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. where did they obtain the annotated clinical notes from?
Context 1: Introduction
Medical search engines are an essential component for many online medical applications, such as online diagnosis systems and medical document databases  A typical online diagnosis system, for instance, relies on a medical search engine  The search engine takes as input a user query that describes some symptoms and then outputs clinical concept entries that provide relevant information to assist in diagnosing the problem  One challenge medical search engines face is the segmentation of individual clinical entities  When a user query consists of multiple clinical entities, a search engine would often fail to recognize them as separate entities  For example, the user query “fever joint pain weight loss headache” contains four separate clinical entities: “fever”, “joint pain”, “weight loss”, and “headache”  But when the search engine does not recognize them as separate entities and proceeds to retrieve results for each word in the query, it may find "pain" in body locations other than "joint pain", or it may miss "headache" altogether, for example  Some search engines allow the users to enter a single clinical concept by selecting from an auto-completion pick list  But this could also result in retrieving inaccurate or partial results and lead to poor user experience 
We want to improve the medical search engine so that it can accurately retrieve all the relevant clinical concepts mentioned in a user query, where relevant clinical concepts are defined with respect to the terminologies the search engine uses  The problem of extracting clinical concept mentions from a user query can be seen as a variant of the Concept Extraction (CE) task in the frequently-cited NLP challenges in healthcare, such as 2010 i2b2/VA BIBREF0 and 2013 ShARe/CLEF Task 1 BIBREF1  Both CE tasks in 2010 i2b2/VA and 2013 ShARe/CLEF Task 1 ask the participants to design an algorithm to tag a set of predefined entities of interest in clinical notes  These entity tagging tasks are also known as clinical Named Entity Recognition (NER)  For example, the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA defines three types of entities: “problem”, “treatment”, and “test”  The CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF defines various types of disorder such as “injury or poisoning”, "disease or syndrome”, etc  In addition to tagging, the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF has an encoding component which requires selecting one and only one Concept Unique Identifier (CUI) from Systematized Nomenclature Of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) for each disorder entity tagged  Our problem, similar to the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF, also contains two sub-problems: tagging mentions of entities of interest (entity tagging), and selecting appropriate terms from a glossary to match the mentions (term matching)  However, several major differences exist  First, compared to clinical notes, the user queries are much shorter, less technical, and often less coherent  Second, instead of encoding, we are dealing with term matching where we rank a few best terms that match an entity, instead of selecting only one  This is because the users who type the queries may not have a clear idea about what they are looking for, or could be laymen who know little terminology, it may be more helpful to provide a set of likely results and let the users choose  Third, the types of entities are different  Each medical search engine may have its own types of entities to tag  There is also one minor difference in the tagging scheme between our problem and the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF - We limit our scope to dealing with entities of consecutive words and not disjoint entities   We use only Beginning, Inside, Outside (BIO) tags  Given the differences listed above, we need to customize a framework consisting of an entity tagging and term matching component for our CE problem 
Related Work
An effective model that has been commonly used for NER problem is a Bi-directional LSTM with a Conditional Random Field (CRF) on the top layer (BiLSTM-CRF), which is described in the next section  Combining LSTM’s power of representing relations between words and CRF’s capability of accounting for tag sequence constraints, Huang et al  BIBREF2 proposed the BiLSTM-CRF model and used handcrafted word features as the input to the model  Lample et al  BIBREF3 used a combination of character-level and word-level word embeddings as the input to BiLSTM-CRF  Since then, similar models with variation in types of word embeddings have been used extensively for clinical CE tasks and produced state-of-the-art results BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6, BIBREF7  Word embeddings have become the cornerstone of the neural models in NLP since the famous Word2vec BIBREF8 model demonstrated its power in word analogy tasks  One well-known example is that after training Word2vec on a large amount of news data, we can get word relations such as $vector(^{\prime }king^{\prime }) - vector(^{\prime }queen^{\prime }) + vector(^{\prime }woman^{\prime }) \approx vector(^{\prime }man^{\prime })$  More sophisticated word embedding technique emerged since Word2vec  It has been shown empirically that better quality in word embeddings leads to better performance in many downstream NLP including entity tagging BIBREF9, BIBREF10  Recently, contextualized word embeddings generated by deep learning models, such as ELMo BIBREF11, BERT BIBREF12, and Flair BIBREF13, have been shown to be more effective in various NLP tasks  In our project, we make use of a fine-tuned ELMo model and a fine-tuned Flair model in the medical domain  We experiment with the word embeddings from the two fine-tuned models as the input to the BiLSTM-CRF model separately and compare the results 
Tang et al  BIBREF14 provided straightforward algorithm for term matching  The algorithm starts with finding candidate terms that contain ALL the entity words, with term frequency - inverse document frequency (tf-idf) weighting  Then the candidates are ranked based on the pairwise cosine distance between the word embeddings of the candidates and the entity 
Framework
We adopt the tagging - encoding pipeline framework from the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF  We first tag the clinical entities in the user query and then select relevant terms from a glossary in dermatology to match the entities 
Framework ::: Entity Tagging
We use the same BiLSTM-CRF model proposed by Huang et al  BIBREF2  An illustration of the architecture is shown in Figure FIGREF6   Given a sequence (or sentence) of n tokens, $r = (w_1, w_2,   , w_n)$, we use a fine-tuned ELMo model to generate contextual word embeddings for all the tokens in the sentence, where a token refers to a word or punctuation  We denote the ELMo embedding, $x$, for a token $w$ in the sentence $r$ by $x = ELMo(w|r)$  The notation and the procedure described here can be adopted for Flair embeddings or other embeddings  Now, given a sequence of tokens in ELMo embeddings, $X =(x_1, x_2,    , x_n)$, the BiLSTM layer generates a matrix of scores, $P(\theta )$ of size $n \times k$, where $k$ is the number of tag types, and $\theta $ is the parameters of the BiLSTM  To simplify notation, we will omit the $\theta $ and write $P$  Then, $P_{i,j}$ denotes the score of the token, $x_i$, being assigned to the $j$th tag  Since certain constraints may exist in the transition between tags, an "O" tag should not be followed by an "I" tag, for example, a transition matrix, $A$, of dimension $(k+2)\times (k+2)$, is initialized to model the constraints  The learnable parameters, $A_{i,j}$, represent the probability of the $j$th tag follows the $i$th tag in a sequence  For example, if we index the tags by: 1:“B”, 2:“I”, and 3:“O”, then $A_{1,3}$ would be the probability that an “O” tag follows a “B” tag  A beginning transition and an end transition are inserted in $A$ and hence $A$ is of dimension $(k+2)\times (k+2)$ 
Given a sequence of tags, $Y=(y_1,y_2,   ,y_n)$, where each $y_i$, $1\le i \le n$, corresponds to an index of the tags, the score of the sequence is then given by
The probability of the sequence of tags is then calculated by a softmax,
where $\lbrace Y_x\rbrace $ denotes the set of all possible tag sequences  During training, the objective function is to maximize $\log (P(Y|X))$ by adjusting $A$ and $P$ 
Framework ::: Term Matching
