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 type of evaluation is proposed for this task?
Context 1: Introduction
Multi-document summarization (MDS), the transformation of a set of documents into a short text containing their most important aspects, is a long-studied problem in NLP  Generated summaries have been shown to support humans dealing with large document collections in information seeking tasks BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   However, when exploring a set of documents manually, humans rarely write a fully-formulated summary for themselves  Instead, user studies BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 show that they note down important keywords and phrases, try to identify relationships between them and organize them accordingly  Therefore, we believe that the study of summarization with similarly structured outputs is an important extension of the traditional task 
A representation that is more in line with observed user behavior is a concept map BIBREF5 , a labeled graph showing concepts as nodes and relationships between them as edges (Figure FIGREF2 )  Introduced in 1972 as a teaching tool BIBREF6 , concept maps have found many applications in education BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , for writing assistance BIBREF9 or to structure information repositories BIBREF10 , BIBREF11   For summarization, concept maps make it possible to represent a summary concisely and clearly reveal relationships  Moreover, we see a second interesting use case that goes beyond the capabilities of textual summaries: When concepts and relations are linked to corresponding locations in the documents they have been extracted from, the graph can be used to navigate in a document collection, similar to a table of contents  An implementation of this idea has been recently described by BIBREF12  
The corresponding task that we propose is concept-map-based MDS, the summarization of a document cluster in the form of a concept map  In order to develop and evaluate methods for the task, gold-standard corpora are necessary, but no suitable corpus is available  The manual creation of such a dataset is very time-consuming, as the annotation includes many subtasks  In particular, an annotator would need to manually identify all concepts in the documents, while only a few of them will eventually end up in the summary 
To overcome these issues, we present a corpus creation method that effectively combines automatic preprocessing, scalable crowdsourcing and high-quality expert annotations  Using it, we can avoid the high effort for single annotators, allowing us to scale to document clusters that are 15 times larger than in traditional summarization corpora  We created a new corpus of 30 topics, each with around 40 source documents on educational topics and a summarizing concept map that is the consensus of many crowdworkers (see Figure FIGREF3 ) 
As a crucial step of the corpus creation, we developed a new crowdsourcing scheme called low-context importance annotation  In contrast to traditional approaches, it allows us to determine important elements in a document cluster without requiring annotators to read all documents, making it feasible to crowdsource the task and overcome quality issues observed in previous work BIBREF13   We show that the approach creates reliable data for our focused summarization scenario and, when tested on traditional summarization corpora, creates annotations that are similar to those obtained by earlier efforts 
To summarize, we make the following contributions: (1) We propose a novel task, concept-map-based MDS (§ SECREF2 ), (2) present a new crowdsourcing scheme to create reference summaries (§ SECREF4 ), (3) publish a new dataset for the proposed task (§ SECREF5 ) and (4) provide an evaluation protocol and baseline (§ SECREF7 )  We make these resources publicly available under a permissive license 
Task
Concept-map-based MDS is defined as follows: Given a set of related documents, create a concept map that represents its most important content, satisfies a specified size limit and is connected 
We define a concept map as a labeled graph showing concepts as nodes and relationships between them as edges  Labels are arbitrary sequences of tokens taken from the documents, making the summarization task extractive  A concept can be an entity, abstract idea, event or activity, designated by its unique label  Good maps should be propositionally coherent, meaning that every relation together with the two connected concepts form a meaningful proposition 
The task is complex, consisting of several interdependent subtasks  One has to extract appropriate labels for concepts and relations and recognize different expressions that refer to the same concept across multiple documents  Further, one has to select the most important concepts and relations for the summary and finally organize them in a graph satisfying the connectedness and size constraints 
Related Work
Some attempts have been made to automatically construct concept maps from text, working with either single documents BIBREF14 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 or document clusters BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   These approaches extract concept and relation labels from syntactic structures and connect them to build a concept map  However, common task definitions and comparable evaluations are missing  In addition, only a few of them, namely Villalon 2012 and Valerio 2006, define summarization as their goal and try to compress the input to a substantially smaller size  Our newly proposed task and the created large-cluster dataset fill these gaps as they emphasize the summarization aspect of the task 
For the subtask of selecting summary-worthy concepts and relations, techniques developed for traditional summarization BIBREF20 and keyphrase extraction BIBREF21 are related and applicable  Approaches that build graphs of propositions to create a summary BIBREF22 , BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 seem to be particularly related, however, there is one important difference: While they use graphs as an intermediate representation from which a textual summary is then generated, the goal of the proposed task is to create a graph that is directly interpretable and useful for a user  In contrast, these intermediate graphs, e g  AMR, are hardly useful for a typical, non-linguist user 
For traditional summarization, the most well-known datasets emerged out of the DUC and TAC competitions  They provide clusters of news articles with gold-standard summaries  Extending these efforts, several more specialized corpora have been created: With regard to size, Nakano 2010 present a corpus of summaries for large-scale collections of web pages  Recently, corpora with more heterogeneous documents have been suggested, e g  BIBREF26 and BIBREF27   The corpus we present combines these aspects, as it has large clusters of heterogeneous documents, and provides a necessary benchmark to evaluate the proposed task 
For concept map generation, one corpus with human-created summary concept maps for student essays has been created BIBREF28   In contrast to our corpus, it only deals with single documents, requires a two orders of magnitude smaller amount of compression of the input and is not publicly available  
Other types of information representation that also model concepts and their relationships are knowledge bases, such as Freebase BIBREF29 , and ontologies  However, they both differ in important aspects: Whereas concept maps follow an open label paradigm and are meant to be interpretable by humans, knowledge bases and ontologies are usually more strictly typed and made to be machine-readable  Moreover, approaches to automatically construct them from text typically try to extract as much information as possible, while we want to summarize a document 
Low-Context Importance Annotation
Lloret 2013 describe several experiments to crowdsource reference summaries  Workers are asked to read 10 documents and then select 10 summary sentences from them for a reward of $0 05  They discovered several challenges, including poor work quality and the subjectiveness of the annotation task, indicating that crowdsourcing is not useful for this purpose 
To overcome these issues, we introduce a new task design, low-context importance annotation, to determine summary-worthy parts of documents  Compared to Lloret et al 's approach, it is more in line with crowdsourcing best practices, as the tasks are simple, intuitive and small BIBREF30 and workers receive reasonable payment BIBREF31   Most importantly, it is also much more efficient and scalable, as it does not require workers to read all documents in a cluster 
Task Design
We break down the task of importance annotation to the level of single propositions  The goal of our crowdsourcing scheme is to obtain a score for each proposition indicating its importance in a document cluster, such that a ranking according to the score would reveal what is most important and should be included in a summary  In contrast to other work, we do not show the documents to the workers at all, but provide only a description of the document cluster's topic along with the propositions  This ensures that tasks are small, simple and can be done quickly (see Figure FIGREF4 ) 
In preliminary tests, we found that this design, despite the minimal context, works reasonably on our focused clusters on common educational topics  For instance, consider Figure FIGREF4 : One can easily say that P1 is more important than P2 without reading the documents 
We distinguish two task variants:
