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 sizes of both datasets?
Context 1: Introduction
Text simplification aims to reduce the lexical and structural complexity of a text, while still retaining the semantic meaning, which can help children, non-native speakers, and people with cognitive disabilities, to understand text better  One of the methods of automatic text simplification can be generally divided into three categories: lexical simplification (LS) BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , rule-based BIBREF2 , and machine translation (MT) BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   LS is mainly used to simplify text by substituting infrequent and difficult words with frequent and easier words  However, there are several challenges for the LS approach: a great number of transformation rules are required for reasonable coverage and should be applied based on the specific context; third, the syntax and semantic meaning of the sentence is hard to retain  Rule-based approaches use hand-crafted rules for lexical and syntactic simplification, for example, substituting difficult words in a predefined vocabulary  However, such approaches need a lot of human-involvement to manually define these rules, and it is impossible to give all possible simplification rules  MT-based approach has attracted great attention in the last several years, which addresses text simplification as a monolingual machine translation problem translating from 'ordinary' and 'simplified' sentences 
In recent years, neural Machine Translation (NMT) is a newly-proposed deep learning approach and achieves very impressive results BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7   Unlike the traditional phrased-based machine translation system which operates on small components separately, NMT system is being trained end-to-end, without the need to have external decoders, language models or phrase tables  Therefore, the existing architectures in NMT are used for text simplification BIBREF8 , BIBREF4   However, most recent work using NMT is limited to the training data that are scarce and expensive to build  Language models trained on simplified corpora have played a central role in statistical text simplification BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   One main reason is the amount of available simplified corpora typically far exceeds the amount of parallel data  The performance of models can be typically improved when trained on more data  Therefore, we expect simplified corpora to be especially helpful for NMT models 
In contrast to previous work, which uses the existing NMT models, we explore strategy to include simplified training corpora in the training process without changing the neural network architecture  We first propose to pair simplified training sentences with synthetic ordinary sentences during training, and treat this synthetic data as additional training data  We obtain synthetic ordinary sentences through back-translation, i e  an automatic translation of the simplified sentence into the ordinary sentence BIBREF11   Then, we mix the synthetic data into the original (simplified-ordinary) data to train NMT model  Experimental results on two publicly available datasets show that we can improve the text simplification quality of NMT models by mixing simplified sentences into the training set over NMT model only using the original training data 
Related Work
Automatic TS is a complicated natural language processing (NLP) task, which consists of lexical and syntactic simplification levels BIBREF12   It has attracted much attention recently as it could make texts more accessible to wider audiences, and used as a pre-processing step, improve performances of various NLP tasks and systems BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   Usually, hand-crafted, supervised, and unsupervised methods based on resources like English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia (EW-SEW) BIBREF10 are utilized for extracting simplification rules  It is very easy to mix up the automatic TS task and the automatic summarization task BIBREF3 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF6   TS is different from text summarization as the focus of text summarization is to reduce the length and redundant content 
At the lexical level, lexical simplification systems often substitute difficult words using more common words, which only require a large corpus of regular text to obtain word embeddings to get words similar to the complex word BIBREF1 , BIBREF9   Biran et al  BIBREF0 adopted an unsupervised method for learning pairs of complex and simpler synonyms from a corpus consisting of Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia  At the sentence level, a sentence simplification model was proposed by tree transformation based on statistical machine translation (SMT) BIBREF3   Woodsend and Lapata BIBREF17 presented a data-driven model based on a quasi-synchronous grammar, a formalism that can naturally capture structural mismatches and complex rewrite operations  Wubben et al  BIBREF18 proposed a phrase-based machine translation (PBMT) model that is trained on ordinary-simplified sentence pairs  Xu et al  BIBREF19 proposed a syntax-based machine translation model using simplification-specific objective functions and features to encourage simpler output 
Compared with SMT, neural machine translation (NMT) has shown to produce state-of-the-art results BIBREF5 , BIBREF7   The central approach of NMT is an encoder-decoder architecture implemented by recurrent neural networks, which can represent the input sequence as a vector, and then decode that vector into an output sequence  Therefore, NMT models were used for text simplification task, and achieved good results BIBREF8 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF20   The main limitation of the aforementioned NMT models for text simplification depended on the parallel ordinary-simplified sentence pairs  Because ordinary-simplified sentence pairs are expensive and time-consuming to build, the available largest data is EW-SEW that only have 296,402 sentence pairs  The dataset is insufficiency for NMT model if we want to NMT model can obtain the best parameters  Considering simplified data plays an important role in boosting fluency for phrase-based text simplification, and we investigate the use of simplified data for text simplification  We are the first to show that we can effectively adapt neural translation models for text simplifiation with simplified corpora 
Simplified Corpora
We collected a simplified dataset from Simple English Wikipedia that are freely available, which has been previously used for many text simplification methods BIBREF0 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF3   The simple English Wikipedia is pretty easy to understand than normal English Wikipedia  We downloaded all articles from Simple English Wikipedia  For these articles, we removed stubs, navigation pages and any article that consisted of a single sentence  We then split them into sentences with the Stanford CorNLP BIBREF21 , and deleted these sentences whose number of words are smaller than 10 or large than 40  After removing repeated sentences, we chose 600K sentences as the simplified data with 11 6M words, and the size of vocabulary is 82K 
Text Simplification using Neural Machine Translation
Our work is built on attention-based NMT BIBREF5 as an encoder-decoder network with recurrent neural networks (RNN), which simultaneously conducts dynamic alignment and generation of the target simplified sentence 
The encoder uses a bidirectional RNN that consists of forward and backward RNN  Given a source sentence INLINEFORM0 , the forward RNN and backward RNN calculate forward hidden states INLINEFORM1 and backward hidden states INLINEFORM2 , respectively  The annotation vector INLINEFORM3 is obtained by concatenating INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5  
The decoder is a RNN that predicts a target simplificated sentence with Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) BIBREF22   Given the previously generated target (simplified) sentence INLINEFORM0 , the probability of next target word INLINEFORM1 is DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is a non-linear function, INLINEFORM1 is the embedding of INLINEFORM2 , and INLINEFORM3 is a decoding state for time step INLINEFORM4  
State INLINEFORM0 is calculated by DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the activation function GRU 
The INLINEFORM0 is the context vector computed as a weighted annotation INLINEFORM1 , computed by DISPLAYFORM0
where the weight INLINEFORM0 is computed by DISPLAYFORM0 DISPLAYFORM1
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 are weight matrices  The training objective is to maximize the likelihood of the training data  Beam search is employed for decoding 
Synthetic Simplified Sentences