The term matching algorithm of Tang et al  BIBREF14 is adopted with some major modifications  First, to identify candidate terms, we use a much looser string search algorithm where we stem the entity words with snowball stemmer and then find candidate terms which contain ANY non-stopword words in the entity  The stemming is mainly used to represent a word in its stem  For example, “legs” becomes “leg”, and “jammed” becomes “jam”  Thus, stemming can provide more tolerance when finding candidates  Similarly, finding candidates using the condition ANY (instead of ALL) also increases the tolerance  However, if the tagged entity contains stopwords such as “in”, “on”, etc , the pool of candidates will naturally grow very large and increase the computation cost for later part, because even completely irrelevant terms may contain stopwords  Therefore, we match based on non-stopwords only  To illustrate the points above, suppose a query is tagged with the entity
Ex  3 1 “severe burns on legs”,
and one relevant term is “leg burn”  After stemming, “burns” and “legs” in Ex UNKREF12 become “burn” and “leg”, respectively, allowing "leg burn" to be considered as a candidate  Although the word “severe” is not in the term “leg burn”, the term is still considered a candidate because we selected using ANY  The stopword “on” is ignored when finding candidate terms so that not every term that contains the word “on” is added to the candidate pool  When a candidate term, $C$, is found in this manner for the tagged entity, $E$, we calculate the semantic similarity score, $s$, between $C$ and $E$ in two steps  In the first step, calculate the maximum similarity score for each word in $C$ as shown in Figure FIGREF10  Given a word in the candidate term, $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le m$, $m$ is the number of words in the candidate term) and a word in the tagged entity, $E_j$ Their similarity score, $s_{ij}$ (shown as the element in the boxed matrix in Figure FIGREF10), is given by
where $ELMo(C_i|C)$ and $ELMo(E_j|E)$ are the ELMo embeddings for the word $C_i$ and $E_j$, respectively  The ELMo embeddings have the same dimension for all words when using the same fine-tuned ELMo model  Thus, we can use a distance function (e g , the cosine distance), denoted $d(\cdot )$ in equation DISPLAY_FORM13, to compute the semantic similarity between words  In step 2, we calculate the candidate-entity relevance score (similarity) using the formula
where $s_c$ is a score threshold, and $\mathbb {I} \lbrace max(\vec{S_i}) > s_c\rbrace $ is an indicator function that equals 1 if $max(\vec{S_i}) > s_c$ or equals 0 if not  In equation DISPLAY_FORM14 we define a metric that measures “information coverage” of the candidate terms with respect to a tagged entity  If the constituent words of a candidate term are relevant to the constituent words in the tagged entity, then the candidate term offers more information coverage  Intuitively, the more relevant words present in the candidate term, the more relevant the candidate is to the tagged entity  The purpose of the cutoff, $s_c$, is to screen the $(C_i,E_j)$ word pairs that are dissimilar, so that they do not contribute to information coverage  One can adjust the strictness of the entity - terminology matching by adjusting $s_c$  The higher we set $s_c$, the fewer candidate terms will be selected for a tagged entity  A normalization factor, $\frac{1}{m}$, is added to give preference to more concise candidate terms given the same amount of information coverage 
We need to create an extra stopword list to include words such as “configuration” and “color”, and exclude these words from the word count for a candidate term  This is because the terms associated with the description of color or configuration usually have the word “color” or “configuration” in them  On the other hand, a user query normally does not contain such words  For example, a tagged entity in a user query could be “round yellow patches”, for which the relevant terminologies include “round configuration” and “yellow color”  Since we applied a normalization factor, $\frac{1}{m}$, to the relevance score, the word “color” and “configuration” would lower the relevance score because they do not have a counterpart in the tagged entity  Therefore, we need to exclude them from word count  Once the process is complete, calculate $s(C,E)$ for all candidate terms and then we can apply a threshold on all $s(C,E)$ to ignore candidate terms with low information coverage  Finally, rank the terms by their $s(C,E)$ and return the ranked list as the results 
Experiments ::: Data
Despite the greater similarity between our task and the 2013 ShARe/CLEF Task 1, we use the clinical notes from the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA on account of 1) the data from 2010 i2b2/VA being easier to access and parse, 2) 2013 ShARe/CLEF containing disjoint entities and hence requiring more complicated tagging schemes  The synthesized user queries are generated using the aforementioned dermatology glossary  Tagged sentences are extracted from the clinical notes  Sentences with no clinical entity present are ignored  22,489 tagged sentences are extracted from the clinical notes  We will refer to these tagged sentences interchangeably as the i2b2 data  The sentences are shuffled and split into train/dev/test set with a ratio of 7:2:1  The synthesized user queries are composed by randomly selecting several clinical terms from the dermatology glossary and then combining them in no particular order  When combining the clinical terms, we attach the BIO tags to their constituent words  The synthesized user queries (13,697 in total) are then split into train/dev/test set with the same ratio  Next, each set in the i2b2 data and the corresponding set in the synthesized query data are combined to form a hybrid train/dev/test set, respectively  This way we ensure that in each hybrid train/dev/test set, the ratio between the i2b2 data and the synthesized query data is the same 
The reason for combining the two data is their drastic structural difference (See figure FIGREF16 for an example)  Previously, when trained on the i2b2 data only, the BiLSTM-CRF model was not able to segment clinical entities at the correct boundary  It would fail to recognize the user query in Figure FIGREF16(a) as four separate entities  On the other hand, if the model was trained solely on the synthesized user queries, we could imagine that it would fail miserably on any queries that resemble the sentence in Figure FIGREF16(b) because the model would have never seen an “O” tag in the training data  Therefore, it is necessary to use the hybrid training data containing both the i2b2 data and the synthesized user queries 
To make the hybrid training data, we need to unify the tags  Recall that in Section SECREF1 we point out that the tags are different for the different tasks and datasets  Since we use custom tags for dermatology glossary in our problem, we would need to convert the tags used in 2010 i2b2/VA  But this would be an infeasible job as we need experts to manually do that  An alternative is to avoid distinguishing the tag types and label all tags under the generic BIO tags 
Experiments ::: Setup
To show the effects of using the hybrid training data, we trained two models of the same architecture and hyperparameters  One model was trained on the hybrid data and will be referred to as hybrid NER model  The other model was trained on clinical notes only and will be referred to as i2b2 NER model  We evaluated the performance of the NER models by micro-F1 score on the test set of both the synthesized queries and the i2b2 data 
We used the BiLSTM-CRF implementation provided by the flair package BIBREF16  We set the hidden size value to be 256 in the LSTM structure and left everything else at default values for the SequenceTagger model on flair  For word embeddings, we used the ELMo embeddings fine-tuned on PubMed articles and flair embeddings BIBREF13 trained on $5\%$ of PubMed abstracts , respectively  We trained models for 10 epochs and experimented with different learning rate, mini batch size, and dropouts  We ran hyperparameter optimization tests to find the best combination  $S_c$ is set to be 0 6 in our experiment 
Experiments ::: Hyperparameter Tuning
We defined the following hyperparameter search space:
embeddings: [“ELMo on pubmed”, “stacked flair on pubmed”],
hidden_size: [128, 256],
learning_rate: [0 05, 0 1],
mini_batch_size: [32, 64, 128] 
The hyperparameter optimization was performed using Hyperopt   Three evaluations were run for each combination of hyperparameters  Each ran for 10 epochs  Then the results were averaged to give the performance for that particular combination of hyperparameters 
Experiments ::: Results
From the hyperparameter tuning we found that the best combination was
embeddings: “ELMo on pubmed”,
hidden_size: 256,
learning_rate: 0 05,
mini_batch_size: 32 
With the above hyperparameter setting, the hybrid NER model achieved a F1 score of $0 995$ on synthesized queries and $0 948$ on clinical notes while the i2b2 NER model achieved a F1 score of $0 441$ on synthesized queries and $0 927$ on clinical notes (See Table TABREF23) 