Instead of enforcing binary importance decisions, we use a 5-point Likert-scale to allow more fine-grained annotations  The obtained labels are translated into scores (5  1) and the average of all scores for a proposition is used as an estimate for its importance  This follows the idea that while single workers might find the task subjective, the consensus of multiple workers, represented in the average score, tends to be less subjective due to the “wisdom of the crowd”  We randomly group five propositions into a task 
As an alternative, we use a second task design based on pairwise comparisons  Comparisons are known to be easier to make and more consistent BIBREF32 , but also more expensive, as the number of pairs grows quadratically with the number of objects  To reduce the cost, we group five propositions into a task and ask workers to order them by importance per drag-and-drop  From the results, we derive pairwise comparisons and use TrueSkill BIBREF35 , a powerful Bayesian rank induction model BIBREF34 , to obtain importance estimates for each proposition 
Pilot Study
To verify the proposed approach, we conducted a pilot study on Amazon Mechanical Turk using data from TAC2008 BIBREF36   We collected importance estimates for 474 propositions extracted from the first three clusters using both task designs  Each Likert-scale task was assigned to 5 different workers and awarded $0 06  For comparison tasks, we also collected 5 labels each, paid $0 05 and sampled around 7% of all possible pairs  We submitted them in batches of 100 pairs and selected pairs for subsequent batches based on the confidence of the TrueSkill model 
Following the observations of Lloret 2013, we established several measures for quality control  First, we restricted our tasks to workers from the US with an approval rate of at least 95%  Second, we identified low quality workers by measuring the correlation of each worker's Likert-scores with the average of the other four scores  The worst workers (at most 5% of all labels) were removed 
In addition, we included trap sentences, similar as in BIBREF13 , in around 80 of the tasks  In contrast to Lloret et al 's findings, both an obvious trap sentence (This sentence is not important) and a less obvious but unimportant one (Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law) were consistently labeled as unimportant (1 08 and 1 14), indicating that the workers did the task properly 
For Likert-scale tasks, we follow Snow 2008 and calculate agreement as the average Pearson correlation of a worker's Likert-score with the average score of the remaining workers  This measure is less strict than exact label agreement and can account for close labels and high- or low-scoring workers  We observe a correlation of 0 81, indicating substantial agreement  For comparisons, the majority agreement is 0 73  To further examine the reliability of the collected data, we followed the approach of Kiritchenko 2016 and simply repeated the crowdsourcing for one of the three topics  Between the importance estimates calculated from the first and second run, we found a Pearson correlation of 0 82 (Spearman 0 78) for Likert-scale tasks and 0 69 (Spearman 0 66) for comparison tasks  This shows that the approach, despite the subjectiveness of the task, allows us to collect reliable annotations 
In addition to the reliability studies, we extrinsically evaluated the annotations in the task of summary evaluation  For each of the 58 peer summaries in TAC2008, we calculated a score as the sum of the importance estimates of the propositions it contains  Table TABREF13 shows how these peer scores, averaged over the three topics, correlate with the manual responsiveness scores assigned during TAC in comparison to ROUGE-2 and Pyramid scores  The results demonstrate that with both task designs, we obtain importance annotations that are similarly useful for summary evaluation as pyramid annotations or gold-standard summaries (used for ROUGE) 
Based on the pilot study, we conclude that the proposed crowdsourcing scheme allows us to obtain proper importance annotations for propositions  As workers are not required to read all documents, the annotation is much more efficient and scalable as with traditional methods 
Corpus Creation
This section presents the corpus construction process, as outlined in Figure FIGREF16 , combining automatic preprocessing, scalable crowdsourcing and high-quality expert annotations to be able to scale to the size of our document clusters  For every topic, we spent about $150 on crowdsourcing and 1 5h of expert annotations, while just a single annotator would already need over 8 hours (at 200 words per minute) to read all documents of a topic 
Source Data
As a starting point, we used the DIP corpus BIBREF37 , a collection of 49 clusters of 100 web pages on educational topics (e g  bullying, homeschooling, drugs) with a short description of each topic  It was created from a large web crawl using state-of-the-art information retrieval  We selected 30 of the topics for which we created the necessary concept map annotations 
Proposition Extraction
As concept maps consist of propositions expressing the relation between concepts (see Figure FIGREF2 ), we need to impose such a structure upon the plain text in the document clusters  This could be done by manually annotating spans representing concepts and relations, however, the size of our clusters makes this a huge effort: 2288 sentences per topic (69k in total) need to be processed  Therefore, we resort to an automatic approach 
The Open Information Extraction paradigm BIBREF38 offers a representation very similar to the desired one  For instance, from
Students with bad credit history should not lose hope and apply for federal loans with the FAFSA 
Open IE systems extract tuples of two arguments and a relation phrase representing propositions:
(s  with bad credit history, should not lose, hope)
(s  with bad credit history, apply for, federal loans with the FAFSA)
While the relation phrase is similar to a relation in a concept map, many arguments in these tuples represent useful concepts  We used Open IE 4, a state-of-the-art system BIBREF39 to process all sentences  After removing duplicates, we obtained 4137 tuples per topic 
Since we want to create a gold-standard corpus, we have to ensure that we produce high-quality data  We therefore made use of the confidence assigned to every extracted tuple to filter out low quality ones  To ensure that we do not filter too aggressively (and miss important aspects in the final summary), we manually annotated 500 tuples sampled from all topics for correctness  On the first 250 of them, we tuned the filter threshold to 0 5, which keeps 98 7% of the correct extractions in the unseen second half  After filtering, a topic had on average 2850 propositions (85k in total) 
Proposition Filtering
Despite the similarity of the Open IE paradigm, not every extracted tuple is a suitable proposition for a concept map  To reduce the effort in the subsequent steps, we therefore want to filter out unsuitable ones  A tuple is suitable if it (1) is a correct extraction, (2) is meaningful without any context and (3) has arguments that represent proper concepts  We created a guideline explaining when to label a tuple as suitable for a concept map and performed a small annotation study  Three annotators independently labeled 500 randomly sampled tuples  The agreement was 82% ( INLINEFORM0 )  We found tuples to be unsuitable mostly because they had unresolvable pronouns, conflicting with (2), or arguments that were full clauses or propositions, conflicting with (3), while (1) was mostly taken care of by the confidence filtering in § SECREF21  
Due to the high number of tuples we decided to automate the filtering step  We trained a linear SVM on the majority voted annotations  As features, we used the extraction confidence, length of arguments and relations as well as part-of-speech tags, among others  To ensure that the automatic classification does not remove suitable propositions, we tuned the classifier to avoid false negatives  In particular, we introduced class weights, improving precision on the negative class at the cost of a higher fraction of positive classifications  Additionally, we manually verified a certain number of the most uncertain negative classifications to further improve performance  When 20% of the classifications are manually verified and corrected, we found that our model trained on 350 labeled instances achieves 93% precision on negative classifications on the unseen 150 instances  We found this to be a reasonable trade-off of automation and data quality and applied the model to the full dataset 
The classifier filtered out 43% of the propositions, leaving 1622 per topic  We manually examined the 17k least confident negative classifications and corrected 955 of them  We also corrected positive classifications for certain types of tuples for which we knew the classifier to be imprecise  Finally, each topic was left with an average of 1554 propositions (47k in total) 
Importance Annotation
Given the propositions identified in the previous step, we now applied our crowdsourcing scheme as described in § SECREF4 to determine their importance  To cope with the large number of propositions, we combine the two task designs: First, we collect Likert-scores from 5 workers for each proposition, clean the data and calculate average scores  Then, using only the top 100 propositions according to these scores, we crowdsource 10% of all possible pairwise comparisons among them  Using TrueSkill, we obtain a fine-grained ranking of the 100 most important propositions 
For Likert-scores, the average agreement over all topics is 0 80, while the majority agreement for comparisons is 0 78  We repeated the data collection for three randomly selected topics and found the Pearson correlation between both runs to be 0 73 (Spearman 0 73) for Likert-scores and 0 72 (Spearman 0 71) for comparisons  These figures show that the crowdsourcing approach works on this dataset as reliably as on the TAC documents 
