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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How much higher quality is the resulting annotated data?
Context 1: Introduction
Assembling training corpora of annotated natural language examples in specialized domains such as biomedicine poses considerable challenges  Experts with the requisite domain knowledge to perform high-quality annotation tend to be expensive, while lay annotators may not have the necessary knowledge to provide high-quality annotations  A practical approach for collecting a sufficiently large corpus would be to use crowdsourcing platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)  However, crowd workers in general are likely to provide noisy annotations BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , an issue exacerbated by the technical nature of specialized content  Some of this noise may reflect worker quality and can be modeled BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , but for some instances lay people may simply lack the domain knowledge to provide useful annotation 
In this paper we report experiments on the EBM-NLP corpus comprising crowdsourced annotations of medical literature BIBREF5   We operationalize the concept of annotation difficulty and show how it can be exploited during training to improve information extraction models  We then obtain expert annotations for the abstracts predicted to be most difficult, as well as for a similar number of randomly selected abstracts  The annotation of highly specialized data and the use of lay and expert annotators allow us to examine the following key questions related to lay and expert annotations in specialized domains:
Can we predict item difficulty? We define a training instance as difficult if a lay annotator or an automated model disagree on its labeling  We show that difficulty can be predicted, and that it is distinct from inter-annotator agreement  Further, such predictions can be used during training to improve information extraction models 
Are there systematic differences between expert and lay annotations? We observe decidedly lower agreement between lay workers as compared to domain experts  Lay annotations have high precision but low recall with respect to expert annotations in the new data that we collected  More generally, we expect lay annotations to be lower quality, which may translate to lower precision, recall, or both, compared to expert annotations  Can one rely solely on lay annotations? Reasonable models can be trained using lay annotations alone, but similar performance can be achieved using markedly less expert data  This suggests that the optimal ratio of expert to crowd annotations for specialized tasks will depend on the cost and availability of domain experts  Expert annotations are preferable whenever its collection is practical  But in real-world settings, a combination of expert and lay annotations is better than using lay data alone 
Does it matter what data is annotated by experts? We demonstrate that a system trained on combined data achieves better predictive performance when experts annotate difficult examples rather than instances selected at i i d  random 
Our contributions in this work are summarized as follows  We define a task difficulty prediction task and show how this is related to, but distinct from, inter-worker agreement  We introduce a new model for difficulty prediction combining learned representations induced via a pre-trained `universal' sentence encoder BIBREF6 , and a sentence encoder learned from scratch for this task  We show that predicting annotation difficulty can be used to improve the task routing and model performance for a biomedical information extraction task  Our results open up a new direction for ensuring corpus quality  We believe that item difficulty prediction will likely be useful in other, non-specialized tasks as well, and that the most effective data collection in specialized domains requires research addressing the fundamental questions we examine here 
Related Work
Crowdsourcing annotation is now a well-studied problem BIBREF7 , BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Due to the noise inherent in such annotations, there have also been considerable efforts to develop aggregation models that minimize noise BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4  
There are also several surveys of crowdsourcing in biomedicine specifically BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   Some work in this space has contrasted model performance achieved using expert vs  crowd annotated training data BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 , BIBREF13   Dumitrache et al  Dumitrache:2018:CGT:3232718 3152889 concluded that performance is similar under these supervision types, finding no clear advantage from using expert annotators  This differs from our findings, perhaps owing to differences in design  The experts we used already hold advanced medical degrees, for instance, while those in prior work were medical students  Furthermore, the task considered here would appear to be of greater difficulty: even a system trained on $\sim $ 5k instances performs reasonably, but far from perfect  By contrast, in some of the prior work where experts and crowd annotations were deemed equivalent, a classifier trained on 300 examples can achieve very high accuracy BIBREF12  