Since there was no ground truth available for the retrieved terms, we randomly picked a few samples to assess its performance  Some example outputs of our complete framework on real user queries are shown in Figure FIGREF24  For example, from the figure we see that the query "child fever double vision dizzy" was correctly tagged with four entities: "child", "fever", "double vision", and "dizzy"  A list of terms from our glossary was matched to each entity  In real world application, the lists of terms will be presented to the user as the retrieval results to their queries 
Discussion
In most real user queries we sampled, the entities were tagged at the correct boundary and the tagging was complete (such as the ones shown in Figure FIGREF24)  Only on a few user queries the tagging was controversial  For example, the query “Erythematous blanching round, oval patches on torso, extremities” was tagged as “Erythematous blanching” and “oval patches on torso”  The entity “extremities” was missing  The segmentation was also not correct  A more appropriate tagging would be “Erythematous blanching round, oval patches”, “torso”, and “extremities”  The tagging could be further improved by synthesizing more realistic user queries  Recall that the synthesized user queries were created by randomly combining terminologies from the dermatology glossary, which, while providing data that helped the model learn entity segmentation, did not reflect the co-occurrence information in real user queries  For example, there could be two clinical entities that often co-occur or never co-occur in a user query  But since the synthesized user queries we used combined terms randomly, the co-occurrence information was thus missing 
The final retrieval results of our framework were not evaluated quantitatively in terms of recall and precision, due the the lack of ground truth  When ground truth becomes available, we will be able to evaluate our framework more thoroughly  Recently, a fine-tuned BERT model in the medical domain called BioBERT BIBREF17 has attracted some attention in the medical NLP domain  We could experiment with BioBERT embeddings in the future  We could also include query expansion technique for term matching  When finding candidate terms for an entity, our first step was still based on string matching  Given that there might be multiple entities that could be matched to the same term, it could be hard to include all these entities in the glossary and hard to match terms to these entities 
Conclusion
In this project, we tackle the problem of extracting clinical concepts from user queries on medical search engines  By training a BiLSTM-CRF model on a hybrid data consisting of synthesized user queries and sentences from clinical note, we adopt a CE framework for clinical user queries with minimal effort spent on annotating user queries  We find that the hybrid data enables the NER model perform better on both tagging the user queries and the clinical note sentences  Furthermore, our framework is built on an easy-to-use deep learning NLP Python library, which lends it more prospective value to various online medical applications that employ medical search engines 
Acknowledgment
This paper results from a technical report of a project the authors have worked on with visualDx, a healthcare informatics company that provides web-based clinical decision support system  The authors would like to thank visualDx for providing them the opportunity to work on such an exciting project  In particular, the authors would like to thank Roy Robinson, the Vice President of Technology and Medical Informatics at visualDx, for providing the synthesized user queries, as well as preliminary feedback on the performance of our framework 
Context 3: Introduction
There exists a class of language construction known as pun in natural language texts and utterances, where a certain word or other lexical items are used to exploit two or more separate meanings  It has been shown that understanding of puns is an important research question with various real-world applications, such as human-computer interaction BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 and machine translation BIBREF2   Recently, many researchers show their interests in studying puns, like detecting pun sentences BIBREF3 , locating puns in the text BIBREF4 , interpreting pun sentences BIBREF5 and generating sentences containing puns BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   A pun is a wordplay in which a certain word suggests two or more meanings by exploiting polysemy, homonymy, or phonological similarity to another sign, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect  Puns can be generally categorized into two groups, namely heterographic puns (where the pun and its latent target are phonologically similar) and homographic puns (where the two meanings of the pun reflect its two distinct senses) BIBREF9   Consider the following two examples:
The first punning joke exploits the sound similarity between the word “propane" and the latent target “profane", which can be categorized into the group of heterographic puns  Another categorization of English puns is homographic pun, exemplified by the second instance leveraging distinct senses of the word “gut" 
Pun detection is the task of detecting whether there is a pun residing in the given text  The goal of pun location is to find the exact word appearing in the text that implies more than one meanings  Most previous work addresses such two tasks separately and develop separate systems BIBREF10 , BIBREF5   Typically, a system for pun detection is built to make a binary prediction on whether a sentence contains a pun or not, where all instances (with or without puns) are taken into account during training  For the task of pun location, a separate system is used to make a single prediction as to which word in the given sentence in the text that trigger more than one semantic interpretations of the text, where the training data involves only sentences that contain a pun  Therefore, if one is interested in solving both problems at the same time, a pipeline approach that performs pun detection followed by pun location can be used 
Compared to the pipeline methods, joint learning has been shown effective BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 since it is able to reduce error propagation and allows information exchange between tasks which is potentially beneficial to all the tasks  In this work, we demonstrate that the detection and location of puns can be jointly addressed by a single model  The pun detection and location tasks can be combined as a sequence labeling problem, which allows us to jointly detect and locate a pun in a sentence by assigning each word a tag  Since each context contains a maximum of one pun BIBREF9 , we design a novel tagging scheme to capture this structural constraint  Statistics on the corpora also show that a pun tends to appear in the second half of a context  To capture such a structural property, we also incorporate word position knowledge into our structured prediction model  Experiments on the benchmark datasets show that detection and location tasks can reinforce each other, leading to new state-of-the-art performance on these two tasks  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that performs joint detection and location of English puns by using a sequence labeling approach 
Problem Definition
We first design a simple tagging scheme consisting of two tags { INLINEFORM0 }:
INLINEFORM0 tag means the current word is not a pun 
INLINEFORM0 tag means the current word is a pun 
If the tag sequence of a sentence contains a INLINEFORM0 tag, then the text contains a pun and the word corresponding to INLINEFORM1 is the pun 
The contexts have the characteristic that each context contains a maximum of one pun BIBREF9   In other words, there exists only one pun if the given sentence is detected as the one containing a pun  Otherwise, there is no pun residing in the text  To capture this interesting property, we propose a new tagging scheme consisting of three tags, namely { INLINEFORM0 } 
INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears before the pun in the given context 
INLINEFORM0 tag highlights the current word is a pun 
INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears after the pun 
We empirically show that the INLINEFORM0 scheme can guarantee the context property that there exists a maximum of one pun residing in the text 
