Common Crawl  For each pair of domains, the vocabulary consists of the top 10000 most frequent words  For words in the vocabulary but not present in the pre-trained embeddings, we randomly initialize them 
We set hyper-parameters of the CNN encoder following previous works BIBREF22 , BIBREF4 without specific tuning on our datasets  The window size is set to 3 and the size of the hidden layer is set to 300  The nonlinear activation function is Relu  For regularization, we also follow their settings and employ dropout with probability set to 0 5 on INLINEFORM0 before feeding it to the output layer INLINEFORM1 , and constrain the INLINEFORM2 -norm of the weight vector INLINEFORM3 , setting its max norm to 3 
On the small-scale datasets and the Aamzon benchmark, INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are set to 200 and 1, respectively, tuned on the development set of task E INLINEFORM2 BK under setting 1  On the large-scale datasets, INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 are set to 500 and 0 2, respectively, tuned on I INLINEFORM5 Y  We use a Gaussian curve INLINEFORM6 to ramp up the weight of the bootstrapping loss INLINEFORM7 from 0 to INLINEFORM8 , where INLINEFORM9 denotes the maximum number of training epochs  We train 30 epochs for all experiments  We set INLINEFORM10 to 3 and INLINEFORM11 to 0 5 for all experiments 
The batch size is set to 50 on the small-scale datasets and the Amazon benchmark  We increase the batch size to 250 on the large-scale datasets to reduce the number of iterations  RMSProp optimizer with learning rate set to 0 0005 is used for all experiments 
Models for Comparison
We compare with the following baselines:
(1) Naive: A non-domain-adaptive baseline with bag-of-words representations and SVM classifier trained on the source domain 
(2) mSDA BIBREF7 : This is the state-of-the-art method based on discrete input features  Top 1000 bag-of-words features are kept as pivot features  We set the number of stacked layers to 3 and the corruption probability to 0 5 
(3) NaiveNN: This is a non-domain-adaptive CNN trained on source domain, which is a variant of our model by setting INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 to zeros 
(4) AuxNN BIBREF4 : This is a neural model that exploits auxiliary tasks, which has achieved state-of-the-art results on cross-domain sentiment classification  The sentence encoder used in this model is the same as ours 
(5) ADAN BIBREF16 : This method exploits adversarial training to reduce representation difference between domains  The original paper uses a simple feedforward network as encoder  For fair comparison, we replace it with our CNN-based encoder  We train 5 iterations on the discriminator per iteration on the encoder and sentiment classifier as suggested in their paper 
(6) MMD: MMD has been widely used for minimizing domain discrepancy on images  In those works BIBREF9 , BIBREF13 , variants of deep CNNs are used for encoding images and the MMDs of multiple layers are jointly minimized  In NLP, adding more layers of CNNs may not be very helpful and thus those models from image-related tasks can not be directly applied to our problem  To compare with MMD-based method, we train a model that jointly minimize the classification loss INLINEFORM0 on the source domain and MMD between INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2   For computing MMD, we use a Gaussian RBF which is a common choice for characteristic kernel 
In addition to the above baselines, we also show results of different variants of our model  DAS as shown in Algorithm SECREF6 denotes our full model  DAS-EM denotes the model with only entropy minimization for semi-supervised learning (set INLINEFORM0 )  DAS-SE denotes the model with only self-ensemble bootstrapping for semi-supervised learning (set INLINEFORM1 )  FANN (feature-adaptation neural network) denotes the model without semi-supervised learning performed (set both INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 to zeros) 
Main Results
Figure FIGREF17 shows the comparison of adaptation results (see Appendix SECREF7 for the exact numerical numbers)  We report classification accuracy on the small-scale dataset  For the large-scale dataset, macro-F1 is instead used since the label distribution in the test set is extremely unbalanced  Key observations are summarized as follows  (1) Both DAS-EM and DAS-SE perform better in most cases compared with ADAN, MDD, and FANN, in which only feature adaptation is performed  This demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed domain adaptive semi-supervised learning framework  DAS-EM is more effective than DAS-SE in most cases, and the full model DAS with both techniques jointly employed overall has the best performance  (2) When comparing the two settings on the small-scale dataset, all domain-adaptive methods generally perform better under setting 1  In setting 1, the target examples are balanced in classes, which can provide more diverse opinion-related features  However, when considering unsupervised domain adaptation, we should not presume the label distribution of the unlabeled data  Thus, it is necessary to conduct experiments using datasets that reflect real-life sentiment distribution as what we did on setting2 and the large-scale dataset  Unfortunately, this is ignored by most of previous works  (3) Word-embeddings are very helpful, as we can see even NaiveNN can substantially outperform mSDA on most tasks 
To see the effect of semi-supervised learning alone, we also conduct experiments by setting INLINEFORM0 to eliminate the effect of feature adaptation  Both entropy minimization and bootstrapping perform very badly in this setting  Entropy minimization gives almost random predictions with accuracy below 0 4, and the results of bootstrapping are also much lower compared to NaiveNN  This suggests that the feature adaptation component is essential  Without it, the learned target representations are less meaningful and discriminative  Applying semi-supervised learning in this case is likely to worsen the results 
Further Analysis
In Figure FIGREF23 , we show the change of accuracy with respect to the percentage of unlabeled data used for training on three particular problems under setting 1  The value at INLINEFORM0 denotes the accuracies of NaiveNN which does not utilize any target data  For DAS, we observe a nonlinear increasing trend where the accuracy quickly improves at the beginning, and then gradually stabilizes  For other methods, this trend is less obvious, and adding more unlabeled data sometimes even worsen the results  This finding again suggests that the proposed approach can better exploit the information from unlabeled data 