In total, we uploaded 53k scoring and 12k comparison tasks to Mechanical Turk, spending $4425 45 including fees  From the fine-grained ranking of the 100 most important propositions, we select the top 50 per topic to construct a summary concept map in the subsequent steps 
Proposition Revision
Having a manageable number of propositions, an annotator then applied a few straightforward transformations that correct common errors of the Open IE system  First, we break down propositions with conjunctions in either of the arguments into separate propositions per conjunct, which the Open IE system sometimes fails to do  And second, we correct span errors that might occur in the argument or relation phrases, especially when sentences were not properly segmented  As a result, we have a set of high quality propositions for our concept map, consisting of, due to the first transformation, 56 1 propositions per topic on average 
Concept Map Construction
In this final step, we connect the set of important propositions to form a graph  For instance, given the following two propositions
(student, may borrow, Stafford Loan)
(the student, does not have, a credit history)
one can easily see, although the first arguments differ slightly, that both labels describe the concept student, allowing us to build a concept map with the concepts student, Stafford Loan and credit history  The annotation task thus involves deciding which of the available propositions to include in the map, which of their concepts to merge and, when merging, which of the available labels to use  As these decisions highly depend upon each other and require context, we decided to use expert annotators rather than crowdsource the subtasks 
Annotators were given the topic description and the most important, ranked propositions  Using a simple annotation tool providing a visualization of the graph, they could connect the propositions step by step  They were instructed to reach a size of 25 concepts, the recommended maximum size for a concept map BIBREF6   Further, they should prefer more important propositions and ensure connectedness  When connecting two propositions, they were asked to keep the concept label that was appropriate for both propositions  To support the annotators, the tool used ADW BIBREF40 , a state-of-the-art approach for semantic similarity, to suggest possible connections  The annotation was carried out by graduate students with a background in NLP after receiving an introduction into the guidelines and tool and annotating a first example 
If an annotator was not able to connect 25 concepts, she was allowed to create up to three synthetic relations with freely defined labels, making the maps slightly abstractive  On average, the constructed maps have 0 77 synthetic relations, mostly connecting concepts whose relation is too obvious to be explicitly stated in text (e g  between Montessori teacher and Montessori education) 
To assess the reliability of this annotation step, we had the first three maps created by two annotators  We casted the task of selecting propositions to be included in the map as a binary decision task and observed an agreement of 84% ( INLINEFORM0 )  Second, we modeled the decision which concepts to join as a binary decision on all pairs of common concepts, observing an agreement of 95% ( INLINEFORM1 )  And finally, we compared which concept labels the annotators decided to include in the final map, observing 85% ( INLINEFORM2 ) agreement  Hence, the annotation shows substantial agreement BIBREF41  
Corpus Analysis
In this section, we describe our newly created corpus, which, in addition to having summaries in the form of concept maps, differs from traditional summarization corpora in several aspects 
Document Clusters
The corpus consists of document clusters for 30 different topics  Each of them contains around 40 documents with on average 2413 tokens, which leads to an average cluster size of 97,880 token  With these characteristics, the document clusters are 15 times larger than typical DUC clusters of ten documents and five times larger than the 25-document-clusters (Table TABREF26 )  In addition, the documents are also more variable in terms of length, as the (length-adjusted) standard deviation is twice as high as in the other corpora  With these properties, the corpus represents an interesting challenge towards real-world application scenarios, in which users typically have to deal with much more than ten documents 
Because we used a large web crawl as the source for our corpus, it contains documents from a variety of genres  To further analyze this property, we categorized a sample of 50 documents from the corpus  Among them, we found professionally written articles and blog posts (28%), educational material for parents and kids (26%), personal blog posts (16%), forum discussions and comments (12%), commented link collections (12%) and scientific articles (6%) 
In addition to the variety of genres, the documents also differ in terms of language use  To capture this property, we follow Zopf 2016 and compute, for every topic, the average Jensen-Shannon divergence between the word distribution of one document and the word distribution in the remaining documents  The higher this value is, the more the language differs between documents  We found the average divergence over all topics to be 0 3490, whereas it is 0 3019 in DUC 2004 and 0 3188 in TAC 2008A 
Concept Maps
As Table TABREF33 shows, each of the 30 reference concept maps has exactly 25 concepts and between 24 and 28 relations  Labels for both concepts and relations consist on average of 3 2 tokens, whereas the latter are a bit shorter in characters 
To obtain a better picture of what kind of text spans have been used as labels, we automatically tagged them with their part-of-speech and determined their head with a dependency parser  Concept labels tend to be headed by nouns (82%) or verbs (15%), while they also contain adjectives, prepositions and determiners  Relation labels, on the other hand, are almost always headed by a verb (94%) and contain prepositions, nouns and particles in addition  These distributions are very similar to those reported by Villalon 2010 for their (single-document) concept map corpus 
Analyzing the graph structure of the maps, we found that all of them are connected  They have on average 7 2 central concepts with more than one relation, while the remaining ones occur in only one proposition  We found that achieving a higher number of connections would mean compromising importance, i e  including less important propositions, and decided against it 
Baseline Experiments
In this section, we briefly describe a baseline and evaluation scripts that we release, with a detailed documentation, along with the corpus 
Conclusion
In this work, we presented low-context importance annotation, a novel crowdsourcing scheme that we used to create a new benchmark corpus for concept-map-based MDS  The corpus has large-scale document clusters of heterogeneous web documents, posing a challenging summarization task  Together with the corpus, we provide implementations of a baseline method and evaluation scripts and hope that our efforts facilitate future research on this variant of summarization 
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Teresa Botschen, Andreas Hanselowski and Markus Zopf for their help with the annotation work and Christian Meyer for his valuable feedback  This work has been supported by the German Research Foundation as part of the Research Training Group “Adaptive Preparation of Information from Heterogeneous Sources” (AIPHES) under grant No  GRK 1994/1 
Context 3: Introduction
One of the most fundamental topics in natural language processing is how best to derive high-level representations from constituent parts, as natural language meanings are a function of their constituent parts  How best to construct a sentence representation from distributed word embeddings is an example domain of this larger issue  Even though sequential neural models such as recurrent neural networks (RNN) BIBREF0 and their variants including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) BIBREF1 and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) BIBREF2 have become the de-facto standard for condensing sentence-level information from a sequence of words into a fixed vector, there have been many lines of research towards better sentence representation using other neural architectures, e g  convolutional neural networks (CNN) BIBREF3 or self-attention based models BIBREF4  
From a linguistic point of view, the underlying tree structure—as expressed by its constituency and dependency trees—of a sentence is an integral part of its meaning  Inspired by this fact, some recursive neural network (RvNN) models are designed to reflect the syntactic tree structure, achieving impressive results on several sentence-level tasks such as sentiment analysis BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , machine translation BIBREF7 , natural language inference BIBREF8 , and discourse relation classification BIBREF9  
However, some recent works have BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 proposed latent tree models, which learn to construct task-specific tree structures without explicit supervision, bringing into question the value of linguistically-motivated recursive neural models  Witnessing the surprising performance of the latent tree models on some sentence-level tasks, there arises a natural question: Are linguistic tree structures the optimal way of composing sentence representations for NLP tasks?