Given a context from the training set, we will be able to generate its corresponding gold tag sequence using a deterministic procedure  Under the two schemes, if a sentence does not contain any puns, all words will be tagged with INLINEFORM0 or INLINEFORM1 , respectively  Exemplified by the second sentence “Some diets cause a gut reaction," the pun is given as “gut " Thus, under the INLINEFORM2 scheme, it should be tagged with INLINEFORM3 , while the words before it are assigned with the tag INLINEFORM4 and words after it are with INLINEFORM5 , as illustrated in Figure FIGREF8   Likewise, the INLINEFORM6 scheme tags the word “gut" with INLINEFORM7 , while other words are tagged with INLINEFORM8   Therefore, we can combine the pun detection and location tasks into one problem which can be solved by the sequence labeling approach 
Model
Neural models have shown their effectiveness on sequence labeling tasks BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   In this work, we adopt the bidirectional Long Short Term Memory (BiLSTM) BIBREF16 networks on top of the Conditional Random Fields BIBREF17 (CRF) architecture to make labeling decisions, which is one of the classical models for sequence labeling  Our model architecture is illustrated in Figure FIGREF8 with a running example  Given a context/sentence INLINEFORM0 where INLINEFORM1 is the length of the context, we generate the corresponding tag sequence INLINEFORM2 based on our designed tagging schemes and the original annotations for pun detection and location provided by the corpora  Our model is then trained on pairs of INLINEFORM3  
Input  The contexts in the pun corpus hold the property that each pun contains exactly one content word, which can be either a noun, a verb, an adjective, or an adverb  To capture this characteristic, we consider lexical features at the character level  Similar to the work of BIBREF15 , the character embeddings are trained by the character-level LSTM networks on the unannotated input sequences  Nonlinear transformations are then applied to the character embeddings by highway networks BIBREF18 , which map the character-level features into different semantic spaces

ground_truth: clinical notes from the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA

clinical notes from the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA 

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 dataset is used in this paper?
Context 2: Introduction
Users of photo-sharing websites such as Flickr often provide short textual descriptions in the form of tags to help others find the images  With the availability of GPS systems in current electronic devices such as smartphones, latitude and longitude coordinates are nowadays commonly made available as well  The tags associated with such georeferenced photos often describe the location where these photos were taken, and Flickr can thus be regarded as a source of environmental information  The use of Flickr for modelling urban environments has already received considerable attention  For instance, various approaches have been proposed for modelling urban regions BIBREF0 , and for identifying points-of-interest BIBREF1 and itineraries BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   However, the usefulness of Flickr for characterizing the natural environment, which is the focus of this paper, is less well-understood 
Many recent studies have highlighted that Flickr tags capture valuable ecological information, which can be used as a complementary source to more traditional sources  To date, however, ecologists have mostly used social media to conduct manual evaluations of image content with little automated exploitation of the associated tags BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6   One recent exception is BIBREF7 , where bag-of-words representations derived from Flickr tags were found to give promising result for predicting a range of different environemental phenomena 
Our main hypothesis in this paper is that by using vector space embeddings instead of bag-of-words representations, the ecological information which is implicitly captured by Flickr tags can be utilized in a more effective way  Vector space embeddings are representations in which the objects from a given domain are encoded using relatively low-dimensional vectors  They have proven useful in natural language processing, especially for encoding word meaning BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , and in machine learning more generally  In this paper, we are interested in the use of such representations for modelling geographic locations  Our main motivation for using vector space embeddings is that they allow us to integrate the textual information we get from Flickr with available structured information in a very natural way  To this end, we rely on an adaptation of the GloVe word embedding model BIBREF9 , but rather than learning word vectors, we learn vectors representing locations  Similar to how the representation of a word in GloVe is determined by the context words surrounding it, the representation of a location in our model is determined by the tags of the photos that have been taken near that location  To incorporate numerical features from structured environmental datasets (e g  average temperature), we associate with each such feature a linear mapping that can be used to predict that feature from a given location vector  This is inspired by the fact that salient properties of a given domain can often be modelled as directions in vector space embeddings BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12   Finally, evidence from categorical datasets (e g  land cover types) is taken into account by requiring that locations belonging to the same category are represented using similar vectors, similar to how semantic types are sometimes modelled in the context of knowledge graph embedding BIBREF13  
While our point-of-departure is a standard word embedding model, we found that the off-the-shelf GloVe model performed surprisingly poorly, meaning that a number of modifications are needed to achieve good results  Our main findings are as follows  First, given that the number of tags associated with a given location can be quite small, it is important to apply some kind of spatial smoothing, i e  the importance of a given tag for a given location should not only depend on the occurrences of the tag at that location, but also on its occurrences at nearby locations  To this end, we use a formulation which is based on spatially smoothed version of pointwise mutual information  Second, given the wide diversity in the kind of information that is covered by Flickr tags, we find that term selection is in some cases critical to obtain vector spaces that capture the relevant aspects of geographic locations  For instance, many tags on Flickr refer to photography related terms, which we would normally not want to affect the vector representation of a given location  Finally, even with these modifications, vector space embeddings learned from Flickr tags alone are sometimes outperformed by bag-of-words representations  However, our vector space embeddings lead to substantially better predictions in cases where structured (scientific) information is also taken into account  In this sense, the main value of using vector space embeddings in this context is not so much about abstracting away from specific tag usages, but rather about the fact that such representations allow us to integrate numerical and categorical features in a much more natural way than is possible with bag-of-words representations 
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows  In the next section, we provide a discussion of existing work  Section SECREF3 then presents our model for embedding geographic locations from Flickr tags and structured data  Next, in Section SECREF4 we provide a detailed discussion about the experimental results  Finally, Section SECREF5 summarizes our conclusions 
Vector space embeddings
The use of low-dimensional vector space embeddings for representing objects has already proven effective in a large number of applications, including natural language processing (NLP), image processing, and pattern recognition  In the context of NLP, the most prominent example is that of word embeddings, which represent word meaning using vectors of typically around 300 dimensions  A large number of different methods for learning such word embeddings have already been proposed, including Skip-gram and the Continuous Bag-of-Words (CBOW) model BIBREF8 , GloVe BIBREF9 , and fastText BIBREF14   They have been applied effectively in many downstream NLP tasks such as sentiment analysis BIBREF15 , part of speech tagging BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , and text classification BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   The model we consider in this paper builds on GloVe, which was designed to capture linear regularities of word-word co-occurrence  In GloVe, there are two word vectors INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 for each word in the vocabulary, which are learned by minimizing the following objective: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the number of times that word INLINEFORM1 appears in the context of word INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 is the vocabulary size, INLINEFORM4 is the target word bias, INLINEFORM5 is the context word bias  The weighting function INLINEFORM6 is used to limit the impact of rare terms  It is defined as 1 if INLINEFORM7 and as INLINEFORM8 otherwise, where INLINEFORM9 is usually fixed to 100 and INLINEFORM10 to 0 75  Intuitively, the target word vectors INLINEFORM11 correspond to the actual word representations which we would like to find, while the context word vectors INLINEFORM12 model how occurrences of INLINEFORM13 in the context of a given word INLINEFORM14 affect the representation of this latter word  In this paper we will use a similar model, which will however be aimed at learning location vectors instead of the target word vectors 