We also conduct experiments under a setting with a small number of labeled target examples available  Figure FIGREF27 shows the change of accuracy with respect to the number of labeled target examples added for training  We can observe that DAS is still more effective under this setting, while the performance differences to other methods gradually decrease with the increasing number of labeled target examples 
CNN Filter Analysis
In this subsection, we aim to better understand DAS by analyzing sentiment-related CNN filters  To do that, 1) we first select a list of the most related CNN filters for predicting each sentiment label (positive, negative neutral)  Those filters can be identified according to the learned weights INLINEFORM0 of the output layer INLINEFORM1   Higher weight indicates stronger relatedness  2) Recall that in our implementation, each CNN filter has a window size of 3 with Relu activation  We can thus represent each selected filter as a ranked list of trigrams with highest activation values 
We analyze the CNN filters learned by NaiveNN, FANN and DAS respectively on task E INLINEFORM0 BT under setting 1  We focus on E INLINEFORM1 BT for study because electronics and beauty are very different domains and each of them has a diverse set of domain-specific sentiment expressions  For each method, we identify the top 10 most related filters for each sentiment label, and extract the top trigrams of each selected filter on both source and target domains  Since labeled source examples are used for training, we find the filters learned by the three methods capture similar expressions on the source domain, containing both domain-invariant and domain-specific trigrams  On the target domain, DAS captures more target-specific expressions compared to the other two methods  Due to space limitation, we only present a small subset of positive-sentiment-related filters in Table TABREF34   The complete results are provided in Appendix SECREF8   From Table TABREF34 , we can observe that the filters learned by NaiveNN are almost unable to capture target-specific sentiment expressions, while FANN is able to capture limited target-specific words such as “clean” and “scent”  The filters learned by DAS are more domain-adaptive, capturing diverse sentiment expressions in the target domain 
Conclusion
In this work, we propose DAS, a novel framework that jointly performs feature adaptation and semi-supervised learning  We have demonstrated through multiple experiments that DAS can better leverage unlabeled data, and achieve substantial improvements over baseline methods  We have also shown that feature adaptation is an essential component, without which, semi-supervised learning is not able to function properly  The proposed framework could be potentially adapted to other domain adaptation tasks, which is the focus of our future studies 
Results on Amazon Benchmark
Most previous works BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF29 carried out experiments on the Amazon benchmark released by Blitzer et al  ( BIBREF0 )  The dataset contains 4 different domains: Book (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E), and Kitchen (K)  Following their experimental settings, we consider the binary classification task to predict whether a review is positive or negative on the target domain  Each domain consists of 1000 positive and 1000 negative reviews respectively  We also allow 4000 unlabeled reviews to be used for both the source and the target domains, of which the positive and negative reviews are balanced as well, following the settings in previous works  We construct 12 cross-domain sentiment classification tasks and split the labeled data in each domain into a training set of 1600 reviews and a test set of 400 reviews  The classifier is trained on the training set of the source domain and is evaluated on the test set of the target domain  The comparison results are shown in Table TABREF37  
Numerical Results of Figure 
Due to space limitation, we only show results in figures in the paper  All numerical numbers used for plotting Figure FIGREF17 are presented in Table TABREF38   We can observe that DAS-EM, DAS-SE, and DAS all achieve substantial improvements over baseline methods under different settings 
CNN Filter Analysis Full Results
As mentioned in Section SECREF36 , we conduct CNN filter analysis on NaiveNN, FANN, and DAS  For each method, we identify the top 10 most related filters for positive, negative, neutral sentiment labels respectively, and then represent each selected filter as a ranked list of trigrams with the highest activation values on it  Table TABREF39 , TABREF40 , TABREF41 in the following pages illustrate the trigrams from the target domain (beauty) captured by the selected filters learned on E INLINEFORM0 BT for each method 
We can observe that compared to NaiveNN and FANN, DAS is able to capture a more diverse set of relevant sentiment expressions on the target domain for each sentiment label  This observation is consistent with our motivation  Since NaiveNN, FANN and other baseline methods solely train the sentiment classifier on the source domain, the learned encoder is not able to produce discriminative features on the target domain  DAS addresses this problem by refining the classifier on the target domain with semi-supervised learning, and the overall objective forces the encoder to learn feature representations that are not only domain-invariant but also discriminative on both domains 
Context 2: Introduction
Part-of-speech tagging is now a classic task in natural language processing, for which many systems have been developed or adapted for a large variety of languages  Its aim is to associate each “word” with a morphosyntactic tag, whose granularity can range from a simple morphosyntactic category, or part-of-speech (hereafter PoS), to finer categories enriched with morphological features (gender, number, case, tense, mood, etc ) 
The use of machine learning algorithms trained on manually annotated corpora has long become the standard way to develop PoS taggers  A large variety of algorithms have been used, such as (in approximative chronological order) bigram and trigram hidden Markov models BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , decision trees BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , maximum entropy Markov models (MEMMs) BIBREF5 and Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) BIBREF6 , BIBREF7   With such machine learning algorithms, it is possible to build PoS taggers for any language, provided adequate training data is available 
As a complement to annotated corpora, it has previously been shown that external lexicons are valuable sources of information, in particular morphosyntactic lexicons, which provide a large inventory of (word, PoS) pairs  Such lexical information can be used in the form of constraints at tagging time BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 or during the training process as additional features combined with standard features extracted from the training corpus BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12  