More relevant to this paper, prior work has investigated methods for `task routing' in active learning scenarios in which supervision is provided by heterogeneous labelers with varying levels of expertise BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF14   The related question of whether effort is better spent collecting additional annotations for already labeled (but potentially noisily so) examples or novel instances has also been addressed BIBREF18   What distinguishes the work here is our focus on providing an operational definition of instance difficulty, showing that this can be predicted, and then using this to inform task routing 
Application Domain
Our specific application concerns annotating abstracts of articles that describe the conduct and results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)  Experimentation in this domain has become easy with the recent release of the EBM-NLP BIBREF5 corpus, which includes a reasonably large training dataset annotated via crowdsourcing, and a modest test set labeled by individuals with advanced medical training  More specifically, the training set comprises 4,741 medical article abstracts with crowdsourced annotations indicating snippets (sequences) that describe the Participants (p), Interventions (i), and Outcome (o) elements of the respective RCT, and the test set is composed of 191 abstracts with p, i, o sequence annotations from three medical experts 
Table 1 shows an example of difficult and easy examples according to our definition of difficulty  The underlined text demarcates the (consensus) reference label provided by domain experts  In the difficult examples, crowd workers marked text distinct from these reference annotations; whereas in the easy cases they reproduced them with reasonable fidelity  The difficult sentences usually exhibit complicated structure and feature jargon 
An abstract may contain some `easy' and some `difficult' sentences  We thus perform our analysis at the sentence level  We split abstracts into sentences using spaCy  We excluded sentences that comprise fewer than two tokens, as these are likely an artifact of errors in sentence splitting  In total, this resulted in 57,505 and 2,428 sentences in the train and test set abstracts, respectively 
Quantifying Task Difficulty
The test set includes annotations from both crowd workers and domain experts  We treat the latter as ground truth and then define the difficulty of sentences in terms of the observed agreement between expert and lay annotators  Formally, for annotation task $t$ and instance $i$ :
$$\text{Difficulty}_{ti} = \frac{\sum _{j=1}^n{f(\text{label}_{ij}, y_i})}{n}$$   (Eq  3)
where $f$ is a scoring function that measures the quality of the label from worker $j$ for sentence $i$ , as compared to a ground truth annotation, $y_i$   The difficulty score of sentence $i$ is taken as an average over the scores for all $n$ layworkers  We use Spearmans' correlation coefficient as a scoring function  Specifically, for each sentence we create two vectors comprising counts of how many times each token was annotated by crowd and expert workers, respectively, and calculate the correlation between these  Sentences with no labels are treated as maximally easy; those with only either crowd worker or expert label(s) are assumed maximally difficult 
The training set contains only crowdsourced annotations  To label the training data, we use a 10-fold validation like setting  We iteratively retrain the LSTM-CRF-Pattern sequence tagger of Patel et al  patel2018syntactic on 9 folds of the training data and use that trained model to predict labels for the 10th  In this way we obtain predictions on the full training set  We then use predicted spans as proxy `ground truth' annotations to calculate the difficulty score of sentences as described above; we normalize these to the [ $0, 1$ ] interval  We validate this approximation by comparing the proxy scores against reference scores over the test set, the Pearson's correlation coefficients are 0 57 for Population, 0 71 for Intervention and 0 68 for Outcome 
There exist many sentences that contain neither manual nor predicted annotations  We treat these as maximally easy sentences (with difficulty scores of 0)  Such sentences comprise 51%, 42% and 36% for Population, Interventions and Outcomes data respectively, indicating that it is easier to identify sentences that have no Population spans, but harder to identify sentences that have no Interventions or Outcomes spans  This is intuitive as descriptions of the latter two tend to be more technical and dense with medical jargon 
We show the distribution of the automatically labeled scores for sentences that do contain spans in Figure 1   The mean of the Population (p) sentence scores is significantly lower than that for other types of sentences (i and o), again indicating that they are easier on average to annotate  This aligns with a previous finding that annotating Interventions and Outcomes is more difficult than annotating Participants BIBREF5  
Many sentences contain spans tagged by the LSTM-CRF-Pattern model, but missed by all crowd workers, resulting in a maximally difficult score (1)  Inspection of such sentences revealed that some are truly difficult examples, but others are tagging model errors  In either case, such sentences have confused workers and/or the model, and so we retain them all as `difficult' sentences 
Content describing the p, i and o, respectively, is quite different  As such, one sentence usually contains (at most) only one of these three content types  We thus treat difficulty prediction for the respective label types as separate tasks 
Difficulty is not Worker Agreement