Beyond word embeddings, various methods have been proposed for learning vector space representations from structured data such as knowledge graphs BIBREF20 , BIBREF21 , BIBREF22 , social networks BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 and taxonomies BIBREF25 , BIBREF26   The idea of combining a word embedding model with structured information has also been explored by several authors, for example to improve the word embeddings based on information coming from knowledge graphs BIBREF27 , BIBREF28   Along similar lines, various lexicons have been used to obtain word embeddings that are better suited at modelling sentiment BIBREF15 and antonymy BIBREF29 , among others  The method proposed by BIBREF30 imposes the condition that words that belong to the same semantic category are closer together than words from different categories, which is somewhat similar in spirit to how we will model categorical datasets in our model 
Embeddings for geographic information
The problem of representing geographic locations using embeddings has also attracted some attention  An early example is BIBREF31 , which used principal component analysis and stacked autoencoders to learn low-dimensional vector representations of city neighbourhoods based on census data  They use these representations to predict attributes such as crime, which is not included in the given census data, and find that in most of the considered evaluation tasks, the low-dimensional vector representations lead to more faithful predictions than the original high-dimensional census data 
Some existing works combine word embedding models with geographic coordinates  For example, in BIBREF32 an approach is proposed to learn word embeddings based on the assumption that words which tend to be used in the same geographic locations are likely to be similar  Note that their aim is dual to our aim in this paper: while they use geographic location to learn word vectors, we use textual descriptions to learn vectors representing geographic locations 
Several methods also use word embedding models to learn representations of Points-of-Interest (POIs) that can be used for predicting user visits BIBREF33 , BIBREF34 , BIBREF35   These works use the machinery of existing word embedding models to learn POI representations, intuitively by letting sequences of POI visits by a user play the role of sequences of words in a sentence  In other words, despite the use of word embedding models, many of these approaches do not actually consider any textual information  For example, in BIBREF34 the Skip-gram model is utilized to create a global pattern of users' POIs  Each location was treated as a word and the other locations visited before or after were treated as context words  They then use a pair-wise ranking loss BIBREF36 which takes into account the user's location visit frequency to personalize the location recommendations  The methods of BIBREF34 were extended in BIBREF35 to use a temporal embedding and to take more account of geographic context, in particular the distances between preferred and non-preferred neighboring POIs, to create a “geographically hierarchical pairwise preference ranking model”  Similarly, in BIBREF37 the CBOW model was trained with POI data  They ordered POIs spatially within the traffic-based zones of urban areas  The ordering was used to generate characteristic vectors of POI types  Zone vectors represented by averaging the vectors of the POIs contained in them, were then used as features to predict land use types  In the CrossMap method BIBREF38 they learned embeddings for spatio-temporal hotspots obtained from social media data of locations, times and text  In one form of embedding, intended to enable reconstruction of records, neighbourhood relations in space and time were encoded by averaging hotspots in a target location's spatial and temporal neighborhoods  They also proposed a graph-based embedding method with nodes of location, time and text  The concatenation of the location, time and text vectors were then used as features to predict peoples' activities in urban environments  Finally, in BIBREF39 , a method is proposed that uses the Skip-gram model to represent POI types, based on the intuition that the vector representing a given POI type should be predictive of the POI types that found near places of that type 
Our work is different from these studies, as our focus is on representing locations based on a given text description of that location (in the form of Flickr tags), along with numerical and categorical features from scientific datasets 
Analyzing Flickr tags
Many studies have focused on analyzing Flickr tags to extract useful information in domains such as linguistics BIBREF40 , geography BIBREF0 , BIBREF41 , and ecology BIBREF42 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF43   Most closely related to our work, BIBREF7 found that the tags of georeferenced Flickr photos can effectively supplement traditional scientific environmental data in tasks such as predicting climate features, land cover, species occurrence, and human assessments of scenicness  To encode locations, they simply combine a bag-of-words representation of geographically nearby tags with a feature vector that encodes associated structured scientific data  They found that the predictive value of Flickr tags is roughly on a par with that of the scientific datasets, and that combining both types of information leads to significantly better results than using either of them alone  As we show in this paper, however, their straightforward way of combining both information sources, by concatenating the two types of feature vectors, is far from optimal 
Despite the proven importance of Flickr tags, the problem of embedding Flickr tags has so far received very limited attention  To the best of our knowledge, BIBREF44 is the only work that generated embeddings for Flickr tags  However, their focus was on learning embeddings that capture word meaning (being evaluated on word similarity tasks), whereas we use such embeddings as part of our method for representing locations 
Model Description
In this section, we introduce our embedding model, which combines Flickr tags and structured scientific information to represent a set of locations INLINEFORM0   The proposed model has the following form: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are parameters to control the importance of each component in the model  Component INLINEFORM2 will be used to constrain the representation of the locations based on their textual description (i e  Flickr tags), INLINEFORM3 will be used to constrain the representation of the locations based on their numerical features, and INLINEFORM4 will impose the constraint that locations belonging to the same category should be close together in the space  We will discuss each of these components in more detail in the following sections 
Tag Based Location Embedding
Many of the tags associated with Flickr photos describe characteristics of the places where these photos were taken BIBREF45 , BIBREF46 , BIBREF47   For example, tags may correspond to place names (e g  Brussels, England, Scandinavia), landmarks (e g  Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building) or land cover types (e g  mountain, forest, beach)  To allow us to build location models using such tags, we collected the tags and meta-data of 70 million Flickr photos with coordinates in Europe (which is the region our experiments will focus on), all of which were uploaded to Flickr before the end of September 2015  In this section we first explain how tags can be weighted to obtain bag-of-words representations of locations from Flickr  Subsequently we describe a tag selection method, which will allow us to specialize the embedding depending on which aspects of the considered locations are of interest, after which we discuss the actual embedding model 