We train an auxiliary system using NMT model from the simplified sentence to the ordinary sentence, which is first trained on the available parallel data  For leveraging simplified sentences to improve the quality of NMT model for text simplification, we propose to adapt the back-translation approach proposed by Sennrich et al  BIBREF11 to our scenario  More concretely, Given one sentence in simplified sentences, we use the simplified-ordinary system in translate mode with greedy decoding to translate it to the ordinary sentences, which is denoted as back-translation  This way, we obtain a synthetic parallel simplified-ordinary sentences  Both the synthetic sentences and the available parallel data are used as training data for the original NMT system 
Evaluation
We evaluate the performance of text simplification using neural machine translation on available parallel sentences and additional simplified sentences 
Dataset  We use two simplification datasets (WikiSmall and WikiLarge)  WikiSmall consists of ordinary and simplified sentences from the ordinary and simple English Wikipedias, which has been used as benchmark for evaluating text simplification BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF8   The training set has 89,042 sentence pairs, and the test set has 100 pairs  WikiLarge is also from Wikipedia corpus whose training set contains 296,402 sentence pairs BIBREF19 , BIBREF20   WikiLarge includes 8 (reference) simplifications for 2,359 sentences split into 2,000 for development and 359 for testing 
Metrics  Three metrics in text simplification are chosen in this paper  BLEU BIBREF5 is one traditional machine translation metric to assess the degree to which translated simplifications differed from reference simplifications  FKGL measures the readability of the output BIBREF23   A small FKGL represents simpler output  SARI is a recent text-simplification metric by comparing the output against the source and reference simplifications BIBREF20  
We evaluate the output of all systems using human evaluation  The metric is denoted as Simplicity BIBREF8   The three non-native fluent English speakers are shown reference sentences and output sentences  They are asked whether the output sentence is much simpler (+2), somewhat simpler (+1), equally (0), somewhat more difficult (-1), and much more difficult (-2) than the reference sentence 
Methods  We use OpenNMT BIBREF24 as the implementation of the NMT system for all experiments BIBREF5   We generally follow the default settings and training procedure described by Klein et al (2017)  We replace out-of-vocabulary words with a special UNK symbol  At prediction time, we replace UNK words with the highest probability score from the attention layer  OpenNMT system used on parallel data is the baseline system  To obtain a synthetic parallel training set, we back-translate a random sample of 100K sentences from the collected simplified corpora  OpenNMT used on parallel data and synthetic data is our model  The benchmarks are run on a Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU@3 50GHz, 32GB Mem, trained on 1 GPU GeForce GTX 1080 (Pascal) with CUDA v  8 0 
We choose three statistical text simplification systems  PBMT-R is a phrase-based method with a reranking post-processing step BIBREF18   Hybrid performs sentence splitting and deletion operations based on discourse representation structures, and then simplifies sentences with PBMT-R BIBREF25   SBMT-SARI BIBREF19 is syntax-based translation model using PPDB paraphrase database BIBREF26 and modifies tuning function (using SARI)  We choose two neural text simplification systems  NMT is a basic attention-based encoder-decoder model which uses OpenNMT framework to train with two LSTM layers, hidden states of size 500 and 500 hidden units, SGD optimizer, and a dropout rate of 0 3 BIBREF8   Dress is an encoder-decoder model coupled with a deep reinforcement learning framework, and the parameters are chosen according to the original paper BIBREF20   For the experiments with synthetic parallel data, we back-translate a random sample of 60 000 sentences from the collected simplified sentences into ordinary sentences  Our model is trained on synthetic data and the available parallel data, denoted as NMT+synthetic 
Results  Table 1 shows the results of all models on WikiLarge dataset  We can see that our method (NMT+synthetic) can obtain higher BLEU, lower FKGL and high SARI compared with other models, except Dress on FKGL and SBMT-SARI on SARI  It verified that including synthetic data during training is very effective, and yields an improvement over our baseline NMF by 2 11 BLEU, 1 7 FKGL and 1 07 SARI  We also substantially outperform Dress, who previously reported SOTA result  The results of our human evaluation using Simplicity are also presented in Table 1  NMT on synthetic data is significantly better than PBMT-R, Dress, and SBMT-SARI on Simplicity  It indicates that our method with simplified data is effective at creating simpler output 
Results on WikiSmall dataset are shown in Table 2  We see substantial improvements (6 37 BLEU) than NMT from adding simplified training data with synthetic ordinary sentences  Compared with statistical machine translation models (PBMT-R, Hybrid, SBMT-SARI), our method (NMT+synthetic) still have better results, but slightly worse FKGL and SARI  Similar to the results in WikiLarge, the results of our human evaluation using Simplicity outperforms the other models  In conclusion, Our method produces better results comparing with the baselines, which demonstrates the effectiveness of adding simplified training data 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose one simple method to use simplified corpora during training of NMT systems, with no changes to the network architecture  In the experiments on two datasets, we achieve substantial gains in all tasks, and new SOTA results, via back-translation of simplified sentences into the ordinary sentences, and treating this synthetic data as additional training data  Because we do not change the neural network architecture to integrate simplified corpora, our method can be easily applied to other Neural Text Simplification (NTS) systems  We expect that the effectiveness of our method not only varies with the quality of the NTS system used for back-translation, but also depends on the amount of available parallel and simplified corpora  In the paper, we have only utilized data from Wikipedia for simplified sentences  In the future, many other text sources are available and the impact of not only size, but also of domain should be investigated 
Context 2: Introduction
Microblogging such as Twitter and Weibo is a popular social networking service, which allows users to post messages up to 140 characters  There are millions of active users on the platform who stay connected with friends  Unfortunately, spammers also use it as a tool to post malicious links, send unsolicited messages to legitimate users, etc  A certain amount of spammers could sway the public opinion and cause distrust of the social platform  Despite the use of rigid anti-spam rules, human-like spammers whose homepages having photos, detailed profiles etc  have emerged  Unlike previous "simple" spammers, whose tweets contain only malicious links, those "smart" spammers are more difficult to distinguish from legitimate users via content-based features alone BIBREF0  
There is a considerable amount of previous work on spammer detection on social platforms  Researcher from Twitter Inc  BIBREF1 collect bot accounts and perform analysis on the user behavior and user profile features  Lee et al  lee2011seven use the so-called social honeypot by alluring social spammers' retweet to build a benchmark dataset, which has been extensively explored in our paper  Some researchers focus on the clustering of urls in tweets and network graph of social spammers BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , showing the power of social relationship features As for content information modeling, BIBREF6 apply improved sparse learning methods  However, few studies have adopted topic-based features  Some researchers BIBREF7 discuss topic characteristics of spamming posts, indicating that spammers are highly likely to dwell on some certain topics such as promotion  But this may not be applicable to the current scenario of smart spammers 
In this paper, we propose an efficient feature extraction method  In this method, two new topic-based features are extracted and used to discriminate human-like spammers from legitimate users  We consider the historical tweets of each user as a document and use the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model to compute the topic distribution for each user  Based on the calculated topic probability, two topic-based features, the Local Outlier Standard Score (LOSS) which captures the user's interests on different topics and the Global Outlier Standard Score (GOSS) which reveals the user's interests on specific topic in comparison with other users', are extracted  The two features contain both local and global information, and the combination of them can distinguish human-like spammers effectively 
To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that features based on topic distributions are used in spammer classification  Experimental results on one public dataset and one self-collected dataset further validate that the two sets of extracted topic-based features get excellent performance on human-like spammer classification problem compared with other state-of-the-art methods  In addition, we build a Weibo dataset, which contains both legitimate users and spammers 