In recent years, a different approach to modelling lexical information and integrating it into natural language processing systems has emerged, namely the use of vector representations for words or word sequences BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF18   Such representations, which are generally extracted from large amounts of raw text, have proved very useful for numerous tasks including PoS tagging, in particular when used in recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and more specifically in mono- or bi-directional, word-level and/or character-level long short-term memory networks (LSTMs) BIBREF19 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF20  
Both approaches to representing lexical properties and to integrating them into a PoS tagger improve tagging results  Yet they rely on resources of different natures  The main advantage of word vectors is that they are built in an unsupervised way, only requiring large amounts of raw textual data  They also encode finer-grained information than usual morphosyntactic lexicons, most of which do not include any quantitative data, not even simple frequency information  Conversely, lexical resources often provide information about scarcely attested words, for which corpus-based approaches such as word vector representations are of limited relevance  Moreover, morphological or morphosyntactic lexicons already exist for a number of languages, including less-resourced langauges for which it might be difficult to obtain the large amounts of raw data necessary to extract word vector representations 
Our main goal is therefore to compare the respective impact of external lexicons and word vector representations on the accuracy of PoS models  This question has already been investigated for 6 languages by BIBREF18 using the state-of-the-art CRF-based tagging system MarMoT  The authors found that their best-performing word-vector-based PoS tagging models outperform their models that rely on morphosyntactic resources (lexicons or morphological analysers)  In this paper, we report on larger comparison, carried out in a larger multilingual setting and comparing different tagging models  Using different 16 datasets, we compare the performances of two feature-based models enriched with external lexicons and of two LSTM-based models enriched with word vector representations  A secondary goal of our work is to compare the relative improvements linked to the use of external lexical information in the two feature-based models, which use different models (MEMM vs  CRF) and feature sets 
More specifically, our starting point is the MElt system BIBREF12 , an MEMM tagging system  We first briefly describe this system and the way we adapted it by integrating our own set of corpus-based and lexical features  We then introduce the tagging models we have trained for 16 different languages using our adapted version of MElt  These models are trained on the Universal Dependencies (v1 2) corpus set BIBREF21 , complemented by morphosyntactic lexicons  We compare the accuracy of our models with the scores obtained by the CRF-based system MarMoT BIBREF22 , BIBREF18 , retrained on the same corpora and the same external morphosyntactic lexicons  We also compare our results to those obtained by the best bidirectional LSTM models described by BIBREF20 , which both make use of Polyglot word vector representations published by BIBREF23   We will show that an optimised enrichment of feature-based models with morphosyntactic lexicon results in significant accuracy gains  The macro-averaged accuracy of our enriched MElt models is above that of enriched MarMoT models and virtually identical to that of LSTMs enriched with word vector representations  More precisely, per-language results indicate that lexicons provide more useful information for languages with a high lexical variability (such as morphologically rich languages), whereas word vectors are more informative for languages with a lower lexical variability (such as English) 
MElt
MElt BIBREF12 is a tagging system based on maximum entropy Markov models (MEMM) BIBREF5 , a class of discriminative models that are suitable for sequence labelling BIBREF5   The basic set of features used by MElt is given in BIBREF12   It is a superset of the feature sets used by BIBREF5 and BIBREF24 and includes both local standard features (for example the current word itself and its prefixes and suffixes of length 1 to 4) and contextual standard features (for example the tag just assigned to the preceding word)  In particular, with respect to Ratnaparkhi's feature set, MElt's basic feature set lifts the restriction that local standard features used to analyse the internal composition of the current word should only apply to rare words 
One of the advantages of feature-based models such as MEMMs and CRFs is that complementary information can be easily added in the form of additional features  This was investigated for instance by BIBREF25 , whose best-performing model for PoS tagging dialogues was obtained with a version of MElt extended with dialogue-specific features  Yet the motivation of MElt's developers was first and foremost to investigate the best way to integrate lexical information extracted from large-scale morphosyntactic lexical resources into their models, on top of the training data BIBREF12   They showed that performances are better when this external lexical information is integrated in the form of additional lexical features than when the external lexicon is used as constraints at tagging time  These lexical features can also be divided into local lexical features (for example the list of possible tags known to the external lexicon for the current word) and contextual lexical features (for example the list of possible tags known to the external lexicon for surrounding words)  In particular, lexical contextual features provide a means to model the right context of the current word, made of words that have not yet been tagged by the system but for which the lexicon often provides a list of possible tags  Moreover, tagging accuracy for out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words is improved, as a result of the fact that words unknown to the training corpus might be known to the external lexicon 
Despite a few experiments published with MElt on languages other than French BIBREF12 , BIBREF40 , BIBREF41 , the original feature set used by MElt (standard and lexical features) was designed and tested mostly on this language, by building and evaluating tagging models on a variant of the French TreeBank  Since our goal was to carry out experiments in a multilingual setting, we have decided to design our own set of features, using the standard MElt features as a starting point  With respect to the original MElt feature set, we have added new ones, such as prefixes and suffixes of the following word, as well as a hybrid contextual feature obtained by concatenating the tag predicted for the preceding word and the tag(s) provided by the external lexicon for the following word 