Tag weighting  Let INLINEFORM0 be a set of geographic locations, each characterized by latitude and longitude coordinates  To generate a bag-of-words representation of a given location, we have to weight the relevance of each tag to that location  To this end, we have followed the weighting scheme from BIBREF7 , which combines a Gaussian kernel (to model spatial proximity) with Positive Pointwise Mutual Information (PPMI) BIBREF48 , BIBREF49  
Let us write INLINEFORM0 for the set of users who have assigned tag INLINEFORM1 to a photo with coordinates near INLINEFORM2   To assess how relevant INLINEFORM3 is to the location INLINEFORM4 , the number of times INLINEFORM5 occurs in photos near INLINEFORM6 is clearly an important criterion  However, rather than simply counting the number of occurrences within some fixed radius, we use a Gaussian kernel to weight the tag occurrences according to their distance from that location: INLINEFORM7
where the threshold INLINEFORM0 is assumed to be fixed, INLINEFORM1 is the location of a Flickr photo, INLINEFORM2 is the Haversine distance, and we will assume that the bandwidth parameter INLINEFORM3 is set to INLINEFORM4   A tag occurrence is counted only once for all photos by the same user at the same location, which is important to reduce the impact of bulk uploading  The value INLINEFORM5 reflects how frequent tag INLINEFORM6 is near location INLINEFORM7 , but it does not yet take into account the total number of tag occurrences near INLINEFORM8 , nor how popular the tag INLINEFORM9 is overall  To measure how strongly tag INLINEFORM10 is associated with location INLINEFORM11 , we use PPMI, which is a commonly used measure of association in natural language processing  However, rather than estimating PPMI scores from term frequencies, we will use the INLINEFORM12 values instead: INLINEFORM13
where: INLINEFORM0
with INLINEFORM0 the set of all tags, and INLINEFORM1 the set of locations 
Tag selection  Inspired by BIBREF50 , we use a term selection method in order to focus on the tags that are most important for the tasks that we want to consider and reduce the impact of tags that might relate only to a given individual or a group of users  In particular, we obtained good results with a method based on Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, which is based on BIBREF51   Let INLINEFORM0 be a set of (mutually exclusive) properties of locations in which we are interested (e g  land cover categories)  For the ease of presentation, we will identify INLINEFORM1 with the set of locations that have the corresponding property  Then, we select tags from INLINEFORM2 that maximize the following score: INLINEFORM3
where INLINEFORM0 is the probability that a photo with tag INLINEFORM1 has a location near INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 is the probability that an arbitrary tag occurrence is assigned to a photo near a location in INLINEFORM4   Since INLINEFORM5 often has to be estimated from a small number of tag occurrences, it is estimated using Bayesian smoothing: INLINEFORM6
where INLINEFORM0 is a parameter controlling the amount of smoothing, which will be tuned in the experiments  On the other hand, for INLINEFORM1 we can simply use a maximum likelihood estimation: INLINEFORM2
Location embedding  We now want to find a vector INLINEFORM0 for each location INLINEFORM1 such that similar locations are represented using similar vectors  To achieve this, we use a close variant of the GloVe model, where tag occurrences are treated as context words of geographic locations  In particular, with each location INLINEFORM2 we associate a vector INLINEFORM3 and with each tag INLINEFORM4 we associate a vector INLINEFORM5 and a bias term INLINEFORM6 , and consider the following objective (which in our full model ( EQREF7 ) will be combined with components that are derived from the structured information): INLINEFORM7
Note how tags play the role of the context words in the GloVe model, while instead of learning target word vectors we now learn location vectors  In contrast to GloVe, our objective does not directly refer to co-occurrence statistics, but instead uses the INLINEFORM0 scores  One important consequence of this is that we can also consider pairs INLINEFORM1 for which INLINEFORM2 does not occur in INLINEFORM3 at all; such pairs are usually called negative examples  While they cannot be used in the standard GloVe model, some authors have already reported that introducing negative examples in variants of GloVe can lead to an improvement BIBREF52   In practice, evaluating the full objective above would not be computationally feasible, as we may need to consider millions of locations and millions of tags  Therefore, rather than considering all tags in INLINEFORM4 for the inner summation, we only consider those tags that appear at least once near location INLINEFORM5 together with a sample of negative examples 
Structured Environmental Data
There is a wide variety of structured data that can be used to describe locations  In this work, we have restricted ourselves to the same datasets as BIBREF7   These include nine (real-valued) numerical features, which are latitude, longitude, elevation, population, and five climate related features (avg  temperature, avg  precipitation, avg  solar radiation, avg  wind speed, and avg  water vapor pressure)  In addition, 180 categorical features were used, which are CORINE land cover classes at level 1 (5 classes), level 2 (15 classes) and level 3 (44 classes) and 116 soil types (SoilGrids)  Note that each location should belong to exactly 4 categories: one CORINE class at each of the three levels and a soil type 
Numerical features  Numerical features can be treated similarly to the tag occurrences, i e  we will assume that the value of a given numerical feature can be predicted from the location vectors using a linear mapping  In particular, for each numerical feature INLINEFORM0 we consider a vector INLINEFORM1 and a bias term INLINEFORM2 , and the following objective: INLINEFORM3
where we write INLINEFORM0 for set of all numerical features and INLINEFORM1 is the value of feature INLINEFORM2 for location INLINEFORM3 , after z-score normalization 
Categorical features  To take into account the categorical features, we impose the constraint that locations belonging to the same category should be close together in the space  To formalize this, we represent each category type INLINEFORM0 as a vector INLINEFORM1 , and consider the following objective: INLINEFORM2
Evaluation Tasks
We will use the method from BIBREF7 as our main baseline  This will allow us to directly evaluate the effectiveness of embeddings for the considered problem, since we have used the same structured datasets and same tag weighting scheme  For this reason, we will also follow their evaluation methodology  In particular, we will consider three evaluation tasks:
Predicting the distribution of 100 species across Europe, using the European network of nature protected sites Natura 2000 dataset as ground truth  For each of these species, a binary classification problem is considered  The set of locations INLINEFORM0 is defined as the 26,425 distinct sites occurring in the dataset 
Predicting soil type, again each time treating the task as a binary classification problem, using the same set of locations INLINEFORM0 as in the species distribution experiments  For these experiments, none of the soil type features are used for generating the embeddings 
Predicting CORINE land cover classes at levels 1, 2 and level 3, each time treating the task as a binary classification problem, using the same set of locations INLINEFORM0 as in the species distribution experiments  For these experiments, none of the CORINE features are used for generating the embeddings 
In addition, we will also consider the following regression tasks:
Predicting 5 climate related features: the average precipitation, temperature, solar radiation, water vapor pressure, and wind speed  We again use the same set of locations INLINEFORM0 as for species distribution in this experiment  None of the climate features is used for constructing the embeddings for this experiment 
Predicting people's subjective opinions of landscape beauty in Britain, using the crowdsourced dataset from the ScenicOrNot website as ground truth  The set INLINEFORM0 is chosen as the set of locations of 191 605 rated locations from the ScenicOrNot dataset for which at least one georeferenced Flickr photo exists within a 1 km radius 
Experimental Setup