To summarize, our major contributions are two-fold:
In the following sections, we first propose the topic-based features extraction method in Section 2, and then introduce the two datasets in Section 3  Experimental results are discussed in Section 4, and we conclude the paper in Section 5  Future work is presented in Section 6 
Methodology
In this section, we first provide some observations we obtained after carefully exploring the social network, then the LDA model is introduced  Based on the LDA model, the ways to obtain the topic probability vector for each user and the two topic-based features are provided 
Observation
After exploring the homepages of a substantial number of spammers, we have two observations  1) social spammers can be divided into two categories  One is content polluters, and their tweets are all about certain kinds of advertisement and campaign  The other is fake accounts, and their tweets resemble legitimate users' but it seems they are simply random copies of others to avoid being detected by anti-spam rules  2) For legitimate users, content polluters and fake accounts, they show different patterns on topics which interest them 
Legitimate users mainly focus on limited topics which interest him  They seldom post contents unrelated to their concern 
Content polluters concentrate on certain topics 
Fake accounts focus on a wide range of topics due to random copying and retweeting of other users' tweets 
Spammers and legitimate users show different interests on some topics e g  commercial, weather, etc 
To better illustrate our observation, Figure  1 shows the topic distribution of spammers and legitimate users in two employed datasets(the Honeypot dataset and Weibo dataset)  We can see that on both topics (topic-3 and topic-11) there exists obvious difference between the red bars and green bars, representing spammers and legitimate users  On the Honeypot dataset, spammers have a narrower shape of distribution (the outliers on the red bar tail are not counted) than that of legitimate users  This is because there are more content polluters than fake accounts  In other word, spammers in this dataset tend to concentrate on limited topics  While on the Weibo dataset, fake accounts who are interested in different topics take large proportion of spammers  Their distribution is more flat (i e  red bars) than that of the legitimate users  Therefore we can detect spammers by means of the difference of their topic distribution patterns 
LDA model
Blei et al blei2003latent first presented Latent Dirichlet Allocation(LDA) as an example of topic model 
Each document $i$ is deemed as a bag of words $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $ and $M$ is the number of words  Each word is attributable to one of the document's topics $Z=\left\lbrace  z_{i1},z_{i2},   ,z_{iK}\right\rbrace $ and $K$ is the number of topics  $\psi _{k}$ is a multinomial distribution over words for topic $k$   $\theta _i$ is another multinomial distribution over topics for document $i$   The smoothed generative model is illustrated in Figure  2   $\alpha $ and $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $0 are hyper parameter that affect scarcity of the document-topic and topic-word distributions  In this paper, $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $1 , $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $2 and $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $3 are empirically set to 0 3, 0 01 and 15  The entire content of each Twitter user is regarded as one document  We adopt Gibbs Sampling BIBREF8 to speed up the inference of LDA  Based on LDA, we can get the topic probabilities for all users in the employed dataset as: $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},  
Context 3: Introduction
Recently, deep neural network has been widely employed in various recognition tasks  Increasing the depth of neural network is a effective way to improve the performance, and convolutional neural network (CNN) has benefited from it in visual recognition task BIBREF0   Deeper long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are also applied in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition (LVCSR) task, because LSTM networks have shown better performance than Fully-connected feed-forward deep neural network BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4  
Training neural network becomes more challenge when it goes deep  A conceptual tool called linear classifier probe is introduced to better understand the dynamics inside a neural network BIBREF5   The discriminating features of linear classifier is the hidden units of a intermediate layer  For deep neural networks, it is observed that deeper layer's accuracy is lower than that of shallower layers  Therefore, the tool shows the difficulty of deep neural model training visually 
Layer-wise pre-training is a successful method to train very deep neural networks BIBREF6   The convergence becomes harder with increasing the number of layers, even though the model is initialized with Xavier or its variants BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   But the deeper network which is initialized with a shallower trained network could converge well 
The size of LVCSR training dataset goes larger and training with only one GPU becomes high time consumption inevitably  Therefore, parallel training with multi-GPUs is more suitable for LVCSR system  Mini-batch based stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is the most popular method in neural network training procedure  Asynchronous SGD is a successful effort for parallel training based on it BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   It can many times speed up the training time without decreasing the accuracy  Besides, synchronous SGD is another effective effort, where the parameter server waits for every works to finish their computation and sent their local models to it, and then it sends updated model back to all workers BIBREF11   Synchronous SGD converges well in parallel training with data parallelism, and is also easy to implement 
In order to further improve the performance of deep neural network with parallel training, several methods are proposed  Model averaging method achieves linear speedup, as the final model is averaged from all parameters of local models in different workers BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 , but the accuracy decreases compared with single GPU training  Moreover, blockwise model-updating filter (BMUF) provides another almost linear speedup approach with multi-GPUs on the basis of model averaging  It can achieve improvement or no-degradation of recognition performance compared with mini-batch SGD on single GPU BIBREF14  
Moving averaged (MA) approaches are also proposed for parallel training  It is demonstrated that the moving average of the parameters obtained by SGD performs as well as the parameters that minimize the empirical cost, and moving average parameters can be used as the estimator of them, if the size of training data is large enough BIBREF15   One pass learning is then proposed, which is the combination of learning rate schedule and averaged SGD using moving average BIBREF16   Exponential moving average (EMA) is proposed as a non-interference method BIBREF17   EMA model is not broadcasted to workers to update their local models, and it is applied as the final model of entire training process  EMA method is utilized with model averaging and BMUF to further decrease the character error rate (CER)  It is also easy to implement in existing parallel training systems 
Frame stacking can also speed up the training time BIBREF18   The super frame is stacked by several regular frames, and it contains the information of them  Thus, the network can see multiple frames at a time, as the super frame is new input  Frame stacking can also lead to faster decoding 
For streaming voice search service, it needs to display intermediate recognition results while users are still speaking  As a result, the system needs to fulfill high real-time requirement, and we prefer unidirectional LSTM network rather than bidirectional one  High real-time requirement means low real time factor (RTF), but the RTF of deep LSTM model is higher inevitably  The dilemma of recognition accuracy and real-time requirement is an obstacle to the employment of deep LSTM network  Deep model outperforms because it contains more knowledge, but it is also cumbersome  As a result, the knowledge of deep model can be distilled to a shallow model BIBREF19   It provided a effective way to employ the deep model to the real-time system 