Our definition of difficulty is derived from agreement between expert and crowd annotations for the test data, and agreement between a predictive model and crowd annotations in the training data  It is reasonable to ask if these measures are related to inter-annotator agreement, a metric often used in language technology research to identify ambiguous or difficult items  Here we explicitly verify that our definition of difficulty only weakly correlates with inter-annotator agreement 
We calculate inter-worker agreement between crowd and expert annotators using Spearman's correlation coefficient  As shown in Table 2 , average agreement between domain experts are considerably higher than agreements between crowd workers for all three label types  This is a clear indication that the crowd annotations are noisier 
Furthermore, we compare the correlation between inter-annotator agreement and difficulty scores in the training data  Given that the majority of sentences do not contain a PICO span, we only include in these calculations those that contain a reference label  Pearson's r are 0 34, 0 30 and 0 31 for p, i and o, respectively, confirming that inter-worker agreement and our proposed difficulty score are quite distinct 
Predicting Annotation Difficulty
We treat difficulty prediction as a regression problem, and propose and evaluate neural model variants for the task  We first train RNN BIBREF19 and CNN BIBREF20 models 
We also use the universal sentence encoder (USE) BIBREF6 to induce sentence representations, and train a model using these as features  Following BIBREF6 , we then experiment with an ensemble model that combines the `universal' and task-specific representations to predict annotation difficulty  We expect these universal embeddings to capture general, high-level semantics, and the task specific representations to capture more granular information  Figure 2 depicts the model architecture  Sentences are fed into both the universal sentence encoder and, separately, a task specific neural encoder, yielding two representations  We concatenate these and pass the combined vector to the regression layer 
Experimental Setup and Results
We trained models for each label type separately  Word embeddings were initialized to 300d GloVe vectors BIBREF21 trained on common crawl data; these are fine-tuned during training  We used the Adam optimizer BIBREF22 with learning rate and decay set to 0 001 and 0 99, respectively  We used batch sizes of 16 
We used the large version of the universal sentence encoder with a transformer BIBREF23   We did not update the pretrained sentence encoder parameters during training  All hyperparamaters for all models (including hidden layers, hidden sizes, and dropout) were tuned using Vizier BIBREF24 via 10-fold cross validation on the training set maximizing for F1 
As a baseline, we also trained a linear Support-Vector Regression BIBREF25 model on $n$ -gram features ( $n$ ranges from 1 to 3) 
Table 3 reports Pearson correlation coefficients between the predictions with each of the neural models and the ground truth difficulty scores  Rows 1-4 correspond to individual models, and row 5 reports the ensemble performance  Columns correspond to label type  Results from all models outperform the baseline SVR model: Pearson's correlation coefficients range from 0 550 to 0 622  The regression correlations are the lowest 
The RNN model realizes the strongest performance among the stand-alone (non-ensemble) models, outperforming variants that exploit CNN and USE representations  Combining the RNN and USE further improves results  We hypothesize that this is due to complementary sentence information encoded in universal representations 
For all models, correlations for Intervention and Outcomes are higher than for Population, which is expected given the difficulty distributions in Figure 1   In these, the sentences are more uniformly distributed, with a fair number of difficult and easier sentences  By contrast, in Population there are a greater number of easy sentences and considerably fewer difficult sentences, which makes the difficulty ranking task particularly challenging 
Better IE with Difficulty Prediction
We next present experiments in which we attempt to use the predicted difficulty during training to improve models for information extraction of descriptions of Population, Interventions and Outcomes from medical article abstracts  We investigate two uses: (1) simply removing the most difficult sentences from the training set, and, (2) re-weighting the most difficult sentences 
We again use LSTM-CRF-Pattern as the base model and experimenting on the EBM-NLP corpus BIBREF5   This is trained on either (1) the training set with difficult sentences removed, or (2) the full training set but with instances re-weighted in proportion to their predicted difficulty score  Following BIBREF5 , we use the Adam optimizer with learning rate of 0 001, decay 0 9, batch size 20 and dropout 0 5  We use pretrained 200d GloVe vectors BIBREF21 to initialize word embeddings, and use 100d hidden char representations  Each word is thus represented with 300 dimensions in total  The hidden size is 100 for the LSTM in the character representation component, and 200 for the LSTM in the information extraction component  We train for 15 epochs, saving parameters that achieve the best F1 score on a nested development set 
Removing Difficult Examples
We first evaluate changes in performance induced by training the sequence labeling model using less data by removing difficult sentences prior to training  The hypothesis here is that these difficult instances are likely to introduce more noise than signal  We used a cross-fold approach to predict sentence difficulties, training on 9/10ths of the data and scoring the remaining 1/10th at a time  We then sorted sentences by predicted difficulty scores, and experimented with removing increasing numbers of these (in order of difficulty) prior to training the LSTM-CRF-Pattern model 