In all experiments, we use Support Vector Machines (SVMs) for classification problems and Support Vector Regression (SVR) for regression problems to make predictions from our representations of geographic locations  In both cases, we used the SVM INLINEFORM0 implementation BIBREF53   For each experiment, the set of locations INLINEFORM1 was split into two-thirds for training, one-sixth for testing, and one-sixth for tuning the parameters  All embedding models are learned with Adagrad using 30 iterations  The number of dimensions is chosen for each experiment from INLINEFORM2 based on the tuning data  For the parameters of our model in Equation EQREF7 , we considered values of INLINEFORM3 from {0 1, 0 01, 0 001, 0 0001} and values of INLINEFORM4 from {1, 10, 100, 1000, 10 000, 100 000}  To compute KL divergence, we need to determine a set of classes INLINEFORM5 for each experiment  For classification problems, we can simply consider the given categories, but for the regression problems we need to define such classes by discretizing the numerical values  For the scenicness experiments, we considered scores 3 and 7 as cut-off points, leading to three classes (i e  less than 3, between 3 and 7, and above 7)  Similarly, for each climate related features, we consider two cut-off values for discretization: 5 and 15 for average temperature, 50 and 100 for average precipitation, 10 000 and 17 000 for average solar radiation, 0 7 and 1 for average water vapor pressure, and 3 and 5 for wind speed  The smoothing parameter INLINEFORM6 was selected among INLINEFORM7 based on the tuning data  In all experiments where term selection is used, we select the top 100 000 tags  We fixed the radius INLINEFORM8 at 1km when counting the number of tag occurrences  Finally, we set the number of negative examples as 10 times the number of positive examples for each location, but with a cap at 1000 negative examples in each region for computational reasons  We tune all parameters with respect to the F1 score for the classification tasks, and Spearman INLINEFORM9 for the regression tasks 
Variants and Baseline Methods
We will refer to our model as EGEL (Embedding GEographic Locations), and will consider the following variants  EGEL-Tags only uses the information from the Flickr tags (i e  component INLINEFORM0 ), without using any negative examples and without feature selection  EGEL-Tags+NS is similar to EGEL-Tags but with the addition of negative examples  EGEL-KL(Tags+NS) additionally considers term selection  EGEL-All is our full method, i e  it additionally uses the structured information  We also consider the following baselines  BOW-Tags represents locations using a bag-of-words representation, using the same tag weighting as the embedding model  BOW-KL(Tags) uses the same representation but after term selection, using the same KL-based method as the embedding model  BOW-All combines the bag-of-words representation with the structured information, encoded as proposed in BIBREF7   GloVe uses the objective from the original GloVe model for learning location vectors, i e  this variant differs from EGEL-Tags in that instead of INLINEFORM1 we use the number of co-occurrences of tag INLINEFORM2 near location INLINEFORM3 , measured as INLINEFORM4  
Results and Discussion
We present our results for the binary classification tasks in Tables TABREF23 – TABREF24 in terms of average precision, average recall and macro average F1 score  The results of the regression tasks are reported in Tables TABREF25 and TABREF29 in terms of the mean absolute error between the predicted and actual scores, as well as the Spearman INLINEFORM0 correlation between the rankings induced by both sets of scores  It can be clearly seen from the results that our proposed method (EGEL-All) can effectively integrate Flickr tags with the available structured information  It outperforms the baselines for all the considered tasks  Furthermore, note that the PPMI-based weighting in EGEL-Tags consistently outperforms GloVe and that both the addition of negative examples and term selection lead to further improvements  The use of term selection leads to particularly substantial improvements for the regression problems 
While our experimental results confirm the usefulness of embeddings for predicting environmental features, this is only consistently the case for the variants that use both the tags and the structured datasets  In particular, comparing BOW-Tags with EGEL-Tags, we sometimes see that the former achieves the best results  While this might seem surprising, it is in accordance with the findings in BIBREF54 , BIBREF38 , among others, where it was also found that bag-of-words representations can sometimes lead to surprisingly effective baselines  Interestingly, we note that in all cases where EGEL-KL(Tags+NS) performs worse than BOW-Tags, we also find that BOW-KL(Tags) performs worse than BOW-Tags  This suggests that for these tasks there is a very large variation in the kind of tags that can inform the prediction model, possibly including e g  user-specific tags  Some of the information captured by such highly specific but rare tags is likely to be lost in the embedding 
To further analyze the difference in performance between BoW representations and embeddings, Figure TABREF29 compares the performance of the GloVe model with the bag-of-words model for predicting place scenicness, as a function of the number of tag occurrences at the considered locations  What is clearly noticeable in Figure TABREF29 is that GloVe performs better than the bag-of-words model for large corpora and worse for smaller corpora  This issue has been alleviated in our embedding method by the addition of negative examples 
 Conclusions
In this paper, we have proposed a model to learn geographic location embeddings using Flickr tags, numerical environmental features, and categorical information  The experimental results show that our model can integrate Flickr tags with structured information in a more effective way than existing methods, leading to substantial improvements over baseline methods on various prediction tasks about the natural environment 
Acknowledgments
Shelan Jeawak has been sponsored by HCED Iraq  Steven Schockaert has been supported by ERC Starting Grant 637277 
Context 3: 
We also observe that a pun tends to appear at the end of a sentence  Specifically, based on the statistics, we found that sentences with a pun that locate at the second half of the text account for around 88% and 92% in homographic and heterographic datasets, respectively  We thus introduce a binary feature that indicates if a word is located at the first or the second half of an input sentence to capture such positional information  A binary indicator can be mapped to a vector representation using a randomly initialized embedding table BIBREF19 , BIBREF20   In this work, we directly adopt the value of the binary indicator as part of the input 
The concatenation of the transformed character embeddings, the pre-trained word embeddings BIBREF21 , and the position indicators are taken as input of our model 
Tagging  The input is then fed into a BiLSTM network, which will be able to capture contextual information  For a training instance INLINEFORM0 , we suppose the output by the word-level BiLSTM is INLINEFORM1   The CRF layer is adopted to capture label dependencies and make final tagging decisions at each position, which has been included in many state-of-the-art sequence labeling models BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   The conditional probability is defined as:
where INLINEFORM0 is a set of all possible label sequences consisting of tags from INLINEFORM1 (or INLINEFORM2 ), INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 are weight and bias parameters corresponding to the label pair INLINEFORM5   During training, we minimize the negative log-likelihood summed over all training instances:
where INLINEFORM0 refers to the INLINEFORM1 -th instance in the training set  During testing, we aim to find the optimal label sequence for a new input INLINEFORM2 :
This search process can be done efficiently using the Viterbi algorithm 
Datasets and Settings
We evaluate our model on two benchmark datasets BIBREF9   The homographic dataset contains 2,250 contexts, 1,607 of which contain a pun  The heterographic dataset consists of 1,780 contexts with 1,271 containing a pun  We notice there is no standard splitting information provided for both datasets  Thus we apply 10-fold cross validation  To make direct comparisons with prior studies, following BIBREF4 , we accumulated the predictions for all ten folds and calculate the scores in the end 
For each fold, we randomly select 10% of the instances from the training set for development  Word embeddings are initialized with the 100-dimensional Glove BIBREF21   The dimension of character embeddings is 30 and they are randomly initialized, which can be fine tuned during training  The pre-trained word embeddings are not updated during training  The dimensions of hidden vectors for both char-level and word-level LSTM units are set to 300  We adopt stochastic gradient descent (SGD) BIBREF26 with a learning rate of 0 015 