In this paper, we explore a entire deep LSTM RNN training framework, and employ it to real-time application  The deep learning systems benefit highly from a large quantity of labeled training data  Our first and basic speech recognition system is trained on 17000 hours of Shenma voice search dataset  It is a generic dataset sampled from diverse aspects of search queries  The requirement of speech recognition system also addressed by specific scenario, such as map and navigation task  The labeled dataset is too expensive, and training a new model with new large dataset from the beginning costs lots of time  Thus, it is natural to think of transferring the knowledge from basic model to new scenario's model  Transfer learning expends less data and less training time than full training  In this paper, we also introduce a novel transfer learning strategy with segmental Minimum Bayes-Risk (sMBR)  As a result, transfer training with only 1000 hours data can match equivalent performance for full training with 7300 hours data 
Our deep LSTM training framework for LVCSR is presented in Section 2  Section 3 describes how the very deep models does apply in real world applications, and how to transfer the model to another task  The framework is analyzed and discussed in Section 4, and followed by the conclusion in Section 5 
Layer-wise Training with Soft Target and Hard Target
Gradient-based optimization of deep LSTM network with random initialization get stuck in poor solution easily  Xavier initialization can partially solve this problem BIBREF7 , so this method is the regular initialization method of all training procedure  However, it does not work well when it is utilized to initialize very deep model directly, because of vanishing or exploding gradients  Instead, layer-wise pre-training method is a effective way to train the weights of very deep architecture BIBREF6 , BIBREF20   In layer-wise pre-training procedure, a one-layer LSTM model is firstly trained with normalized initialization  Sequentially, two-layers LSTM model's first layer is initialized by trained one-layer model, and its second layer is regularly initialized  In this way, a deep architecture is layer-by-layer trained, and it can converge well 
In conventional layer-wise pre-training, only parameters of shallower network are transfered to deeper one, and the learning targets are still the alignments generated by HMM-GMM system  The targets are vectors that only one state's probability is one, and the others' are zeros  They are known as hard targets, and they carry limited knowledge as only one state is active  In contrast, the knowledge of shallower network should be also transfered to deeper one  It is obtained by the softmax layer of existing model typically, so each state has a probability rather than only zero or one, and called as soft target  As a result, the deeper network which is student network learns the parameters and knowledge from shallower one which is called teacher network  When training the student network from the teacher network, the final alignment is the combination of hard target and soft target in our layer-wise training phase  The final alignment provides various knowledge which transfered from teacher network and extracted from true labels  If only soft target is learned, student network perform no better than teacher network, but it could outperform teacher network as it also learns true labels 
The deeper network spends less time to getting the same level of original network than the network trained from the beginning, as a period of low performance is skipped  Therefore, training with hard and soft target is a time saving method  For large training dataset, training with the whole dataset still spends too much time  A network firstly trained with only a small part of dataset could go deeper as well, and so the training time reducing rapidly  When the network is deep enough, it then trained on the entire dataset to get further improvement  There is no gap of accuracy between these two approaches, but latter one saves much time 
Differential Saturation Check
The objects of conventional saturation check are gradients and the cell activations BIBREF4   Gradients are clipped to range [-5, 5], while the cell activations clipped to range [-50, 50]  Apart from them, the differentials of recurrent layers is also limited  If the differentials go beyond the range, corresponding back propagation is skipped, while if the gradients and cell activations go beyond the bound, values are set as the boundary values  The differentials which are too large or too small will lead to the gradients easily vanishing, and it demonstrates the failure of this propagation  As a result, the parameters are not updated, and next propagation  
Sequence Discriminative Training
Cross-entropy (CE) is widely used in speech recognition training system as a frame-wise discriminative training criterion  However, it is not well suited to speech recognition, because speech recognition training is a sequential learning problem  In contrast, sequence discriminative training criterion has shown to further improve performance of neural network first trained with cross-entropy BIBREF21 , BIBREF22 , BIBREF23   We choose state-level minimum bayes risk (sMBR) BIBREF21 among a number of sequence discriminative criterion is proposed, such as maximum mutual information (MMI) BIBREF24 and minimum phone error (MPE) BIBREF25   MPE and sMBR are designed to minimize the expected error of different granularity of labels, while CE aims to minimizes expected frame error, and MMI aims to minimizes expected sentence error  State-level information is focused on by sMBR 
a frame-level accurate model is firstly trained by CE loss function, and then sMBR loss function is utilized for further training to get sequence-level accuracy  Only a part of training dataset is needed in sMBR training phase on the basis of whole dataset CE training 
Parallel Training
It is demonstrated that training with larger dataset can improve recognition accuracy  However, larger dataset means more training samples and more model parameters  Therefore, parallel training with multiple GPUs is essential, and it makes use of data parallelism BIBREF9   The entire training data is partitioned into several split without overlapping and they are distributed to different GPUs  Each GPU trains with one split of training dataset locally  All GPUs synchronize their local models with model average method after a mini-batch optimization BIBREF12 , BIBREF13  
Model average method achieves linear speedup in training phase, but the recognition accuracy decreases compared with single GPU training  Block-wise model updating filter (BMUF) is another successful effort in parallel training with linear speedup as well  It can achieve no-degradation of recognition accuracy with multi-GPUs BIBREF14   In the model average method, aggregated model INLINEFORM0 is computed and broadcasted to GPUs  On the basis of it, BMUF proposed a novel model updating strategy: INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2
Where INLINEFORM0 denotes model update, and INLINEFORM1 is the global-model update  There are two parameters in BMUF, block momentum INLINEFORM2 , and block learning rate INLINEFORM3   Then, the global model is updated as INLINEFORM4
Consequently, INLINEFORM0 is broadcasted to all GPUs to initial their local models, instead of INLINEFORM1 in model average method 
Averaged SGD is proposed to further accelerate the convergence speed of SGD  Averaged SGD leverages the moving average (MA) INLINEFORM0 as the estimator of INLINEFORM1 BIBREF15 : INLINEFORM2
Where INLINEFORM0 is computed by model averaging or BMUF  It is shown that INLINEFORM1 can well converge to INLINEFORM2 , with the large enough training dataset in single GPU training  It can be considered as a non-interference strategy that INLINEFORM3 does not participate the main optimization process, and only takes effect after the end of entire optimization  However, for the parallel training implementation, each INLINEFORM4 is computed by model averaging and BMUF with multiple models, and moving average model INLINEFORM5 does not well converge, compared with single GPU training 
Model averaging based methods are employed in parallel training of large scale dataset, because of their faster convergence, and especially no-degradation implementation of BMUF  But combination of model averaged based methods and moving average does not match the expectation of further enhance performance and it is presented as INLINEFORM0
The weight of each INLINEFORM0 is equal in moving average method regardless the effect of temporal order  But INLINEFORM1 closer to the end of training achieve higher accuracy in the model averaging based approach, and thus it should be with more proportion in final INLINEFORM2   As a result, exponential moving average(EMA) is appropriate, which the weight for each older parameters decrease exponentially, and never reaching zero  After moving average based methods, the EMA parameters are updated recursively as INLINEFORM3
Here INLINEFORM0 represents the degree of weight decrease, and called exponential updating rate  EMA is also a non-interference training strategy that is implemented easily, as the updated model is not broadcasted  Therefore, there is no need to add extra learning rate updating approach, as it can be appended to existing training procedure directly

ground_truth: training set has 89,042 sentence pairs, and the test set has 100 pairs, training set contains 296,402, 2,000 for development and 359 for testing

WikiSmall  89 142 sentence pair and  WikiLarge 298 761 sentence pairs. 