Figure 3 shows the results achieved by the LSTM-CRF-Pattern model after discarding increasing amounts of the training data: the $x$ and $y$ axes correspond to the the percentage of data removed and F1 scores, respectively  We contrast removing sentences predicted to be difficult with removing them (a) randomly (i i d ), and, (b) in inverse order of predicted inter-annotator agreement  The agreement prediction model is trained exactly the same like difficult prediction model, with simply changing the difficult score to annotation agreement  F1 scores actually improve (marginally) when we remove the most difficult sentences, up until we drop 4% of the data for Population and Interventions, and 6% for Outcomes  Removing training points at i i d  random degrades performance, as expected  Removing sentences in order of disagreement seems to have similar effect as removing them by difficulty score when removing small amount of the data, but the F1 scores drop much faster when removing more data  These findings indicate that sentences predicted to be difficult are indeed noisy, to the extent that they do not seem to provide the model useful signal 
Re-weighting by Difficulty
We showed above that removing a small number of the most difficult sentences does not harm, and in fact modestly improves, medical IE model performance  However, using the available data we are unable to test if this will be useful in practice, as we would need additional data to determine how many difficult sentences should be dropped 
We instead explore an alternative, practical means of exploiting difficulty predictions: we re-weight sentences during training inversely to their predicted difficulty  Formally, we weight sentence $i$ with difficulty scores above $\tau $ according to: $1-a\cdot (d_i-\tau )/(1-\tau )$ , where $d_i$ is the difficulty score for sentence $i$ , and $a$ is a parameter codifying the minimum weight value  We set $\tau $ to 0 8 so as to only re-weight sentences with difficulty in the top 20th percentile, and we set $a$ to 0 5  The re-weighting is equivalent to down-sampling the difficult sentences  LSTM-CRF-Pattern is our base model 
Table 4 reports the precision, recall and F1 achieved both with and without sentence re-weighting  Re-weighting improves all metrics modestly but consistently  All F1 differences are statistically significant under a sign test ( $p<0 01$ )  The model with best precision is different for Patient, Intervention and Outcome labels  However re-weighting by difficulty does consistently yield the best recall for all three extraction types, with the most notable improvement for i and o, where recall improved by 10 percentage points  This performance increase translated to improvements in F1 across all types, as compared to the base model and to re-weighting by agreement 
Involving Expert Annotators
The preceding experiments demonstrate that re-weighting difficult sentences annotated by the crowd generally improves the extraction models  Presumably the performance is influenced by the annotation quality 
We now examine the possibility that the higher quality and more consistent annotations of domain experts on the difficult instances will benefit the extraction model  This simulates an annotation strategy in which we route difficult instances to domain experts and easier ones to crowd annotators  We also contrast the value of difficult data to that of an i i d  random sample of the same size, both annotated by experts 
Expert annotations of Random and Difficult Instances
We re-annotate by experts a subset of most difficult instances and the same number of random instances  As collecting annotations from experts is slow and expensive, we only re-annotate the difficult instances for the interventions extraction task  We re-annotate the abstracts which cover the sentences with predicted difficulty scores in the top 5 percentile  We rank the abstracts from the training set by the count of difficult sentences, and re-annotate the abstracts that contain the most difficult sentences  Constrained by time and budget, we select only 2000 abstracts for re-annotation; 1000 of these are top-ranked, and 1000 are randomly sampled  This re-annotation cost $3,000  We have released the new annotation data at: https://github com/bepnye/EBM-NLP 
Following BIBREF5 , we recruited five medical experts via Up-work with advanced medical training and strong technical reading/writing skills  The expert annotator were asked to read the entire abstract and highlight, using the BRAT toolkit BIBREF26 , all spans describing medical Interventions  Each abstract is only annotated by one expert  We examined 30 re-annotated abstracts to ensure the annotation quality before hiring the annotator 
Table 5 presents the results of LSTM-CRF-Pattern model trained on the reannotated difficult subset and the random subset  The first two rows show the results for models trained with expert annotations  The model trained on random data has a slightly better F1 than that trained on the same amount of difficult data  The model trained on random data has higher precision but lower recall 