In this paper, we demonstrate that linguistic priors are in fact useful for devising effective neural models for sentence representations, showing that our novel architecture based on constituency trees and their tag information obtains superior performance on several sentence-level tasks, including sentiment analysis and natural language inference 
A chief novelty of our approach is that we introduce a small separate tag-level tree-LSTM to control the composition function of the existing word-level tree-LSTM, which is in charge of extracting helpful syntactic signals for meaningful semantic composition of constituents by considering both the structures and linguistic tags of constituency trees simultaneously  In addition, we demonstrate that applying a typical LSTM to preprocess the leaf nodes of a tree-LSTM greatly improves the performance of the tree models  Moreover, we propose a clustered tag set to replace the existing tags on the assumption that the original syntactic tags are too fined-grained to be useful in neural models 
In short, our contributions in this work are as follows:
Related Work
Recursive neural networks (RvNN) are a kind of neural architecture which model sentences by exploiting syntactic structure  While earlier RvNN models proposed utilizing diverse composition functions, including feed-forward neural networks BIBREF12 , matrix-vector multiplication BIBREF5 , and tensor computation BIBREF6 , tree-LSTMs BIBREF13 remain the standard for several sentence-level tasks 
Even though classic RvNNs have demonstrated superior performance on a variety of tasks, their inflexibility, i e  their inability to handle dynamic compositionality for different syntactic configurations, is a considerable weakness  For instance, it would be desirable if our model could distinguish e g  adjective-noun composition from that of verb-noun or preposition-noun composition, as models failing to make such a distinction ignore real-world syntactic considerations such as `-arity' of function words (i e  types), and the adjunct/argument distinction 
To enable dynamic compositionality in recursive neural networks, many previous works BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19 have proposed various methods 
One main direction of research leverages tag information, which is produced as a by-product of parsing  In detail, BIBREF16 ( BIBREF16 ) suggested TG-RNN, a model employing different composition functions according to POS tags, and TE-RNN/TE-RNTN, models which leverage tag embeddings as additional inputs for the existing tree-structured models  Despite the novelty of utilizing tag information, the explosion of the number of parameters (in case of the TG-RNN) and the limited performance of the original models (in case of the TE-RNN/TE-RNTN) have prevented these models from being widely adopted  Meanwhile, BIBREF9 ( BIBREF9 ) and BIBREF18 ( BIBREF18 ) proposed models based on a tree-LSTM which also uses the tag vectors to control the gate functions of the tree-LSTM  In spite of their impressive results, there is a limitation that the trained tag embeddings are too simple to reflect the rich information which tags provide in different syntactic structures  To alleviate this problem, we introduce structure-aware tag representations in the next section 
Another way of building dynamic compositionality into RvNNs is to take advantage of a meta-network (or hyper-network)  Inspired by recent works on dynamic parameter prediction, DC-TreeLSTMs BIBREF17 dynamically create the parameters for compositional functions in a tree-LSTM  Specifically, the model has two separate tree-LSTM networks whose architectures are similar, but the smaller of the two is utilized to calculate the weights of the bigger one  A possible problem for this model is that it may be easy to be trained such that the role of each tree-LSTM is ambiguous, as they share the same input, i e  word information  Therefore, we design two disentangled tree-LSTMs in our model so that one focuses on extracting useful features from only syntactic information while the other composes semantic units with the aid of the features  Furthermore, our model reduces the complexity of computation by utilizing typical tree-LSTM frameworks instead of computing the weights for each example 
Finally, some recent works BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 have proposed latent tree-structured models that learn how to formulate tree structures from only sequences of tokens, without the aid of syntactic trees or linguistic information  The latent tree models have the advantage of being able to find the optimized task-specific order of composition rather than a sequential or syntactic one  In experiments, we compare our model with not only syntactic tree-based models but also latent tree models, demonstrating that modeling with explicit linguistic knowledge can be an attractive option 
Model
In this section, we introduce a novel RvNN architecture, called SATA Tree-LSTM (Structure-Aware Tag Augmented Tree-LSTM)  This model is similar to typical Tree-LSTMs, but provides dynamic compositionality by augmenting a separate tag-level tree-LSTM which produces structure-aware tag representations for each node in a tree  In other words, our model has two independent tree-structured modules based on the same constituency tree, one of which (word-level tree-LSTM) is responsible for constructing sentence representations given a sequence of words as usual, while the other (tag-level tree-LSTM) provides supplementary syntactic information to the former 
In section 3 1, we first review tree-LSTM architectures  Then in section 3 2, we introduce a tag-level tree-LSTM and structure-aware tag representations  In section 3 3, we discuss an additional technique to boost the performance of tree-structured models, and in section 3 4, we describe the entire architecture of our model in detail 
Tree-LSTM
The LSTM BIBREF1 architecture was first introduced as an extension of the RNN architecture to mitigate the vanishing and exploding gradient problems  In addition, several works have discovered that applying the LSTM cell into tree structures can be an effective means of modeling sentence representations 
To be formal, the composition function of the cell in a tree-LSTM can be formulated as follows:
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf {i} \\ \mathbf {f}_l \\ \mathbf {f}_r \\ \mathbf {o} \\ \mathbf {g} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \tanh \end{bmatrix} \Bigg ( \mathbf {W} \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf {h}_l \\ \mathbf {h}_r \\ \end{bmatrix} + \mathbf {b} \Bigg )$$   (Eq  8)
$$  \mathbf {c} = \mathbf {f}_l \odot \mathbf {c}_l + \mathbf {f}_r \odot \mathbf {c}_r + \mathbf {i} \odot \mathbf {g}\\$$   (Eq  9)
where $\mathbf {h}, \mathbf {c} \in \mathbb {R}^{d}$ indicate the hidden state and cell state of the LSTM cell, and $\mathbf {h}_l, \mathbf {h}_r, \mathbf {c}_l, \mathbf {c}_r \in \mathbb {R}^{d}$ the hidden states and cell states of a left and right child  $\mathbf {g} \in \mathbb {R}^{d}$ is the newly composed input for the cell and $\mathbf {i}, \mathbf {f}_{l}, \mathbf {f}_{r}, \mathbf {o} \in \mathbb {R}^{d}$ represent an input gate, two forget gates (left, right), and an output gate respectively  $\mathbf {W} \in \mathbb {R}^{5d\times 2d}$ and $\mathbf {b} \in \mathbb {R}^{5d}$ are trainable parameters  $\sigma $ corresponds to the sigmoid function, $\tanh $ to the hyperbolic tangent, and $\odot $ to element-wise multiplication 
Note the equations assume that there are only two children for each node, i e  binary or binarized trees, following the standard in the literature  While RvNN models can be constructed on any tree structure, in this work we only consider constituency trees as inputs 
In spite of the obvious upside that recursive models have in being so flexible, they are known for being difficult to fully utilize with batch computations as compared to other neural architectures because of the diversity of structure found across sentences  To alleviate this problem, BIBREF8 ( BIBREF8 ) proposed the SPINN model, which brings a shift-reduce algorithm to the tree-LSTM  As SPINN simplifies the process of constructing a tree into only two operations, i e  shift and reduce, it can support more effective parallel computations while enjoying the advantages of tree structures  For efficiency, our model also starts from our own SPINN re-implementation, whose function is exactly the same as that of the tree-LSTM 
Structure-aware Tag Representation
In most previous works using linguistic tag information BIBREF16 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF18 , tags are usually represented as simple low-dimensional dense vectors, similar to word embeddings  This approach seems reasonable in the case of POS tags that are attached to the corresponding words, but phrase-level constituent tags (e g  NP, VP, ADJP) vary greatly in size and shape, making them less amenable to uniform treatment  For instance, even the same phrase tags within different syntactic contexts can vary greatly in size and internal structure, as the case of NP tags in Figure 1 shows  Here, the NP consisting of DT[the]-NN[stories] has a different internal structure than the NP consisting of NP[the film 's]-NNS[shortcomings] 
One way of deriving structure-aware tag representations from the original tag embeddings is to introduce a separate tag-level tree-LSTM which accepts the typical tag embeddings at each node of a tree and outputs the computed structure-aware tag representations for the nodes  Note that the module concentrates on extracting useful syntactic features by considering only the tags and structures of the trees, excluding word information 
Formally, we denote a tag embedding for the tag attached to each node in a tree as $\textbf {e} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{T}}$   Then, the function of each cell in the tag tree-LSTM is defined in the following way  Leaf nodes are defined by the following:
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \hat{\mathbf {c}} \\ \hat{\mathbf {h}} \\ \end{bmatrix} = \tanh {\left(\mathbf {U}_\text{T} \mathbf {e} + \mathbf {a}_\text{T}\right)}$$   (Eq  13)
while non-leaf nodes are defined by the following:
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \hat{\mathbf {i}} \\ \hat{\mathbf {f}}_l \\ \hat{\mathbf {f}}_r \\ \hat{\mathbf {o}} \\ \hat{\mathbf {g}} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \tanh \end{bmatrix} \Bigg ( \mathbf {W_\text{T}} \begin{bmatrix} \hat{\mathbf {h}}_l \\ \hat{\mathbf {h}}_r \\ \mathbf {e} \\ \end{bmatrix} + \mathbf {b}_\text{T} \Bigg )$$   (Eq  14)
$$  \hat{\mathbf {c}} = \hat{\mathbf {f}}_l \odot \hat{\mathbf {c}}_l + \hat{\mathbf {f}}_r \odot \hat{\mathbf {c}}_r + \hat{\mathbf {i}} \odot \hat{\mathbf {g}}\\$$   (Eq  15)
where $\hat{\mathbf {h}}, \hat{\mathbf {c}} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{T}}$ represent the hidden state and cell state of each node in the tag tree-LSTM  We regard the hidden state ( $\hat{\mathbf {h}}$ ) as a structure-aware tag representation for the node  $ \mathbf {U}_\text{T} \in \mathbb {R}^{2d_\text{T} \times d_\text{T}}, \textbf {a}_\text{T} \in \mathbb {R}^{2d_\text{T}}, \mathbf {W}_\text{T} \in \mathbb {R}^{5d_\text{T} \times 3d_\text{T}}$ , and $\mathbf {b}_\text{T} \in \mathbb {R}^{5d_\text{T}}$ are trainable parameters  The rest of the notation follows equations 8 , 9 , and 10   In case of leaf nodes, the states are computed by a simple non-linear transformation  Meanwhile, the composition function in a non-leaf node absorbs the tag embedding ( $\mathbf {e}$ ) as an additional input as well as the hidden states of the two children nodes  The benefit of revising tag representations according to the internal structure is that the derived embedding is a function of the corresponding makeup of the node, rather than a monolithic, categorical tag 
With regard to the tags themselves, we conjecture that the taxonomy of the tags currently in use in many NLP systems is too complex to be utilized effectively in deep neural models, considering the specificity of many tag sets and the limited amount of data with which to train  Thus, we cluster POS (word-level) tags into 12 groups following the universal POS tagset BIBREF20 and phrase-level tags into 11 groups according to criteria analogous to the case of words, resulting in 23 tag categories in total  In this work, we use the revised coarse-grained tags instead of the original ones  For more details, we refer readers to the supplemental materials 
Leaf-LSTM
An inherent shortcoming of RvNNs relative to sequential models is that each intermediate representation in a tree is unaware of its external context until all the information is gathered together at the root node  In other words, each composition process is prone to be locally optimized rather than globally optimized 
To mitigate this problem, we propose using a leaf-LSTM following the convention of some previous works BIBREF21 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF11 , which is a typical LSTM that accepts a sequence of words in order  Instead of leveraging word embeddings directly, we can use each hidden state and cell state of the leaf-LSTM as input tokens for leaf nodes in a tree-LSTM, anticipating the proper contextualization of the input sequence 
Formally, we denote a sequence of words in an input sentence as $w_{1:n}$ ( $n$ : the length of the sentence), and the corresponding word embeddings as $\mathbf {x}_{1:n}$   Then, the operation of the leaf-LSTM at time $t$ can be formulated as,
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \tilde{\mathbf {i}} \\ \tilde{\mathbf {f}} \\ \tilde{\mathbf {o}} \\ \tilde{\mathbf {g}} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \tanh \end{bmatrix} \Bigg ( \mathbf {W}_\text{L} \begin{bmatrix} \tilde{\mathbf {h}}_{t-1} \\ \mathbf {x}_t \\ \end{bmatrix} + \mathbf {b}_\text{L} \Bigg )$$   (Eq  18)
$$  \tilde{\mathbf {c}}_t = \tilde{\mathbf {f}} \odot \tilde{\mathbf {c}}_{t-1} + \tilde{\mathbf {i}} \odot \tilde{\mathbf {g}}\\$$   (Eq  19)
where $\mathbf {x}_t \in \mathbb {R}^{d_w}$ indicates an input word vector and $\tilde{\mathbf {h}}_t$ , $\tilde{\mathbf {c}}_t \in \mathbb {R}^{d_h}$ represent the hidden and cell state of the LSTM at time $t$ ( $\tilde{\mathbf {h}}_{t-1}$ corresponds to the hidden state at time $t$ -1)  $\mathbf {W}_\text{L}$ and $\mathbf {b}_\text{L} $ are learnable parameters  The remaining notation follows that of the tree-LSTM above 
In experiments, we demonstrate that introducing a leaf-LSTM fares better at processing the input words of a tree-LSTM compared to using a feed-forward neural network  We also explore the possibility of its bidirectional setting in ablation study 
SATA Tree-LSTM
In this section, we define SATA Tree-LSTM (Structure-Aware Tag Augmented Tree-LSTM, see Figure 2 ) which joins a tag-level tree-LSTM (section 3 2), a leaf-LSTM (section 3 3), and the original word tree-LSTM together 
As above we denote a sequence of words in an input sentence as $w_{1:n}$ and the corresponding word embeddings as $\mathbf {x}_{1:n}$ 

ground_truth: Answer with content missing: (Evaluation Metrics section) Precision, Recall, F1-scores, Strict match, METEOR, ROUGE-2

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. Do the answered questions measure for the usefulness of the answer?
Context 2: Introduction
From a group of small users at the time of its inception in 2009, Quora has evolved in the last few years into one of the largest community driven Q&A sites with diverse user communities  With the help of efficient content moderation/review policies and active in-house review team, efficient Quora bots, this site has emerged into one of the largest and reliable sources of Q&A on the Internet  On Quora, users can post questions, follow questions, share questions, tag them with relevant topics, follow topics, follow users apart from answering, commenting, upvoting/downvoting etc  The integrated social structure at the backbone of it and the topical organization of its rich content have made Quora unique with respect to other Q&A sites like Stack Overflow, Yahoo! Answers etc  and these are some of the prime reasons behind its popularity in recent times  Quality question posting and getting them answered are the key objectives of any Q&A site  In this study we focus on the answerability of questions on Quora, i e , whether a posted question shall eventually get answered  In Quora, the questions with no answers are referred to as “open questions”  These open questions need to be studied separately to understand the reason behind their not being answered or to be precise, are there any characteristic differences between `open' questions and the answered ones  For example, the question “What are the most promising advances in the treatment of traumatic brain injuries?” was posted on Quora on 23rd June, 2011 and got its first answer after almost 2 years on 22nd April, 2013  The reason that this question remained open so long might be the hardness of answering it and the lack of visibility and experts in the domain  Therefore, it is important to identify the open questions and take measures based on the types - poor quality questions can be removed from Quora and the good quality questions can be promoted so that they get more visibility and are eventually routed to topical experts for better answers 
Characterization of the questions based on question quality requires expert human interventions often judging if a question would remain open based on factors like if it is subjective, controversial, open-ended, vague/imprecise, ill-formed, off-topic, ambiguous, uninteresting etc  Collecting judgment data for thousands of question posts is a very expensive process  Therefore, such an experiment can be done only for a small set of questions and it would be practically impossible to scale it up for the entire collection of posts on the Q&A site  In this work, we show that appropriate quantification of various linguistic activities can naturally correspond to many of the judgment factors mentioned above (see table 2 for a collection of examples)  These quantities encoding such linguistic activities can be easily measured for each question post and thus helps us to have an alternative mechanism to characterize the answerability on the Q&A site 
There are several research works done in Q&A focusing on content of posts  BIBREF0 exploit community feedback to identify high quality content on Yahoo! Answers  BIBREF1 use textual features to predict answer quality on Yahoo! Answers  BIBREF2 , investigate predictors of answer quality through a comparative, controlled field study of user responses  BIBREF3 study the problem of how long questions remain unanswered  BIBREF4 propose a prediction model on how many answers a question shall receive  BIBREF5 analyze and predict unanswered questions on Yahoo Answers  BIBREF6 study question quality in Yahoo! Answers 
Dataset description
We obtained our Quora dataset BIBREF7 through web-based crawls between June 2014 to August 2014  This crawling exercise has resulted in the accumulation of a massive Q&A dataset spanning over a period of over four years starting from January 2010 to May 2014  We initiated crawling with 100 questions randomly selected from different topics so that different genre of questions can be covered  The crawling of the questions follow a BFS pattern through the related question links  We obtained 822,040 unique questions across 80,253 different topics with a total of 1,833,125 answers to these questions  For each question, we separately crawl their revision logs that contain different types of edit information for the question and the activity log of the question asker 
Linguistic activities on Quora
In this section, we identify various linguistic activities on Quora and propose quantifications of the language usage patterns in this Q&A site  In particular, we show that there exists significant differences in the linguistic structure of the open and the answered questions  Note that most of the measures that we define are simple, intuitive and can be easily obtained automatically from the data (without manual intervention)  Therefore the framework is practical, inexpensive and highly scalable 
Content of a question text is important to attract people and make them engage more toward it  The linguistic structure (i e , the usage of POS tags, the use of Out-of-Vocabulary words, character usage etc ) one adopts are key factors for answerability of questions  We shall discuss the linguistic structure that often represents the writing style of a question asker 