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 is the benchmark dataset and is its quality high?
Context 2: ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $4 , where $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $5 is the number of users  Each element $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $6 is a topic probability vector for the $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $7 document  $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $8 is the raw topic probability vector and our features are developed on top of it 
Topic-based Features
Using the LDA model, each person in the dataset is with a topic probability vector $X_i$   Assume $x_{ik}\in X_{i}$ denotes the likelihood that the $\emph {i}^{th}$ tweet account favors $\emph {k}^{th}$ topic in the dataset  Our topic based features can be calculated as below 
Global Outlier Standard Score measures the degree that a user's tweet content is related to a certain topic compared to the other users  Specifically, the "GOSS" score of user $i$ on topic $k$ can be calculated as Eq ( 12 ):
$$\centering \begin{array}{ll} \mu \left(x_{k}\right)=\frac{\sum _{i=1}^{n} x_{ik}}{n},\\ GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)=\frac{x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_k\right)}{\sqrt{\underset{i}{\sum }\left(x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_{k}\right)\right)^{2}}}  \end{array}$$   (Eq  12)
The value of $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ indicates the interesting degree of this person to the $\emph {k}^{th}$ topic  Specifically, if $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ > $GOSS\left(x_{jk}\right)$ , it means that the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person has more interest in topic $k$ than the $\emph {j}^{th}$ person  If the value $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ is extremely high or low, the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person showing extreme interest or no interest on topic $k$ which will probably be a distinctive pattern in the fowllowing classfication  Therefore, the topics interested or disliked by the $\emph {k}^{th}$0 person can be manifested by $\emph {k}^{th}$1 , from which the pattern of the interested topics with regarding to this person is found  Denote $\emph {k}^{th}$2 our first topic-based feature, and it hopefully can get good performance on spammer detection 
Local Outlier Standard Score measures the degree of interest someone shows to a certain topic by considering his own homepage content only  For instance, the "LOSS" score of account $i$ on topic $k$ can be calculated as Eq ( 13 ):
$$\centering \begin{array}{ll} \mu \left(x_{i}\right)=\frac{\sum _{k=1}^{K} x_{ik}}{K},\\ LOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)=\frac{x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_i\right)}{\sqrt{\underset{k}{\sum }\left(x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_{i}\right)\right)^{2}}}  \end{array}$$   (Eq  13)
$\mu (x_i)$ represents the averaged interesting degree for all topics with regarding to $\emph {i}^{th}$ user and his tweet content  Similarly to $GOSS$ , the topics interested or disliked by the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person via considering his single post information can be manifested by $f_{LOSS}^{i}=[LOSS(x_{i1})\cdots LOSS(x_{iK})]$ , and $LOSS$ becomes our second topic-based features for the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person 
Dataset
We use one public dataset Social Honeypot dataset and one self-collected dataset Weibo dataset to validate the effectiveness of our proposed features 
Social Honeypot Dataset: Lee et al  lee2010devils created and deployed 60 seed social accounts on Twitter to attract spammers by reporting back what accounts interact with them  They collected 19,276 legitimate users and 22,223 spammers in their datasets along with their tweet content in 7 months  This is our first test dataset 
Our Weibo Dataset: Sina Weibo is one of the most famous social platforms in China  It has implemented many features from Twitter  The 2197 legitimate user accounts in this dataset are provided by the Tianchi Competition held by Sina Weibo  The spammers are all purchased commercially from multiple vendors on the Internet  We checked them manually and collected 802 suitable "smart" spammers accounts 
Preprocessing: Before directly performing the experiments on the employed datasets, we first delete some accounts with few posts in the two employed since the number of tweets is highly indicative of spammers  For the English Honeypot dataset, we remove stopwords, punctuations, non-ASCII words and apply stemming  For the Chinese Weibo dataset, we perform segmentation with "Jieba", a Chinese text segmentation tool  After preprocessing steps, the Weibo dataset contains 2197 legitimate users and 802 spammers, and the honeypot dataset contains 2218 legitimate users and 2947 spammers  It is worth mentioning that the Honeypot dataset has been slashed because most of the Twitter accounts only have limited number of posts, which are not enough to show their interest inclination 
Evaluation Metrics
The evaluating indicators in our model are show in 2   We calculate precision, recall and F1-score (i e  F1 score) as in Eq  ( 19 )  Precision is the ratio of selected accounts that are spammers  Recall is the ratio of spammers that are detected so  F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall 
$$precision =\frac{TP}{TP+FP}, recall =\frac{TP}{TP+FN}\nonumber \\ F1-score = \frac{2\times precision \times recall}{precision + recall}$$   (Eq  19)
Performance Comparisons with Baseline
Three baseline classification methods: Support Vector Machines (SVM), Adaboost, and Random Forests are adopted to evaluate our extracted features  We test each classification algorithm with scikit-learn BIBREF9 and run a 10-fold cross validation  On each dataset, the employed classifiers are trained with individual feature first, and then with the combination of the two features  From 1 , we can see that GOSS+LOSS achieves the best performance on F1-score among all others  Besides, the classification by combination of LOSS and GOSS can increase accuracy by more than 3% compared with raw topic distribution probability 
Comparison with Other Features
To compare our extracted features with previously used features for spammer detection, we use three most discriminative feature sets according to Lee et al  lee2011seven( 4 )  Two classifiers (Adaboost and SVM) are selected to conduct feature performance comparisons  Using Adaboost, our LOSS+GOSS features outperform all other features except for UFN which is 2% higher than ours with regard to precision on the Honeypot dataset  It is caused by the incorrectly classified spammers who are mostly news source after our manual check  They keep posting all kinds of news pieces covering diverse topics, which is similar to the behavior of fake accounts  However, UFN based on friendship networks is more useful for public accounts who possess large number of followers  The best recall value of our LOSS+GOSS features using SVM is up to 6% higher than the results by other feature groups  Regarding F1-score, our features outperform all other features  To further show the advantages of our proposed features, we compare our combined LOSS+GOSS with the combination of all the features from Lee et al  lee2011seven (UFN+UC+UH)  It's obvious that LOSS+GOSS have a great advantage over UFN+UC+UH in terms of recall and F1-score  Moreover, by combining our LOSS+GOSS features and UFN+UC+UH features together, we obtained another 7 1% and 2 3% performance gain with regard to precision and F1-score by Adaboost  Though there is a slight decline in terms of recall  By SVM, we get comparative results on recall and F1-score but about 3 5% improvement on precision 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a novel feature extraction method to effectively detect "smart" spammers who post seemingly legitimate tweets and are thus difficult to identify by existing spammer classification methods  Using the LDA model, we obtain the topic probability for each Twitter user  By utilizing the topic probability result, we extract our two topic-based features: GOSS and LOSS which represent the account with global and local information  Experimental results on a public dataset and a self-built Chinese microblog dataset validate the effectiveness of the proposed features 