Rows 3 and 4 list the results for models trained on the same data but with crowd annotation  Models trained with expert-annotated data are clearly superior to those trained with crowd labels with respect to F1, indicating that the experts produced higher quality annotations  For crowdsourced annotations, training the model with data sampled at i i d  random achieves 2% higher F1 than when difficult instances are used  When expert annotations are used, this difference is less than 1%  This trend in performance may be explained by differences in annotation quality: the randomly sampled set was more consistently annotated by both experts and crowd because the difficult set is harder  However, in both cases expert annotations are better, with a bigger difference between the expert and crowd models on the difficult set 
The last row is the model trained on all 5k abstracts with crowd annotations  Its F1 score is lower than either expert model trained on only 20% of data, suggesting that expert annotations should be collected whenever possible  Again the crowd model on complete data has higher precision than expert models but its recall is much lower 
Routing To Experts or Crowd
So far a system was trained on one type of data, either labeled by crowd or experts  We now examine the performance of a system trained on data that was routed to either experts or crowd annotators depending on their predicted difficult  Given the results presented so far mixing annotators may be beneficial given their respective trade-offs of precision and recall  We use the annotations from experts for an abstract if it exists otherwise use crowd annotations  The results are presented in Table 6  
Rows 1 and 2 repeat the performance of the models trained on difficult subset and random subset with expert annotations only respectively  The third row is the model trained by combining difficult and random subsets with expert annotations  There are around 250 abstracts in the overlap of these two sets, so there are total 1 75k abstracts used for training the D+R model  Rows 4 to 6 are the models trained on all 5k abstracts with mixed annotations, where Other means the rest of the abstracts with crowd annotation only 
The results show adding more training data with crowd annotation still improves at least 1 point F1 score in all three extraction tasks  The improvement when the difficult subset with expert annotations is mixed with the remaining crowd annotation is 3 5 F1 score, much larger than when a random set of expert annotations are added  The model trained with re-annotating the difficult subset (D+Other) also outperforms the model with re-annotating the random subset (R+Other) by 2 points in F1  The model trained with re-annotating both of difficult and random subsets (D+R+Other), however, achieves only marginally higher F1 than the model trained with the re-annotated difficult subset (D+Other)  In sum, the results clearly indicate that mixing expert and crowd annotations leads to better models than using solely crowd data, and better than using expert data alone  More importantly, there is greater gain in performance when instances are routed according to difficulty, as compared to randomly selecting the data for expert annotators  These findings align with our motivating hypothesis that annotation quality for difficult instances is important for final model performance  They also indicate that mixing annotations from expert and crowd could be an effective way to achieve acceptable model performance given a limited budget 
How Many Expert Annotations?
We established that crowd annotation are still useful in supplementing expert annotations for medical IE  Obtaining expert annotations for the one thousand most difficult instances greatly improved the model performance  However the choice of how many difficult instances to annotate was an uninformed choice  Here we check if less expert data would have yielded similar gains  Future work will need to address how best to choose this parameter for a routing system 
We simulate a routing scenario in which we send consecutive batches of the most difficult examples to the experts for annotation  We track changes in performance as we increase the number of most-difficult-articles sent to domain experts  As shown in Figure 4 , adding expert annotations for difficult articles consistently increases F1 scores  The performance gain is mostly from increased recall; the precision changes only a bit with higher quality annotation  This observation implies that crowd workers often fail to mark target tokens, but do not tend to produce large numbers of false positives  We suspect such failures to identify relevant spans/tokens are due to insufficient domain knowledge possessed by crowd workers 
The F1 score achieved after re-annotating the 600 most-difficult articles reaches 68 1%, which is close to the performance when re-annotating 1000 random articles  This demonstrates the effectiveness of recognizing difficult instances  The trend when we use up all expert data is still upward, so adding even more expert data is likely to further improve performance  Unfortunately we exhausted our budget and were not able to obtain additional expert annotations  It is likely that as the size of the expert annotations increases, the value of crowd annotations will diminish  This investigation is left for future work 
Conclusions
We have introduced the task of predicting annotation difficulty for biomedical information extraction (IE)  We trained neural models using different learned representations to score texts in terms of their difficulty  Results from all models were strong with Pearson’s correlation coefficients higher than 0 45 in almost all evaluations, indicating the feasibility of this task  An ensemble model combining universal and task specific feature sentence vectors yielded the best results 