In fig 1 (a), we observe that askers of open questions generally use more no  of words compared to answered questions  To understand the nature of words (standard English words or chat-like words frequently used in social media) used in the text, we compare the words with GNU Aspell dictionary to see whether they are present in the dictionary or not  We observe that both open questions and answered questions follow similar distribution (see fig 1 (b))  Part-of-Speech (POS) tags are indicators of grammatical aspects of texts  To observe how the Part-of-Speech tags are distributed in the question texts, we define a diversity metric  We use the standard CMU POS tagger BIBREF8 for identifying the POS tags of the constituent words in the question  We define the POS tag diversity (POSDiv) of a question $q_i$ as follows: $POSDiv(q_i) = -\sum _{j \in pos_{set}}p_j\times \log (p_j)$ where $p_j$ is the probability of the $j^{th}$ POS in the set of POS tags  Fig 1 (c) shows that the answered questions have lower POS tag diversity compared to open questions  Question texts undergo several edits so that their readability and the engagement toward them are enhanced  It is interesting to identify how far such edits can make the question different from the original version of it  To capture this phenomena, we have adopted ROUGE-LCS recall BIBREF9 from the domain of text summarization  Higher the recall value, lesser are the changes in the question text  From fig 1 (d), we observe that open questions tend to have higher recall compared to the answered ones which suggests that they have not gone through much of text editing thus allowing for almost no scope of readability enhancement 
Psycholinguistic analysis:
The way an individual talks or writes, give us clue to his/her linguistic, emotional, and cognitive states  A question asker's linguistic, emotional, cognitive states are also revealed through the language he/she uses in the question text  In order to capture such psycholinguistic aspects of the asker, we use Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) BIBREF10 that analyzes various emotional, cognitive, and structural components present in individuals' written texts  LIWC takes a text document as input and outputs a score for the input for each of the LIWC categories such as linguistic (part-of-speech of the words, function words etc ) and psychological categories (social, anger, positive emotion, negative emotion, sadness etc ) based on the writing style and psychometric properties of the document  In table 1 , we perform a comparative analysis of the asker's psycholinguistic state while asking an open question and an answered question 
Askers of open questions use more function words, impersonal pronouns, articles on an average whereas asker of answered questions use more personal pronouns, conjunctions and adverbs to describe their questions  Essentially, open questions lack content words compared to answered questions which, in turn, affects the readability of the question  As far as the psychological aspects are concerned, answered question askers tend to use more social, family, human related words on average compared to an open question asker  The open question askers express more positive emotions whereas the answered question asker tend to express more negative emotions in their texts  Also, answered question askers are more emotionally involved and their questions reveal higher usage of anger, sadness, anxiety related words compared to that of open questions  Open questions, on the other hand, contains more sexual, body, health related words which might be reasons why they do not attract answers 
In table 2 , we show a collection of examples of open questions to illustrate that many of the above quantities based on the linguistic activities described in this section naturally correspond to the factors that human judges consider responsible for a question remaining unanswered  This is one of the prime reasons why these quantities qualify as appropriate indicators of answerability 
Prediction model
In this section, we describe the prediction framework in detail  Our goal is to predict whether a given question after a time period $t$ will be answered or not 
Linguistic styles of the question asker
The content and way of posing a question is important to attract answers  We have observed in the previous section that these linguistic as well as psycholinguistic aspects of the question asker are discriminatory factors  For the prediction, we use the following features:
Context 3:  In addition, a tag embedding for the tag attached to each node in a tree is denoted by $\textbf {e} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{T}}$   Then, we derive the final sentence representation for the input sentence with our model in two steps 
First, we compute structure-aware tag representations ( $\hat{\mathbf {h}}$ ) for each node of a tree using the tag tree-LSTM (the right side of Figure 2 ) as follows:
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \hat{\mathbf {c}} \\ \hat{\mathbf {h}} \\ \end{bmatrix} = {\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll} \text{Tag-Tree-LSTM}(\mathbf {e}) & \text{if a leaf node} \\ \text{Tag-Tree-LSTM}(\hat{\mathbf {h}}_l, \hat{\mathbf {h}}_r, \mathbf {e}) & \text{otherwise} \end{array}\right }$$   (Eq  23)
where Tag-Tree-LSTM indicates the module we described in section 3 2 
Second, we combine semantic units recursively on the word tree-LSTM in a bottom-up fashion  For leaf nodes, we leverage the Leaf-LSTM (the bottom-left of Figure 2 , explained in section 3 3) to compute $\tilde{\mathbf {c}}_{t}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf {h}}_{t}$ in sequential order, with the corresponding input $\mathbf {x}_t$  
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \tilde{\mathbf {c}}_{t} \\ \tilde{\mathbf {h}}_{t} \\ \end{bmatrix} = \text{Leaf-LSTM}(\tilde{\textbf {h}}_{t-1}, \textbf {x}_t)$$   (Eq  24)
Then, the $\tilde{\mathbf {c}}_{t}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf {h}}_{t}$ can be utilized as input tokens to the word tree-LSTM, with the left (right) child of the target node corresponding to the $t$ th word in the input sentence 
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \check{\textbf {c}}_{\lbrace l, r\rbrace } \\ \check{\textbf {h}}_{\lbrace l, r\rbrace } \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \tilde{\textbf {c}}_{t} \\ \tilde{\textbf {h}}_{t} \end{bmatrix}$$   (Eq  25)
In the non-leaf node case, we calculate phrase representations for each node in the word tree-LSTM (the upper-left of Figure 2 ) recursively as follows:
$$  \check{\mathbf {g}} = \tanh {\left( \mathbf {U}_\text{w} \begin{bmatrix} \check{\mathbf {h}}_l \\ \check{\mathbf {h}}_r \\ \end{bmatrix} + \mathbf {a}_\text{w} \right)}$$   (Eq  26)
$$  \begin{bmatrix} \check{\mathbf {i}} \\ \check{\mathbf {f}}_l \\ \check{\mathbf {f}}_r \\ \check{\mathbf {o}} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \sigma \\ \sigma \end{bmatrix} \Bigg ( \mathbf {W_\text{w}} \begin{bmatrix} \check{\mathbf {h}}_l \\ \check{\mathbf {h}}_r \\ \hat{\mathbf {h}} \\ \end{bmatrix} + \mathbf {b}_\text{w} \Bigg )$$   (Eq  27)
where $\check{\mathbf {h}}$ , $\check{\mathbf {c}} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_h}$ represent the hidden and cell state of each node in the word tree-LSTM  $\mathbf {U}_\text{w} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_h \times 2d_h}$ , $\mathbf {W}_\text{w} \in \mathbb {R}^{4d_h \times \left(2d_h+d_\text{T}\right)}$ , $\mathbf {a}_\text{w} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_h}$ , $\mathbf {b}_\text{w} \in \mathbb {R}^{4d_h}$ are learned parameters  The remaining notation follows those of the previous sections  Note that the structure-aware tag representations ( $\hat{\mathbf {h}}$ ) are only utilized to control the gate functions of the word tree-LSTM in the form of additional inputs, and are not involved in the semantic composition ( $\check{\mathbf {g}}$ ) directly 
Finally, the hidden state of the root node ( $\check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}$ ) in the word-level tree-LSTM becomes the final sentence representation of the input sentence 
Quantitative Analysis
One of the most basic approaches to evaluate a sentence encoder is to measure the classification performance with the sentence representations made by the encoder  Thus, we conduct experiments on the following five datasets  (Summary statistics for the datasets are reported in the supplemental materials )
MR: A group of movie reviews with binary (positive / negative) classes  BIBREF22
SST-2: Stanford Sentiment Treebank BIBREF6   Similar to MR, but each review is provided in the form of a binary parse tree whose nodes are annotated with numeric sentiment values  For SST-2, we only consider binary (positive / negative) classes 
SST-5: Identical to SST-2, but the reviews are grouped into fine-grained (very negative, negative, neutral, positive, very positive) classes 
SUBJ: Sentences grouped as being either subjective or objective (binary classes)  BIBREF23
TREC: A dataset which groups questions into six different question types (classes)  BIBREF24
As a preprocessing step, we construct parse trees for the sentences in the datasets using the Stanford PCFG parser BIBREF25   Because syntactic tags are by-products of constituency parsing, we do not need further preprocessing 
To classify the sentence given our sentence representation ( $\check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}$ ), we use one fully-connected layer with a ReLU activation, followed by a softmax classifier  The final predicted probability distribution of the class $y$ given the sentence $w_{1:n}$ is defined as follows,
$$\mathbf {s} = \text{ReLU}(\mathbf {W}_\text{s} \check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}+ \mathbf {b}_\text{s})$$   (Eq  37)
$$p(y|w_{1:n}) = \text{softmax}(\mathbf {W}_\text{c}\mathbf {s} + \mathbf {b}_\text{c})$$   (Eq  38)
where $\textbf {s} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{s}}$ is the computed task-specific sentence representation for the classifier, and $\textbf {W}_\text{s} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{s} \times d_h}$ , $\textbf {W}_\text{c} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{c} \times d_s}$ , $\textbf {b}_\text{s} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_s}$ , $\textbf {b}_\text{c} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_c}$ are trainable parameters  As an objective function, we use the cross entropy of the predicted and true class distributions 