Future Work
In future work, the combination method of local and global information can be further improved to maximize their individual strengths  We will also apply decision theory to enhancing the performance of our proposed features  Moreover, we are also building larger datasets on both Twitter and Weibo to validate our method  Moreover, larger datasets on both Twitter and Weibo will be built to further validate our method 
Context 3: 
Deployment
There is a high real time requirement in real world application, especially in online voice search system  Shenma voice search is one of the most popular mobile search engines in China, and it is a streaming service that intermediate recognition results displayed while users are still speaking  Unidirectional LSTM network is applied, rather than bidirectional one, because it is well suited to real-time streaming speech recognition 
Distillation
It is demonstrated that deep neural network architecture can achieve improvement in LVCSR  However, it also leads to much more computation and higher RTF, so that the recognition result can not be displayed in real time  It should be noted that deeper neural network contains more knowledge, but it is also cumbersome  the knowledge is key to improve the performance  If it can be transfered from cumbersome model to a small model, the recognition ability can also be transfered to the small model  Knowledge transferring to small model is called distillation BIBREF19   The small model can perform as well as cumbersome model, after distilling  It provide a way to utilize high-performance but high RTF model in real time system  The class probability produced by the cumbersome model is regarded as soft target, and the generalization ability of cumbersome model is transfered to small model with it  Distillation is model's knowledge transferring approach, so there is no need to use the hard target, which is different with the layer-wise training method 
9-layers unidirectional LSTM model achieves outstanding performance, but meanwhile it is too computationally expensive to allow deployment in real time recognition system  In order to ensure real-time of the system, the number of layers needs to be reduced  The shallower network can learn the knowledge of deeper network with distillation  It is found that RTF of 2-layers network is acceptable, so the knowledge is distilled from 9-layers well-trained model to 2-layers model  Table TABREF16 shows that distillation from 9-layers to 2-layers brings RTF decrease of relative 53%, while CER only increases 5%  The knowledge of deep network is almost transfered with distillation, Distillation brings promising RTF reduction, but only little knowledge of deep network is lost  Moreover, CER of 2-layers distilled LSTM decreases relative 14%, compared with 2-layers regular-trained LSTM 
Transfer Learning with sMBR
For a certain specific scenario, the model trained with the data recorded from it has better adaptation than the model trained with generic scenario  But it spends too much time training a model from the beginning, if there is a well-trained model for generic scenarios  Moreover, labeling a large quantity of training data in new scenario is both costly and time consuming  If a model transfer trained with smaller dataset can obtained the similar recognition accuracy compared with the model directly trained with larger dataset, it is no doubt that transfer learning is more practical  Since specific scenario is a subset of generic scenario, some knowledge can be shared between them  Besides, generic scenario consists of various conditions, so its model has greater robustness  As a result, not only shared knowledge but also robustness can be transfered from the model of generic scenario to the model of specific one 
As the model well trained from generic scenario achieves good performance in frame level classification, sequence discriminative training is required to adapt new model to specific scenario additionally  Moreover, it does not need alignment from HMM-GMM system, and it also saves amount of time to prepare alignment 
Training Data
A large quantity of labeled data is needed for training a more accurate acoustic model  We collect the 17000 hours labeled data from Shenma voice search, which is one of the most popular mobile search engines in China  The dataset is created from anonymous online users' search queries in Mandarin, and all audio file's sampling rate is 16kHz, recorded by mobile phones  This dataset consists of many different conditions, such as diverse noise even low signal-to-noise, babble, dialects, accents, hesitation and so on 
In the Amap, which is one of the most popular web mapping and navigation services in China, users can search locations and navigate to locations they want though voice search  To present the performance of transfer learning with sequence discriminative training, the model trained from Shenma voice search which is greneric scenario transfer its knowledge to the model of Amap voice search  7300 hours labeled data is collected in the similar way of Shenma voice search data collection 
Two dataset is divided into training set, validation set and test set separately, and the quantity of them is shown in Table TABREF10   The three sets are split according to speakers, in order to avoid utterances of same speaker appearing in three sets simultaneously  The test sets of Shenma and Amap voice search are called Shenma Test and Amap Test 
Experimental setup
LSTM RNNs outperform conventional RNNs for speech recognition system, especially deep LSTM RNNs, because of its long-range dependencies more accurately for temporal sequence conditions BIBREF26 , BIBREF23   Shenma and Amap voice search is a streaming service that intermediate recognition results displayed while users are still speaking  So as for online recognition in real time, we prefer unidirectional LSTM model rather than bidirectional one  Thus, the training system is unidirectional LSTM-based 