In order to select the best performing feature set, we carried out a series of experiments using the multilingual dataset provided during the SPMRL parsing shared task BIBREF42   This included discarding useless or harmful features and selecting the maximal length of the prefixes and suffixes to be used as features, both for the current word and for the following word 
We incorporated in MElt the best performing feature set, described in Table TABREF1   All models discussed in this paper are based on this feature set 
Corpora
We carried out our experiments on the Universal Dependencies v1 2 treebanks BIBREF21 , hereafter UD1 2, from which morphosyntactically annotated corpora can be trivially extracted  All UD1 2 corpora use a common tag set, the 17 universal PoS tags, which is an extension of the tagset proposed by BIBREF43  
As our goal is to study the impact of lexical information for PoS tagging, we have restricted our experiments to UD1 2 corpora that cover languages for which we have morphosyntactic lexicons at our disposal, and for which BIBREF20 provide results  We considered UD1 2 corpora for the following 16 languages: Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish  Although this language list contains only one non-Indo-European (Indonesian), four major Indo-European sub-families are represented (Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Indo-Iranian)
Context 3: Introduction
Sarcasm is an intensive, indirect and complex construct that is often intended to express contempt or ridicule   Sarcasm, in speech, is multi-modal, involving tone, body-language and gestures along with linguistic artifacts used in speech  Sarcasm in text, on the other hand, is more restrictive when it comes to such non-linguistic modalities  This makes recognizing textual sarcasm more challenging for both humans and machines 
Sarcasm detection plays an indispensable role in applications like online review summarizers, dialog systems, recommendation systems and sentiment analyzers  This makes automatic detection of sarcasm an important problem  However, it has been quite difficult to solve such a problem with traditional NLP tools and techniques  This is apparent from the results reported by the survey from DBLP:journals/corr/JoshiBC16  The following discussion brings more insights into this 
Consider a scenario where an online reviewer gives a negative opinion about a movie through sarcasm: “This is the kind of movie you see because the theater has air conditioning”  It is difficult for an automatic sentiment analyzer to assign a rating to the movie and, in the absence of any other information, such a system may not be able to comprehend that prioritizing the air-conditioning facilities of the theater over the movie experience indicates a negative sentiment towards the movie  This gives an intuition to why, for sarcasm detection, it is necessary to go beyond textual analysis 
We aim to address this problem by exploiting the psycholinguistic side of sarcasm detection, using cognitive features extracted with the help of eye-tracking  A motivation to consider cognitive features comes from analyzing human eye-movement trajectories that supports the conjecture: Reading sarcastic texts induces distinctive eye movement patterns, compared to literal texts  The cognitive features, derived from human eye movement patterns observed during reading, include two primary feature types:
The cognitive features, along with textual features used in best available sarcasm detectors, are used to train binary classifiers against given sarcasm labels  Our experiments show significant improvement in classification accuracy over the state of the art, by performing such augmentation 
Related Work
Sarcasm, in general, has been the focus of research for quite some time  In one of the pioneering works jorgensen1984test explained how sarcasm arises when a figurative meaning is used opposite to the literal meaning of the utterance  In the word of clark1984pretense, sarcasm processing involves canceling the indirectly negated message and replacing it with the implicated one  giora1995irony, on the other hand, define sarcasm as a mode of indirect negation that requires processing of both negated and implicated messages  ivanko2003context define sarcasm as a six tuple entity consisting of a speaker, a listener, Context, Utterance, Literal Proposition and Intended Proposition and study the cognitive aspects of sarcasm processing 
Computational linguists have previously addressed this problem using rule based and statistical techniques, that make use of : (a) Unigrams and Pragmatic features BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 (b) Stylistic patterns BIBREF4 and patterns related to situational disparity BIBREF5 and (c) Hastag interpretations BIBREF6 , BIBREF7  
Most of the previously done work on sarcasm detection uses distant supervision based techniques (ex: leveraging hashtags) and stylistic/pragmatic features (emoticons, laughter expressions such as “lol” etc)  But, detecting sarcasm in linguistically well-formed structures, in absence of explicit cues or information (like emoticons), proves to be hard using such linguistic/stylistic features alone 
With the advent of sophisticated eye-trackers and electro/magneto-encephalographic (EEG/MEG) devices, it has been possible to delve deep into the cognitive underpinnings of sarcasm understanding  Filik2014, using a series of eye-tracking and EEG experiments try to show that for unfamiliar ironies, the literal interpretation would be computed first  They also show that a mismatch with context would lead to a re-interpretation of the statement, as being ironic  Camblin2007103 show that in multi-sentence passages, discourse congruence has robust effects on eye movements  This also implies that disrupted processing occurs for discourse incongruent words, even though they are perfectly congruous at the sentence level  In our previous work BIBREF8 , we augment cognitive features, derived from eye-movement patterns of readers, with textual features to detect whether a human reader has realized the presence of sarcasm in text or not 
The recent advancements in the literature discussed above, motivate us to explore gaze-based cognition for sarcasm detection  As far as we know, our work is the first of its kind 
Eye-tracking Database for Sarcasm Analysis
Sarcasm often emanates from incongruity BIBREF9 , which enforces the brain to reanalyze it BIBREF10   This, in turn, affects the way eyes move through the text  Hence, distinctive eye-movement patterns may be observed in the case of successful processing of sarcasm in text in contrast to literal texts  This hypothesis forms the crux of our method for sarcasm detection and we validate this using our previously released freely available sarcasm dataset BIBREF8 enriched with gaze information 