The results of the experiments on the five datasets are shown in table 1   In this table, we report the test accuracy of our model and various other models on each dataset in terms of percentage  To consider the effects of random initialization, we report the best numbers obtained from each several runs with hyper-parameters fixed 
Compared with the previous syntactic tree-based models as well as other neural models, our SATA Tree-LSTM shows superior or competitive performance on all tasks  Specifically, our model achieves new state-of-the-art results within the tree-structured model class on 4 out of 5 sentence classification tasks—SST-2, SST-5, MR, and TREC  The model shows its strength, in particular, when the datasets provide phrase-level supervision to facilitate tree structure learning (i e  SST-2, SST-5)  Moreover, the numbers we report for SST-5 and TREC are competitive to the existing state-of-the-art results including ones from structurally pre-trained models such as ELMo BIBREF26 , proving our model's superiority  Note that the SATA Tree-LSTM also outperforms the recent latent tree-based model, indicating that modeling a neural model with explicit linguistic knowledge can be an attractive option 
On the other hand, a remaining concern is that our SATA Tree-LSTM is not robust to random seeds when the size of a dataset is relatively small, as tag embeddings are randomly initialized rather than relying on pre-trained ones in contrast with the case of words  From this observation, we could find out there needs a direction of research towards pre-trained tag embeddings 
To estimate the performance of our model beyond the tasks requiring only one sentence at a time, we conduct an experiment on the Stanford Natural Language Inference BIBREF34 dataset, each example of which consists of two sentences, the premise and the hypothesis  Our objective given the data is to predict the correct relationship between the two sentences among three options— contradiction, neutral, or entailment 
We use the siamese architecture to encode both the premise ( $p_{1:m}$ ) and hypothesis ( $h_{1:n}$ ) following the standard of sentence-encoding models in the literature  (Specifically, $p_{1:m}$ is encoded as $\check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^p \in \mathbb {R}^{d_h}$ and $h_{1:n}$ is encoded as $\check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^h \in \mathbb {R}^{d_h}$ with the same encoder ) Then, we leverage some heuristics BIBREF35 , followed by one fully-connected layer with a ReLU activation and a softmax classifier  Specifically,
$$\mathbf {z} = \left[ \check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^p; \check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^h; | \check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^p - \check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^h |; \check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^p \odot \check{\mathbf {h}}_\text{root}^h \right]$$   (Eq  41)
$$\mathbf {s} = \text{ReLU}(\mathbf {W}_\text{s} \mathbf {z} + \mathbf {b}_\text{s})$$   (Eq  42)
where $\textbf {z} \in \mathbb {R}^{4d_h}$ , $\textbf {s} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_s}$ are intermediate features for the classifier and $\textbf {W}_\text{s} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{s} \times 4d_h}$ , $\textbf {W}_\text{c} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_\text{c} \times d_s}$ , $\textbf {b}_\text{s} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_s}$ , $\textbf {b}_\text{c} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_c}$ are again trainable parameters 
Our experimental results on the SNLI dataset are shown in table 2   In this table, we report the test accuracy and number of trainable parameters for each model  Our SATA-LSTM again demonstrates its decent performance compared against the neural models built on both syntactic trees and latent trees, as well as the non-tree models  (Latent Syntax Tree-LSTM: BIBREF10 ( BIBREF10 ), Tree-based CNN: BIBREF35 ( BIBREF35 ), Gumbel Tree-LSTM: BIBREF11 ( BIBREF11 ), NSE: BIBREF36 ( BIBREF36 ), Reinforced Self-Attention Network: BIBREF4 ( BIBREF4 ), Residual stacked encoders: BIBREF37 ( BIBREF37 ), BiLSTM with generalized pooling: BIBREF38 ( BIBREF38 ) ) Note that the number of learned parameters in our model is also comparable to other sophisticated models, showing the efficiency of our model 
Even though our model has proven its mettle, the effect of tag information seems relatively weak in the case of SNLI, which contains a large amount of data compared to the others  One possible explanation is that neural models may learn some syntactic rules from large amounts of text when the text size is large enough, reducing the necessity of external linguistic knowledge  We leave the exploration of the effectiveness of tags relative to data size for future work 
Here we go over the settings common across our models during experimentation  For more task-specific details, refer to the supplemental materials 
For our input embeddings, we used 300 dimensional 840B GloVe BIBREF39 as pre-trained word embeddings, and tag representations were randomly sampled from the uniform distribution [-0 005, 0 005]  Tag vectors are revised during training while the fine-tuning of the word embedding depends on the task  Our models were trained using the Adam BIBREF40 or Adadelta BIBREF41 optimizer, depending on task  For regularization, weight decay is added to the loss function except for SNLI following BIBREF42 ( BIBREF42 ) and Dropout BIBREF43 is also applied for the word embeddings and task-specific classifiers  Moreover, batch normalization BIBREF44 is adopted for the classifiers  As a default, all the weights in the model are initialized following BIBREF45 ( BIBREF45 ) and the biases are set to 0  The total norm of the gradients of the parameters is clipped not to be over 5 during training 
Our best models for each dataset were chosen by validation accuracy in cases where a validation set was provided as a part of the dataset  Otherwise, we perform a grid search on probable hyper-parameter settings, or run 10-fold cross-validation in cases where even a test set does not exist 
Ablation Study
In this section, we design an ablation study on the core modules of our model to explore their effectiveness  The dataset used in this experiment is SST-2  To conduct the experiment, we only replace the target module with other candidates while maintaining the other settings  To be specific, we focus on two modules, the leaf-LSTM and structure-aware tag embeddings (tag-level tree-LSTM)  In the first case, the leaf-LSTM is replaced with a fully-connected layer with a $\tanh $ activation or Bi-LSTM  In the second case, we replace the structure-aware tag embeddings with naive tag embeddings or do not employ them at all 
The experimental results are depicted in Figure 3   As the chart shows, our model outperforms all the other options we have considered  In detail, the left part of the chart shows that the leaf-LSTM is the most effective option compared to its competitors  Note that the sequential leaf-LSTM is somewhat superior or competitive than the bidirectional leaf-LSTM when both have a comparable number of parameters  We conjecture this may because a backward LSTM does not add additional useful knowledge when the structure of a sentence is already known  In conclusion, we use the uni-directional LSTM as a leaf module because of its simplicity and remarkable performance 
Meanwhile, the right part of the figure demonstrates that our newly introduced structure-aware embeddings have a real impact on improving the model performance  Interestingly, employing the naive tag embeddings made no difference in terms of the test accuracy, even though the absolute validation accuracy increased (not reported in the figure)  This result supports our assumption that tag information should be considered in the structure 
Qualitative Analysis
In previous sections, we have numerically demonstrated that our model is effective in encouraging useful composition of semantic units  Here, we directly investigate the computed representations for each node of a tree, showing that the remarkable performance of our model is mainly due to the gradual and recursive composition of the intermediate representations on the syntactic structure 
To observe the phrase-level embeddings at a glance, we draw a scatter plot in which a point represents the corresponding intermediate representation  We utilize PCA (Principal Component Analysis) to project the representations into a two-dimensional vector space  As a target parse tree, we reuse the one seen in Figure 1   The result is shown in Figure 4  
From this figure, we confirm that the intermediate representations have a hierarchy in the semantic space, which is very similar to that of the parse tree  In other words, as many tree-structured models pursue, we can see the tendency of constructing the representations from the low-level (the bottom of the figure) to the high-level (the top-left and top-right of the figure), integrating the meaning of the constituents recursively  An interesting thing to note is that the final sentence representation is near that of the phrase `, the stories are quietly moving ' rather than that of `Despite the film's shortcomings', catching the main meaning of the sentence 
Conclusion
We have proposed a novel RvNN architecture to fully utilize linguistic priors  A newly introduced tag-level tree-LSTM demonstrates that it can effectively control the composition function of the corresponding word-level tree-LSTM  In addition, the proper contextualization of the input word vectors results in significant performance improvements on several sentence-level tasks  For future work, we plan to explore a new way of exploiting dependency trees effectively, similar to the case of constituency trees 
Acknowledgments
We thank anonymous reviewers for their constructive and fruitful comments  This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (NRF2016M3C4A7952587) 

ground_truth: No

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 baselines did they compare against?