For the pun detection task, if the predicted tag sequence contains at least one INLINEFORM0 tag, we regard the output (i e , the prediction of our pun detection model) for this task as true, otherwise false  For the pun location task, a predicted pun is regarded as correct if and only if it is labeled as the gold pun in the dataset  As to pun location, to make fair comparisons with prior studies, we only consider the instances that are labeled as the ones containing a pun  We report precision, recall and INLINEFORM1 score in Table TABREF11   A list of prior works that did not employ joint learning are also shown in the first block of Table TABREF11  
Results
We also implemented a baseline model based on conditional random fields (CRF), where features like POS tags produced by the Stanford POS tagger BIBREF27 , n-grams, label transitions, word suffixes and relative position to the end of the text are considered  We can see that our model with the INLINEFORM0 tagging scheme yields new state-of-the-art INLINEFORM1 scores on pun detection and competitive results on pun location, compared to baselines that do not adopt joint learning in the first block  For location on heterographic puns, our model's performance is slightly lower than the system of BIBREF25 , which is a rule-based locator  Compared to CRF, we can see that our model, either with the INLINEFORM2 or the INLINEFORM3 scheme, yields significantly higher recall on both detection and location tasks, while the precisions are relatively close  This demonstrates the effectiveness of BiLSTM, which learns the contextual features of given texts – such information appears to be helpful in recalling more puns 
Compared to the INLINEFORM0 scheme, the INLINEFORM1 tagging scheme is able to yield better performance on these two tasks  After studying outputs from these two approaches, we found that one leading source of error for the INLINEFORM2 approach is that there exist more than one words in a single instance that are assigned with the INLINEFORM3 tag  However, according to the description of pun in BIBREF9 , each context contains a maximum of one pun  Thus, such a useful structural constraint is not well captured by the simple approach based on the INLINEFORM4 tagging scheme  On the other hand, by applying the INLINEFORM5 tagging scheme, such a constraint is properly captured in the model  As a result, the results for such a approach are significantly better than the approach based on the INLINEFORM6 tagging scheme, as we can observe from the table  Under the same experimental setup, we also attempted to exclude word position features  Results are given by INLINEFORM7 - INLINEFORM8   It is expected that the performance of pun location drops, since such position features are able to capture the interesting property that a pun tends to appear in the second half of a sentence  While such knowledge is helpful for the location task, interestingly, a model without position knowledge yields improved performance on the pun detection task

ground_truth:  the same datasets as BIBREF7

same datasets as BIBREF7

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 tagging scheme employed?
Context 3:  One possible reason is that detecting whether a sentence contains a pun is not concerned with such word position information 
Additionally, we conduct experiments over sentences containing a pun only, namely 1,607 and 1,271 instances from homographic and heterographic pun corpora separately  It can be regarded as a “pipeline” method where the classifier for pun detection is regarded as perfect  Following the prior work of BIBREF4 , we apply 10-fold cross validation  Since we are given that all input sentences contain a pun, we only report accumulated results on pun location, denoted as Pipeline in Table TABREF11   Compared with our approaches, the performance of such an approach drops significantly  On the other hand, such a fact demonstrates that the two task, detection and location of puns, can reinforce each other  These figures demonstrate the effectiveness of our sequence labeling method to detect and locate English puns in a joint manner 
Error Analysis
We studied the outputs from our system and make some error analysis  We found the errors can be broadly categorized into several types, and we elaborate them here  1) Low word coverage: since the corpora are relatively small, there exist many unseen words in the test set  Learning the representations of such unseen words is challenging, which affects the model's performance  Such errors contribute around 40% of the total errors made by our system  2) Detection errors: we found many errors are due to the model's inability to make correct pun detection  Such inability harms both pun detection and pun location  Although our approach based on the INLINEFORM0 tagging scheme yields relatively higher scores on the detection task, we still found that 40% of the incorrectly predicted instances fall into this group  3) Short sentences: we found it was challenging for our model to make correct predictions when the given text is short  Consider the example “Superglue! Tom rejoined," here the word rejoined is the corresponding pun  However, it would be challenging to figure out the pun with such limited contextual information 
Related Work
Most existing systems address pun detection and location separately  BIBREF22 applied word sense knowledge to conduct pun detection  BIBREF24 trained a bidirectional RNN classifier for detecting homographic puns  Next, a knowledge-based approach is adopted to find the exact pun  Such a system is not applicable to heterographic puns  BIBREF28 applied Google n-gram and word2vec to make decisions  The phonetic distance via the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary is computed to detect heterographic puns  BIBREF10 used the hidden Markov model and a cyclic dependency network with rich features to detect and locate puns  BIBREF23 used a supervised approach to pun detection and a weakly supervised approach to pun location based on the position within the context and part of speech features  BIBREF25 proposed a rule-based system for pun location that scores candidate words according to eleven simple heuristics  Two systems are developed to conduct detection and location separately in the system known as UWAV BIBREF3   The pun detector combines predictions from three classifiers  The pun locator considers word2vec similarity between every pair of words in the context and position to pinpoint the pun  The state-of-the-art system for homographic pun location is a neural method BIBREF4 , where the word senses are incorporated into a bidirectional LSTM model  This method only supports the pun location task on homographic puns  Another line of research efforts related to this work is sequence labeling, such as POS tagging, chunking, word segmentation and NER  The neural methods have shown their effectiveness in this task, such as BiLSTM-CNN BIBREF13 , GRNN BIBREF29 , LSTM-CRF BIBREF30 , LSTM-CNN-CRF BIBREF14 , LM-LSTM-CRF BIBREF15  
In this work, we combine pun detection and location tasks as a single sequence labeling problem  Inspired by the work of BIBREF15 , we also adopt a LSTM-CRF with character embeddings to make labeling decisions 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose to perform pun detection and location tasks in a joint manner from a sequence labeling perspective  We observe that each text in our corpora contains a maximum of one pun  Hence, we design a novel tagging scheme to incorporate such a constraint  Such a scheme guarantees that there is a maximum of one word that will be tagged as a pun during the testing phase  We also found the interesting structural property such as the fact that most puns tend to appear at the second half of the sentences can be helpful for such a task, but was not explored in previous works  Furthermore, unlike many previous approaches, our approach, though simple, is generally applicable to both heterographic and homographic puns  Empirical results on the benchmark datasets prove the effectiveness of the proposed approach that the two tasks of pun detection and location can be addressed by a single model from a sequence labeling perspective 
Future research includes the investigations on how to make use of richer semantic and linguistic information for detection and location of puns  Research on puns for other languages such as Chinese is still under-explored, which could also be an interesting direction for our future studies 
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments  This work is supported by Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 2 Project MOE2017-T2-1-156, and is partially supported by SUTD project PIE-SGP-AI-2018-01 

ground_truth: A new tagging scheme that tags the words before and after the pun as well as the pun words.

a new tagging scheme consisting of three tags, namely { INLINEFORM0 }