Document Description
The database consists of 1,000 short texts, each having 10-40 words  Out of these, 350 are sarcastic and are collected as follows: (a) 103 sentences are from two popular sarcastic quote websites, (b) 76 sarcastic short movie reviews are manually extracted from the Amazon Movie Corpus BIBREF11 by two linguists  (c) 171 tweets are downloaded using the hashtag #sarcasm from Twitter  The 650 non-sarcastic texts are either downloaded from Twitter or extracted from the Amazon Movie Review corpus  The sentences do not contain words/phrases that are highly topic or culture specific  The tweets were normalized to make them linguistically well formed to avoid difficulty in interpreting social media lingo  Every sentence in our dataset carries positive or negative opinion about specific “aspects”  For example, the sentence “The movie is extremely well cast” has positive sentiment about the aspect “cast” 
The annotators were seven graduate students with science and engineering background, and possess good English proficiency  They were given a set of instructions beforehand and are advised to seek clarifications before they proceed  The instructions mention the nature of the task, annotation input method, and necessity of head movement minimization during the experiment 
Task Description
The task assigned to annotators was to read sentences one at a time and label them with with binary labels indicating the polarity (i e , positive/negative)  Note that, the participants were not instructed to annotate whether a sentence is sarcastic or not , to rule out the Priming Effect (i e , if sarcasm is expected beforehand, processing incongruity becomes relatively easier BIBREF12 )  The setup ensures its “ecological validity” in two ways: (1) Readers are not given any clue that they have to treat sarcasm with special attention  This is done by setting the task to polarity annotation (instead of sarcasm detection)  (2) Sarcastic sentences are mixed with non sarcastic text, which does not give prior knowledge about whether the forthcoming text will be sarcastic or not 
The eye-tracking experiment is conducted by following the standard norms in eye-movement research BIBREF13   At a time, one sentence is displayed to the reader along with the “aspect” with respect to which the annotation has to be provided  While reading, an SR-Research Eyelink-1000 eye-tracker (monocular remote mode, sampling rate 500Hz) records several eye-movement parameters like fixations (a long stay of gaze) and saccade (quick jumping of gaze between two positions of rest) and pupil size 
The accuracy of polarity annotation varies between 72%-91% for sarcastic texts and 75%-91% for non-sarcastic text, showing the inherent difficulty of sentiment annotation, when sarcasm is present in the text under consideration  Annotation errors may be attributed to: (a) lack of patience/attention while reading, (b) issues related to text comprehension, and (c) confusion/indecisiveness caused due to lack of context 
For our analysis, we do not discard the incorrect annotations present in the database  Since our system eventually aims to involve online readers for sarcasm detection, it will be hard to segregate readers who misinterpret the text  We make a rational assumption that, for a particular text, most of the readers, from a fairly large population, will be able to identify sarcasm  Under this assumption, the eye-movement parameters, averaged across all readers in our setting, may not be significantly distorted by a few readers who would have failed to identify sarcasm  This assumption is applicable for both regular and multi-instance based classifiers explained in section SECREF6  
Analysis of Eye-movement Data
We observe distinct behavior during sarcasm reading, by analyzing the “fixation duration on the text” (also referred to as “dwell time” in the literature) and “scanpaths” of the readers 
Variation in the Average Fixation Duration per Word
Since sarcasm in text can be expected to induce cognitive load, it is reasonable to believe that it would require more processing time BIBREF14   Hence, fixation duration normalized over total word count should usually be higher for a sarcastic text than for a non-sarcastic one  We observe this for all participants in our dataset, with the average fixation duration per word for sarcastic texts being at least 1 5 times more than that of non-sarcastic texts  To test the statistical significance, we conduct a two-tailed t-test (assuming unequal variance) to compare the average fixation duration per word for sarcastic and non-sarcastic texts  The hypothesized mean difference is set to 0 and the error tolerance limit ( INLINEFORM0 ) is set to 0 05  The t-test analysis, presented in Table TABREF11 , shows that for all participants, a statistically significant difference exists between the average fixation duration per word for sarcasm (higher average fixation duration) and non-sarcasm (lower average fixation duration)  This affirms that the presence of sarcasm affects the duration of fixation on words 
It is important to note that longer fixations may also be caused by other linguistic subtleties (such as difficult words, ambiguity and syntactically complex structures) causing delay in comprehension, or occulomotor control problems forcing readers to spend time adjusting eye-muscles  So, an elevated average fixation duration per word may not sufficiently indicate the presence of sarcasm  But we would also like to share that, for our dataset, when we considered readability (Flesch readability ease-score BIBREF15 ), number of words in a sentence and average character per word along with the sarcasm label as the predictors of average fixation duration following a linear mixed effect model BIBREF16 , sarcasm label turned out to be the most significant predictor with a maximum slope  This indicates that average fixation duration per word has a strong connection with the text being sarcastic, at least in our dataset 
We now analyze scanpaths to gain more insights into the sarcasm comprehension process 
Analysis of Scanpaths
Scanpaths are line-graphs that contain fixations as nodes and saccades as edges; the radii of the nodes represent the fixation duration  A scanpath corresponds to a participant's eye-movement pattern while reading a particular sentence

ground_truth: Book, electronics, beauty, music, IMDB, Yelp, cell phone, baby, DVDs, kitchen

we use set 1 of the source domain as the only source with sentiment label information during training, and we evaluate the trained model on set 1 of the target domain, Book (BK), Electronics (E), Beauty (BT), and Music (M)

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 languages are explored?