Context 4:  At each step, we keep track of a buffer of $n$ states and admissible actions that led up to that locally optimal state  We force the agent to explore from this state to attempt to drive it out of the local optima  If it is further unable to find itself out of this local optima, we refresh the training process again, but starting at the state immediately before the agent reaches the local optima  If this continues to fail, we continue to iterate through this buffer of seen states states up to that local optima until we either find a more optimal state or we run out of states to refresh from, in which we terminate the training algorithm 
KG-A2C-Explore Go-Explore BIBREF9 is an algorithm that is designed to keep track of sub-optimal and under-explored states in order to allow the agent to explore upon more optimal states that may be a result of sparse rewards  The Go-Explore algorithm consists of two phases, the first to continuously explore until a set of promising states and corresponding trajectories are found on the basis of total score, and the second to robustify this found policy against potential stochasticity in the game  Promising states are defined as those states when explored from will likely result in higher reward trajectories  Since the text games we are dealing with are mostly deterministic, with the exception of Zork in later stages, we only focus on using Phase 1 of the Go-Explore algorithm to find an optimal policy  BIBREF10 look at applying Go-Explore to text-games on a set of simpler games generated using the game generation framework TextWorld BIBREF1  Instead of training a policy network in parallel to generate actions used for exploration, they use a small set of “admissible actions”—actions guaranteed to change the world state at any given step during Phase 1—to explore and find high reward trajectories  This space of actions is relatively small (of the order of $10^2$ per step) and so finding high reward trajectories in larger action-spaces such as in Zork would be infeasible
Go-Explore maintains an archive of cells—defined as a set of states that map to a single representation—to keep track of promising states  BIBREF9 simply encodes each cell by keeping track of the agent's position and BIBREF10 use the textual observations encoded by recurrent neural network as a cell representation  We improve on this implementation by training the KG-A2C network in parallel, using the snapshot of the knowledge graph in conjunction with the game state to further encode the current state and use this as a cell representation  At each step, Go-Explore chooses a cell to explore at random (weighted by score to prefer more advanced cells)  The KG-A2C will run for a number of steps, starting with the knowledge graph state and the last seen state of the game from the cell  This will generate a trajectory for the agent while further training the KG-A2C at each iteration, creating a new representation for the knowledge graph as well as a new game state for the cell  After expanding a cell, Go-Explore will continue to sample cells by weight to continue expanding its known states  At the same time, KG-A2C will benefit from the heuristics of selecting preferred cells and be trained on promising states more often 
Evaluation
We compare our two exploration strategies to the following baselines and ablations:
KG-A2C This is the exact same method presented in BIBREF6 with no modifications 
A2C Represents the same approach as KG-A2C but with all the knowledge graph components removed  The state representation is text only encoded using recurrent networks 
A2C-chained Is a variation on KG-A2C-chained where we use our policy chaining approach with the A2C method to train the agent instead of KG-A2C 
A2C-Explore Uses A2C in addition to the exploration strategy seen in KG-A2C-Explore  The cell representations here are defined in terms of the recurrent network based encoding of the textual observation 
Figure FIGREF10 shows that agents utilizing knowledge-graphs in addition to either enhanced exploration method far outperform the baseline A2C and KG-A2C  KG-A2C-chained and KG-A2C-Explore both pass the bottleneck of a score of 40, whereas A2C-Explore gets to the bottleneck but cannot surpass it 
There are a couple of key insights that can be drawn from these results The first is that the knowledge graph appears to be critical; it is theorized to help with partial observability  However the knowledge graph representation isn't sufficient in that the knowledge graph representation without enhanced exploration methods cannot surpass the bottleneck  A2C-chained—which explores without a knowledge graph—fails to even outperform the baseline A2C  We hypothesize that this is due to the knowledge graph aiding implicitly in the sample efficiency of bottleneck detection and subsequent exploration  That is, exploring after backtracking from a potentially detected bottleneck is much more efficient in the knowledge graph based agent 
The Go-Explore based exploration algorithm sees less of a difference between agents  A2C-Explore converges more quickly, but to a lower reward trajectory that fails to pass the bottleneck, whereas KG-A2C-Explore takes longer to reach a similar reward but consistently makes it through the bottleneck  The knowledge graph cell representation appears to thus be a better indication of what a promising state is as opposed to just the textual observation 
Comparing the advanced exploration methods when using the knowledge graph, we see that both agents successfully pass the bottleneck corresponding to entering the cellar and lighting the lamp and reach comparable scores within a margin of error  KG-A2C-chained is significantly more sample efficient and converges faster  We can infer that chaining policies by explicitly detecting bottlenecks lets us pass it more quickly than attempting to find promising cell representations with Go-Explore  This form of chained exploration with backtracking is particularly suited to sequential decision making problems that can be represented as acyclic directed graphs as in Figure FIGREF1 
Appendix ::: Zork1
Zork1 is one of the first text-adventure games and heavily influences games released later in terms of narrative style and game structure  It is a dungeon crawler where the player must explore a vast world and collect a series of treasures  It was identified by BIBREF2 as a moonshot game and has been the subject of much work in leaning agents BIBREF12, BIBREF7, BIBREF11, BIBREF8  Rewards are given to the player when they collect treasures as well as when important intermediate milestones needed to further explore the world are passed  Figure FIGREF15 and Figure FIGREF1 show us a map of the world of Zork1 and the corresponding quest structure 
The bottleneck seen at a score of around 40 is when the player first enters the cellar on the right side of the map  The cellar is dark and you need to immediately light the lamp to see anything  Attempting to explore the cellar in the dark results in you being instantly killed by a monster known as a “grue” 
Appendix ::: Knowledge Graph Rules
We make no changes from the graph update rules used by BIBREF6  Candidate interactive objects are identified by performing part-of-speech tagging on the current observation, identifying singular and proper nouns as well as adjectives, and are then filtered by checking if they can be examined using the command $examine$ $OBJ$  Only the interactive objects not found in the inventory are linked to the node corresponding to the current room and the inventory items are linked to the “you” node  The only other rule applied uses the navigational actions performed by the agent to infer the relative positions of rooms, e g  $\langle kitchen,down,cellar \rangle $ when the agent performs $go$ $down$ when in the kitchen to move to the cellar 
Appendix ::: Hyperparameters
Hyperparameters used for our agents are given below  Patience and buffer size are used for the policy chaining method as described in Section SECREF2  Cell step size is a parameter used for Go-Explore and describes how many steps are taken when exploring in a given cell state  Base hyperparameters for KG-A2C are taken from BIBREF6 and the same parameters are used for A2C 

ground_truth: Various tree structured neural networks including variants of Tree-LSTM, Tree-based CNN, RNTN, and non-tree models including variants of LSTMs, CNNs, residual, and self-attention based networks

Sentence classification baselines: RNTN (Socher et al. 2013), AdaMC-RNTN (Dong et al. 2014), TE-RNTN (Qian et al. 2015), TBCNN (Mou et al. 2015), Tree-LSTM (Tai, Socher, and Manning 2015), AdaHT-LSTM-CM (Liu, Qiu, and Huang 2017), DC-TreeLSTM (Liu, Qiu, and Huang 2017), TE-LSTM (Huang, Qian, and Zhu 2017), BiConTree (Teng and Zhang 2017), Gumbel Tree-LSTM (Choi, Yoo, and Lee 2018), TreeNet (Cheng et al. 2018), CNN (Kim 2014), AdaSent (Zhao, Lu, and Poupart 2015), LSTM-CNN (Zhou et al. 2016), byte-mLSTM (Radford, Jozefowicz, and Sutskever 2017), BCN + Char + CoVe (McCann et al. 2017), BCN + Char + ELMo (Peters et al. 2018). 
Stanford Natural Language Inference baselines: Latent Syntax Tree-LSTM (Yogatama et al. 2017), Tree-based CNN (Mou et al. 2016), Gumbel Tree-LSTM (Choi, Yoo, and Lee 2018), NSE (Munkhdalai and Yu 2017), Reinforced Self- Attention Network (Shen et al. 2018), Residual stacked encoders: (Nie and Bansal 2017), BiLSTM with generalized pooling (Chen, Ling, and Zhu 2018).