A 26-dimensional filter bank and 2-dimensional pitch feature is extracted for each frame, and is concatenated with first and second order difference as the final input of the network  The super frame are stacked by 3 frames without overlapping  The architecture we trained consists of two LSTM layers with sigmoid activation function, followed by a full-connection layer  The out layer is a softmax layer with 11088 hidden markov model (HMM) tied-states as output classes, the loss function is cross-entropy (CE)  The performance metric of the system in Mandarin is reported with character error rate (CER)  The alignment of frame-level ground truth is obtained by GMM-HMM system  Mini-batched SGD is utilized with momentum trick and the network is trained for a total of 4 epochs  The block learning rate and block momentum of BMUF are set as 1 and 0 9  5-gram language model is leveraged in decoder, and the vocabulary size is as large as 760000  Differentials of recurrent layers is limited to range [-10000,10000], while gradients are clipped to range [-5, 5] and cell activations clipped to range [-50, 50]  After training with CE loss, sMBR loss is employed to further improve the performance 
It has shown that BMUF outperforms traditional model averaging method, and it is utilized at the synchronization phase  After synchronizing with BMUF, EMA method further updates the model in non-interference way  The training system is deployed on the MPI-based HPC cluster where 8 GPUs  Each GPU processes non-overlap subset split from the entire large scale dataset in parallel 
Local models from distributed workers synchronize with each other in decentralized way  In the traditional model averaging and BMUF method, a parameter server waits for all workers to send their local models, aggregate them, and send the updated model to all workers  Computing resource of workers is wasted until aggregation of the parameter server done  Decentralized method makes full use of computing resource, and we employ the MPI-based Mesh AllReduce method  It is mesh topology as shown in Figure FIGREF12   There is no centralized parameter server, and peer to peer communication is used to transmit local models between workers  Local model INLINEFORM0 of INLINEFORM1 -th worker in INLINEFORM2 workers cluster is split to INLINEFORM3 pieces INLINEFORM4 , and send to corresponding worker  In the aggregation phase, INLINEFORM5 -th worker computed INLINEFORM6 splits of model INLINEFORM7 and send updated model INLINEFORM8 back to workers  As a result, all workers participate in aggregation and no computing resource is dissipated  It is significant to promote training efficiency, when the size of neural network model is too large  The EMA model is also updated additionally, but not broadcasting it 
Results
In order to evaluate our system, several sets of experiments are performed  The Shenma test set including about 9000 samples and Amap test set including about 7000 samples contain various real world conditions  It simulates the majority of user scenarios, and can well evaluates the performance of a trained model  Firstly, we show the results of models trained with EMA method  Secondly, for real world applications, very deep LSTM is distilled to a shallow one, so as for lower RTF  The model of Amap is also needed to train for map and navigation scenarios  The performance of transfer learning from Shenma voice search to Amap voice search is also presented 
Layer-wise Training
In layer-wise training, the deeper model learns both parameters and knowledge from the shallower model  The deeper model is initialized by the shallower one, and its alignment is the combination of hard target and soft target of shallower one  Two targets have the same weights in our framework  The teacher model is trained with CE  For each layer-wise trained CE model, corresponding sMBR model is also trained, as sMBR could achieve additional improvement  In our framework, 1000 hours data is randomly selected from the total dataset for sMBR training  There is no obvious performance enhancement when the size of sMBR training dataset increases 
For very deep unidirectional LSTM initialized with Xavier initialization algorithm, 6-layers model converges well, but there is no further improvement with increasing the number of layers  Therefore, the first 6 layers of 7-layers model is initialized by 6-layers model, and soft target is provided by 6-layers model  Consequently, deeper LSTM is also trained in the same way  It should be noticed that the teacher model of 9-layers model is the 8-layers model trained by sMBR, while the other teacher model is CE model  As shown in Table TABREF15 , the layer-wise trained models always performs better than the models with Xavier initialization, as the model is deep  Therefore, for the last layer training, we choose 8-layers sMBR model as the teacher model instead of CE model  A comparison between 6-layers and 9-layers sMBR models shows that 3 additional layers of layer-wise training brings relative 12 6% decreasing of CER  It is also significant that the averaged CER of sMBR models with different layers decreases absolute 0 73% approximately compared with CE models, so the improvement of sequence discriminative learning is promising 
Transfer Learning
2-layers distilled model of Shenma voice search has shown a impressive performance on Shenma Test, and we call it Shenma model  It is trained for generic search scenario, but it has less adaptation for specific scenario like Amap voice search  Training with very large dataset using CE loss is regarded as improvement of frame level recognition accuracy, and sMBR with less dataset further improves accuracy as sequence discriminative training  If robust model of generic scenario is trained, there is no need to train a model with very large dataset, and sequence discriminative training with less dataset is enough  Therefore, on the basis of Shenma model, it is sufficient to train a new Amap model with small dataset using sMBR  As shown in Table TABREF18 , Shenma model presents the worst performance among three methods, since it does not trained for Amap scenario  2-layers Shenma model further trained with sMBR achieves about 8 1% relative reduction, compared with 2-layers regular-trained Amap model  Both training sMBR datasets contain the same 1000 hours data  As a result, with the Shenma model, only about 14% data usage achieves lower CER, and it leads to great time and cost saving with less labeled data  Besides, transfer learning with sMBR does not use the alignment from the HMM-GMM system, so it also saves huge amount of time 
Conclusion
We have presented a whole deep unidirectional LSTM parallel training system for LVCSR  The recognition performance improves when the network goes deep  Distillation makes it possible that deep LSTM model transfer its knowledge to shallow model with little loss  The model could be distilled to 2-layers model with very low RTF, so that it can display the immediate recognition results  As a result, its CER decrease relatively 14%, compared with the 2-layers regular trained model  In addition, transfer learning with sMBR is also proposed  If a great model has well trained from generic scenario, only 14% of the size of training dataset is needed to train a more accuracy acoustic model for specific scenario  Our future work includes 1) finding more effective methods to reduce the CER by increasing the number of layers; 2) applying this training framework to Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) and attention-based neural networks 

ground_truth: Social Honeypot dataset (public) and Weibo dataset (self-collected); yes

Social Honeypot, which is not of high quality

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 lstm models did they compare with?