Context 2:  Overall, the 16 languages considered in our experiments are typologically, morphologically and syntactically fairly diverse 
Lexicons
We generate our external lexicons using the set of source lexicons listed in Table TABREF3   Since external lexical information is exploited via features, there is no need for the external lexicons and the annotated corpora to use the same PoS inventory  Therefore, for each language, we simply extracted from the corresponding lexicon the PoS of each word based on its morphological tags, by removing all information provided except for its coarsest-level category  We also added entries for punctuations when the source lexicons did not contain any 
We also performed experiments in which we retained the full original tags provided by the lexicons, with all morphological features included  On average, results were slightly better than those presented in the paper, although not statistically significantly  Moreover, the granularity of tag inventories in the lexicons is diverse, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about results based on full tags  This is why we only report results based on (coarse) PoS extracted from the original lexicons 
Baseline models
In order to assess the respective contributions of external lexicons and word vector representations, we first compared the results of the three above-mentioned systems when trained without such additional lexical information  Table TABREF11 provides the results of MElt and MarMoT retrained on UD1 2 corpora, together with the results publised on the same corpora by BIBREF20 , using their best model not enhanced by external word vector representations —i e  the model they call INLINEFORM0 , which is a bidirectional LSTM that combines both word and character embeddings 
These results show that Plank et al 's (2016) bi-LSTM performs extremely well, surpassed by MarMoT on only 3 out of 16 datasets (Czech, French and Italian), and by MElt only once (Indonesian) 
Models enriched with external lexical information
Table TABREF13 provides the results of four systems enriched with lexical information  The feature-based systems MElt and MarMoT, respectively based on MEMMs and CRFs, are extended with the lexical information provided by our morphosyntactic lexicons  This extension takes the form of additional features, as described in Section SECREF2 for MElt  The results reported by BIBREF20 for their bidirectional LSTM when initialised with Polyglot embeddings trained on full wikipedias are also included, together with their new system FREQBIN, also initialised with Polyglot embeddings  FREQBIN trains bi-LSTMs to predict for each input word both a PoS and a label that represents its log frequency in the training data  As they word it, “the idea behind this model is to make the representation predictive for frequency, which encourages the model not to share representations between common and rare words, thus benefiting the handling of rare tokens ”
The results, which are also displayed in Figures FIGREF14 and FIGREF15 , show that all systems reach very similar results on average, although discrepancies can be observed from one dataset to another, on which we shall comment shortly  The best performing system in terms of macro-average is MElt (96 60%)  Both bi-LSTM systems reach the same score (96 58%), the difference with MElt's results being non significant, whereas MarMoT is only 0 14% behind (96 46%)  Given the better baseline scores of the neural approaches, these results show that the benefit of using external lexicons in the feature-based models MElt and MarMoT are much higher than those using Polyglot word vector representations as initialisations for bi-LSTMs 
Yet these very similar overall results reflect a different picture when focusing on OOV tagging accuracy  The best models for OOV tagging accuracy are, by far, FREQBIN models, which are beaten by MarMoT and by MElt only once each (on English and Danish respectively)  The comparison on OOV tagging between MElt and MarMoT shows that MElt performs better on average than MarMoT, despite the fact that MarMoT's baseline results were better than those reached by MElt  This shows that the information provided by external morphosyntactic lexicons is better exploited by MElt's lexical features than by those used by MarMoT  On the other hand, the comparison of both bi-LSTM-based approaches confirm that the FREQBIN models is better by over 10% absolute on OOV tagging accuracy (94 28% vs  83 59%), with 65% lower error rate 
One of the important differences between the lexical information provided by an external lexicon and word vectors built from raw corpora, apart from the very nature of the lexical information provided, is the coverage and accuracy of this lexical information on rare words  All words in a morphosyntactic lexicon are associated with information of a same granularity and quality, which is not the case with word representations such as provided by Polyglot  Models that take advantage of external lexicons should therefore perform comparatively better on datasets containing a higher proportion of rarer words, provided the lexicons' coverage is high  In order to confirm this intuition, we have used a lexical richness metric based on the type/token ratio  Since this ratio is well-known for being sensitive to corpus length, we normalised it by computing it over the 60,000 first tokens of each training set  When this normalised type/token ratio is plotted against the difference between the results of MElt and both bi-LSTM-based models, the expected correlation is clearly visible (see Figure FIGREF16 )  This explains why MElt obtains better results on the morphologically richer Slavic datasets (average normalised type/token ratio: 0 28, average accuracy difference: 0 32 compared to both bi-LSTM+Polyglot and FREQBIN+Polyglot) and, at the other end of the spectrum, significantly worse results on the English dataset (normalised type/token ratio: 0 15, average accuracy difference: -0 56 compared to bi-LSTM+Polyglot, -0 57 compared to FREQBIN+Polyglot) 
Conclusion
Two main conclusions can be drawn from our comparative results  First, feature-based tagging models adequately enriched with external morphosyntactic lexicons perform, on average, as well as bi-LSTMs enriched with word embeddings  Per-language results show that the best accuracy levels are reached by feature-based models, and in particular by our improved version of the MEMM-based system MElt, on datasets with high lexical variability (in short, for morphologically rich languages), whereas neural-based results perform better on datatsets with lower lexical variability (e g  for English) 
We have only compared the contribution of morphosyntactic lexicons to feature-based models (MEMMs, CRFs) and that of word vector representations to bi-LSTM-based models as reported by BIBREF20   As mentioned above, work on the contribution of word vector representations to feature-based approaches has been carried out by BIBREF18   However, the exploitation of existing morphosyntactic or morphological lexicons in neural models is a less studied question  Improvements over the state of the art might be achieved by integrating lexical information both from an external lexicon and from word vector representations into tagging models 
In that regard, further work will be required to understand which class of models perform the best  An option would be to integrate feature-based models such as a CRF with an LSTM-based layer, following recent proposals such as the one proposed by BIBREF45 for named entity recognition 

ground_truth: Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish

Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovenian, Spanish , Swedish

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 traditional linguistics features did they use?
Context 3:  Figure FIGREF14 presents scanpaths of three participants for the sarcastic sentence S1 and the non-sarcastic sentence S2  The x-axis of the graph represents the sequence of words a reader reads, and the y-axis represents a temporal sequence in milliseconds 
Consider a sarcastic text containing incongruous phrases A and B  Our qualitative scanpath-analysis reveals that scanpaths with respect to sarcasm processing have two typical characteristics  Often, a long regression - a saccade that goes to a previously visited segment - is observed when a reader starts reading B after skimming through A  In a few cases, the fixation duration on A and B are significantly higher than the average fixation duration per word  In sentence S1, we see long and multiple regressions from the two incongruous phrases “misconception” and “cherish”, and a few instances where phrases “always cherish” and “original misconception” are fixated longer than usual  Such eye-movement behaviors are not seen for S2 
Though sarcasm induces distinctive scanpaths like the ones depicted in Figure FIGREF14 in the observed examples, presence of such patterns is not sufficient to guarantee sarcasm; such patterns may also possibly arise from literal texts  We believe that a combination of linguistic features, readability of text and features derived from scanpaths would help discriminative machine learning models learn sarcasm better 
Features for Sarcasm Detection
We describe the features used for sarcasm detection in Table   The features enlisted under lexical,implicit incongruity and explicit incongruity are borrowed from various literature (predominantly from joshi2015harnessing)  These features are essential to separate sarcasm from other forms semantic incongruity in text (for example ambiguity arising from semantic ambiguity or from metaphors)  Two additional textual features viz  readability and word count of the text are also taken under consideration  These features are used to reduce the effect of text hardness and text length on the eye-movement patterns 
Simple Gaze Based Features
Readers' eye-movement behavior, characterized by fixations, forward saccades, skips and regressions, can be directly quantified by simple statistical aggregation (i e , either computing features for individual participants and then averaging or performing a multi-instance based learning as explained in section SECREF6 )  Since these eye-movement attributes relate to the cognitive process in reading BIBREF17 , we consider these as features in our model  Some of these features have been reported by sarcasmunderstandability for modeling sarcasm understandability of readers  However, as far as we know, these features are being introduced in NLP tasks like textual sarcasm detection for the first time  The values of these features are believed to increase with the increase in the degree of surprisal caused by incongruity in text (except skip count, which will decrease) 
Complex Gaze Based Features
For these features, we rely on a graph structure, namely “saliency graphs", derived from eye-gaze information and word sequences in the text 
For each reader and each sentence, we construct a “saliency graph”, representing the reader's attention characteristics  A saliency graph for a sentence INLINEFORM0 for a reader INLINEFORM1 , represented as INLINEFORM2 , is a graph with vertices ( INLINEFORM3 ) and edges ( INLINEFORM4 ) where each vertex INLINEFORM5 corresponds to a word in INLINEFORM6 (may not be unique) and there exists an edge INLINEFORM7 between vertices INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9 if R performs at least one saccade between the words corresponding to INLINEFORM10 and INLINEFORM11  
Figure FIGREF15 shows an example of a saliency graph A saliency graph may be weighted, but not necessarily connected, for a given text (as there may be words in the given text with no fixation on them)  The “complex” gaze features derived from saliency graphs are also motivated by the theory of incongruity  For instance, Edge Density of a saliency graph increases with the number of distinct saccades, which could arise from the complexity caused by presence of sarcasm  Similarly, the highest weighted degree of a graph is expected to be higher, if the node corresponds to a phrase, incongruous to some other phrase in the text 
The Sarcasm Classifier
We interpret sarcasm detection as a binary classification problem  The training data constitutes 994 examples created using our eye-movement database for sarcasm detection  To check the effectiveness of our feature set, we observe the performance of multiple classification techniques on our dataset through a stratified 10-fold cross validation  We also compare the classification accuracy of our system and the best available systems proposed by riloff2013sarcasm and joshi2015harnessing on our dataset  Using Weka BIBREF18 and LibSVM BIBREF19 APIs, we implement the following classifiers:
Results
Table TABREF17 shows the classification results considering various feature combinations for different classifiers and other systems  These are:
Unigram (with principal components of unigram feature vectors),
Sarcasm (the feature-set reported by joshi2015harnessing subsuming unigram features and features from other reported systems)
Gaze (the simple and complex cognitive features we introduce, along with readability and word count features), and
Gaze+Sarcasm (the complete set of features) 
For all regular classifiers, the gaze features are averaged across participants and augmented with linguistic and sarcasm related features  For the MILR classifier, the gaze features derived from each participant are augmented with linguistic features and thus, a multi instance “bag” of features is formed for each sentence in the training data  This multi-instance dataset is given to an MILR classifier, which follows the standard multi instance assumption to derive class-labels for each bag 