Context 4:  COCO and EMNLP2017 WMT are the common benchmarks with no input to evaluate the performance of discrete GANs, and we followed the existing works to preprocess these datasets BIBREF12 , BIBREF11   WeiboDial, as a dialogue dataset, was applied to test the performance of our model with input trigger  We simply removed post-response pairs containing low-frequency words and randomly selected a subset for our training/test set  The statistics of three datasets are presented in Table TABREF28  
Baselines
We compared our model with MLE, RL and GAN baselines  Since COCO and EMNLP2017 WMT don't have input while WeiboDial regards posts as input, we chose the following baselines respectively:
MLE: a RNN model trained with MLE objective BIBREF4   Its extension, Seq2Seq, can work on the dialogue dataset BIBREF2  
SeqGAN: The first text GAN model that updates the generator with policy gradient based on the rewards from the discriminator BIBREF7  
LeakGAN: A variant of SeqGAN that provides rewards based on the leaked information of the discriminator for the generator BIBREF11  
MaliGAN: A variant of SeqGAN that optimizes the generator with a normalized maximum likelihood objective BIBREF8  
IRL: This inverse reinforcement learning method replaces the discriminator with a reward approximator to provide dense rewards BIBREF12  
RAML: A RL approach to incorporate MLE objective into RL training framework, which regards BLEU as rewards BIBREF17  
DialogGAN: An extension of SeqGAN tuned to dialogue generation task with MLE objective added to the adversarial objective BIBREF16  
DPGAN: A variant of DialogGAN which uses a language model based discriminator and regards cross-entropy as rewards BIBREF13  
Note that MLE, SeqGAN, LeakGAN, MaliGAN and IRL are the baselines on COCO and EMNLP2017 WMT, while MLE, RAML, DialogGAN, and DPGAN on WeiboDial  The original codes are used to test the baselines 
Implementation Details
The implementation details of our model are shown in Table TABREF31   For COCO / EMNLP2017, the generator is a LSTM unit BIBREF30 with 128 cells, and the discriminator is implemented based on BIBREF7   For WeiboDial, the generator is an encoder-decoder structure with attention mechanism, where both the encoder and the decoder consist of a two-layer GRU BIBREF31 with 128 cells  The discriminator is implemented based on BIBREF32   The language model used in the constrained sampling of ARAML is implemented in the same setting as the generators, and is pre-trained on the training set of each dataset  The codes and the datasets are available at https://github com/kepei1106/ARAML 
As for the details of the baselines, the generators of all the baselines except LeakGAN are the same as ours  Note that the generator of LeakGAN consists of a hierarchical LSTM unit, thus we followed the implementation in the original paper  In terms of the differences, the discriminators of GAN baselines are implemented based on the original papers  Other hyper-parameters of baselines including batch size, learning rate, and pre-training epochs, were set based on the original codes, because the convergence of baselines is sensitive to these hyper-parameters 
Language Generation on COCO and EMNLP2017 WMT
We adopted forward/reverse perplexity BIBREF33 and Self-BLEU BIBREF34 to evaluate the quality of generated texts  Forward perplexity (PPL-F) indicates the perplexity on the generated data provided by a language model trained on real data to measure the fluency of generated samples  Reverse perplexity (PPL-R) switches the roles of generated data and real data to reflect the discrepancy between the generated distribution and the data distribution  Self-BLEU (S-BLEU) regards each sentence in the generated collection as hypothesis and the others as reference to obtain BLEU scores, which evaluates the diversity of generated results 
Results are shown in Table TABREF33   LeakGAN performs best on forward perplexity because it can generate more fluent samples  As for reverse perplexity, our model ARAML beats other baselines, showing that our model can fit the data distribution better  Other GANs, particularly LeakGAN, obtain high reverse perplexity due to mode collapse BIBREF12 , thus they only capture limited fluent expressions, resulting in large discrepancy between the generated distribution and data distribution  ARAML also outperforms the baselines in terms of Self-BLEU, indicating that our model doesn't fall into mode collapse with the help of the MLE training objective and has the ability to generate more diverse sentences 
We also provide standard deviation of each metric in Table TABREF33 , reflecting the stability of each model's performance  Our model ARAML nearly achieves the smallest standard deviation in all the metrics, indicating that our framework outperforms policy gradient in the stability of adversarial training 
Dialogue Generation on WeiboDial
Dialogue evaluation is an open problem and existing works have found that automatic metrics have low correlation to human evaluation BIBREF35 , BIBREF36 , BIBREF37   Thus, we resorted to manual evaluation to assess the generation quality on WeiboDial  We randomly sampled 200 posts from the test set and collected the generated results from all the models  For each pair of responses (one from ARAML and the other from a baseline, given the same input post), five annotators were hired to label which response is better (i e  win, lose or tie) in terms of grammaticality (whether a response itself is grammatical and logical) and relevance (whether a response is appropriate and relevant to the post)  The two metrics were evaluated independently 
The evaluation results are shown in Table TABREF35   To measure the inter-annotator agreement, we calculated Fleiss' kappa BIBREF38 for each pair-wise comparison where results show moderate agreement ( INLINEFORM0 )  We also conducted sign test to check the significance of the differences 
As shown in Table TABREF35 , ARAML performs significantly better than other baselines in all the cases  This result indicates that the samples surrounding true responses provide stable rewards for the generator, and stable RAML training paradigm significantly enhances the performance in both metrics 
Further Analysis on Stability
To verify the training stability, we conducted experiments on COCO many times and chose the best 5 trials for SeqGAN, LeakGAN, IRL, MaliGAN and ARAML, respectively  Then, we presented the forward/reverse perplexity in the training process in Figure FIGREF38   We can see that our model with smaller standard deviation is more stable than other GAN baselines in both metrics  Although LeakGAN reaches the best forward perplexity, its standard deviation is extremely large and it performs badly in reverse perplexity, indicating that it generates limited expressions that are grammatical yet divergent from the data distribution 
Ablation Study
The temperature INLINEFORM0 controls the search space surrounding the real data as we analyze in Section UID13   To investigate its impact on the performance of our model, we fixed all the other hyper-parameters and test ARAML with different temperatures on COCO 
The experimental results are shown in Figure FIGREF41   We can see that as the temperature becomes larger, forward perplexity increases gradually while Self-BLEU decreases  As mentioned in Section UID13 , large temperatures encourage our generator to explore the samples that are distant from real data distribution, thus the diversity of generated results will be improved  However, these samples distant from the data distribution are more likely to be poor in fluency, leading to worse forward perplexity  Reverse perplexity is influenced by both generation quality and diversity, so the correlation between temperature and reverse perplexity is not intuitive  We can observe that the model with INLINEFORM0 reaches the best reverse perplexity 
We have mentioned two common sampling strategies in Section UID13 , i e  random sampling and constrained sampling  To analyze their impact, we keep all the model structures and hyper-parameters fixed and test ARAML with these two strategies on COCO 
Table TABREF45 shows the results  It's obvious that random sampling hurts the model performance except Self-BLEU-1, because it indeed allows low-quality samples available to the generator  Exploring these samples degrades the quality and diversity of generated results  Despite the worse performance on automatic metrics, random sampling doesn't affect the training stability of our framework  The standard deviation of ARAML-R is still smaller than other GAN baselines 
Case Study
Table TABREF47 presents the examples generated by the models on COCO  We can find that other baselines suffer from grammatical errors (e g  “in front of flying her kite" from MLE), repetitive expressions (e g  “A group of people" from IRL) and incoherent statements (e g  “A group of people sitting on a cell phone” from IRL)  By contrast, our model performs well in these sentences and has the ability to generate grammatical and coherent results 
Table TABREF48 shows the generated examples on WeiboDial  It's obvious that other baselines don't capture the topic word “late" in the post, thus generate irrelevant responses  ARAML can provide a response that is grammatical and closely relevant to the post 
Conclusion
We propose a novel adversarial training framework to deal with the instability problem of current GANs for text generation  To address the instability issue caused by policy gradient, we incorporate RAML into the advesarial training paradigm to make our generator acquire stable rewards  Experiments show that our model performs better than several state-of-the-art GAN baselines with lower training variance, yet producing better performance on three text generation tasks 
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No  61936010/61876096) and the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No  2018YFC0830200)  We would like to thank THUNUS NExT Joint-Lab for the support 

ground_truth: Unidirectional LSTM networks with 2, 6, 7, 8, and  9 layers.