For all the classifiers, our feature combination outperforms the baselines (considering only unigram features) as well as BIBREF3 , with the MILR classifier getting an F-score improvement of 3 7% and Kappa difference of 0 08  We also achieve an improvement of 2% over the baseline, using SVM classifier, when we employ our feature set  We also observe that the gaze features alone, also capture the differences between sarcasm and non-sarcasm classes with a high-precision but a low recall 
To see if the improvement obtained is statistically significant over the state-of-the art system with textual sarcasm features alone, we perform McNemar test  The output of the SVM classifier using only linguistic features used for sarcasm detection by joshi2015harnessing and the output of the MILR classifier with the complete set of features are compared, setting threshold INLINEFORM0   There was a significant difference in the classifier's accuracy with p(two-tailed) = 0 02 with an odds-ratio of 1 43, showing that the classification accuracy improvement is unlikely to be observed by chance in 95% confidence interval 
Considering Reading Time as a Cognitive Feature along with Sarcasm Features
One may argue that, considering simple measures of reading effort like “reading time” as cognitive feature instead of the expensive eye-tracking features for sarcasm detection may be a cost-effective solution  To examine this, we repeated our experiments with “reading time” considered as the only cognitive feature, augmented with the textual features  The F-scores of all the classifiers turn out to be close to that of the classifiers considering sarcasm feature alone and the difference in the improvement is not statistically significant ( INLINEFORM0 )  One the other hand, F-scores with gaze features are superior to the F-scores when reading time is considered as a cognitive feature 
How Effective are the Cognitive Features
We examine the effectiveness of cognitive features on the classification accuracy by varying the input training data size  To examine this, we create a stratified (keeping the class ratio constant) random train-test split of 80%:20%  We train our classifier with 100%, 90%, 80% and 70% of the training data with our whole feature set, and the feature combination from joshi2015harnessing  The goodness of our system is demonstrated by improvements in F-score and Kappa statistics, shown in Figure FIGREF22  
We further analyze the importance of features by ranking the features based on (a) Chi squared test, and (b) Information Gain test, using Weka's attribute selection module  Figure FIGREF23 shows the top 20 ranked features produced by both the tests  For both the cases, we observe 16 out of top 20 features to be gaze features  Further, in each of the cases, Average Fixation Duration per Word and Largest Regression Position are seen to be the two most significant features 
Example Cases
Table TABREF21 shows a few example cases from the experiment with stratified 80%-20% train-test split 
Example sentence 1 is sarcastic, and requires extra-linguistic knowledge (about poor living conditions at Manchester)  Hence, the sarcasm detector relying only on textual features is unable to detect the underlying incongruity  However, our system predicts the label successfully, possibly helped by the gaze features 
Similarly, for sentence 2, the false sense of presence of incongruity (due to phrases like “Helped me” and “Can't stop”) affects the system with only linguistic features  Our system, though, performs well in this case also 
Sentence 3 presents a false-negative case where it was hard for even humans to get the sarcasm  This is why our gaze features (and subsequently the complete set of features) account for erroneous prediction 
In sentence 4, gaze features alone false-indicate presence of incongruity, whereas the system predicts correctly when gaze and linguistic features are taken together 
From these examples, it can be inferred that, only gaze features would not have sufficed to rule out the possibility of detecting other forms of incongruity that do not result in sarcasm 
Error Analysis
Errors committed by our system arise from multiple factors, starting from limitations of the eye-tracker hardware to errors committed by linguistic tools and resources  Also, aggregating various eye-tracking parameters to extract the cognitive features may have caused information loss in the regular classification setting 
Conclusion
In the current work, we created a novel framework to detect sarcasm, that derives insights from human cognition, that manifests over eye movement patterns  We hypothesized that distinctive eye-movement patterns, associated with reading sarcastic text, enables improved detection of sarcasm  We augmented traditional linguistic features with cognitive features obtained from readers' eye-movement data in the form of simple gaze-based features and complex features derived from a graph structure  This extended feature-set improved the success rate of the sarcasm detector by 3 7%, over the best available system  Using cognitive features in an NLP Processing system like ours is the first proposal of its kind 
Our general approach may be useful in other NLP sub-areas like sentiment and emotion analysis, text summarization and question answering, where considering textual clues alone does not prove to be sufficient  We propose to augment this work in future by exploring deeper graph and gaze features  We also propose to develop models for the purpose of learning complex gaze feature representation, that accounts for the power of individual eye movement patterns along with the aggregated patterns of eye movements 
Acknowledgments
We thank the members of CFILT Lab, especially Jaya Jha and Meghna Singh, and the students of IIT Bombay for their help and support 

ground_truth: Unanswerable