Experiments on biomedical IE tasks show that removing up to $\sim $ 10% of the sentences predicted to be most difficult did not decrease model performance, and that re-weighting sentences inversely to their difficulty score during training improves predictive performance  Simulations in which difficult examples are routed to experts and other instances to crowd annotators yields the best results, outperforming the strategy of randomly selecting data for expert annotation, and substantially improving upon the approach of relying exclusively on crowd annotations  In future work, routing strategies based on instance difficulty could be further investigated for budget-quality trade-off 
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially supported by NSF1748771 grant  Wallace was support in part by NIH/NLM R01LM012086 
Context 2: Introduction
Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a foremost NLP task to label each atomic elements of a sentence into specific categories like "PERSON", "LOCATION", "ORGANIZATION" and othersBIBREF0  There has been an extensive NER research on English, German, Dutch and Spanish language BIBREF1, BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5, and notable research on low resource South Asian languages like HindiBIBREF6, IndonesianBIBREF7 and other Indian languages (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu)BIBREF8  However, there has been no study on developing neural NER for Nepali language  In this paper, we propose a neural based Nepali NER using latest state-of-the-art architecture based on grapheme-level which doesn't require any hand-crafted features and no data pre-processing 
Recent neural architecture like BIBREF1 is used to relax the need to hand-craft the features and need to use part-of-speech tag to determine the category of the entity  However, this architecture have been studied for languages like English, and German and not been applied to languages like Nepali which is a low resource language i e limited data set to train the model  Traditional methods like Hidden Markov Model (HMM) with rule based approachesBIBREF9,BIBREF10, and Support Vector Machine (SVM) with manual feature-engineeringBIBREF11 have been applied but they perform poor compared to neural  However, there has been no research in Nepali NER using neural network  Therefore, we created the named entity annotated dataset partly with the help of Dataturk to train a neural model  The texts used for this dataset are collected from various daily news sources from Nepal around the year 2015-2016 
Following are our contributions:
We present a novel Named Entity Recognizer (NER) for Nepali language  To best of our knowledge we are the first to propose neural based Nepali NER 
As there are not good quality dataset to train NER we release a dataset to support future research
We perform empirical evaluation of our model with state-of-the-art models with relative improvement of upto 10%
In this paper, we present works similar to ours in Section SECREF2  We describe our approach and dataset statistics in Section SECREF3 and SECREF4, followed by our experiments, evaluation and discussion in Section SECREF5, SECREF6, and SECREF7  We conclude with our observations in Section SECREF8 
To facilitate further research our code and dataset will be made available at github com/link-yet-to-be-updated
Related Work
There has been a handful of research on Nepali NER task based on approaches like Support Vector Machine and gazetteer listBIBREF11 and Hidden Markov Model and gazetteer listBIBREF9,BIBREF10 
BIBREF11 uses SVM along with features like first word, word length, digit features and gazetteer (person, organization, location, middle name, verb, designation and others)  It uses one vs rest classification model to classify each word into different entity classes  However, it does not the take context word into account while training the model  Similarly, BIBREF9 and BIBREF10 uses Hidden Markov Model with n-gram technique for extracting POS-tags  POS-tags with common noun, proper noun or combination of both are combined together, then uses gazetteer list as look-up table to identify the named entities 
Researchers have shown that the neural networks like CNNBIBREF12, RNNBIBREF13, LSTMBIBREF14, GRUBIBREF15 can capture the semantic knowledge of language better with the help of pre-trained embbeddings like word2vecBIBREF16, gloveBIBREF17 or fasttextBIBREF18 
Similar approaches has been applied to many South Asian languages like HindiBIBREF6, IndonesianBIBREF7, BengaliBIBREF19 and In this paper, we present the neural network architecture for NER task in Nepali language, which doesn't require any manual feature engineering nor any data pre-processing during training  First we are comparing BiLSTMBIBREF14, BiLSTM+CNNBIBREF20, BiLSTM+CRFBIBREF1, BiLSTM+CNN+CRFBIBREF2 models with CNN modelBIBREF0 and Stanford CRF modelBIBREF21  Secondly, we show the comparison between models trained on general word embeddings, word embedding + character-level embedding, word embedding + part-of-speech(POS) one-hot encoding and word embedding + grapheme clustered or sub-word embeddingBIBREF22  The experiments were performed on the dataset that we created and on the dataset received from ILPRL lab  Our extensive study shows that augmenting word embedding with character or grapheme-level representation and POS one-hot encoding vector yields better results compared to using general word embedding alone 
Approach
In this section, we describe our approach in building our model  This model is partly inspired from multiple models BIBREF20,BIBREF1, andBIBREF2
Approach ::: Bidirectional LSTM
We used Bi-directional LSTM to capture the word representation in forward as well as reverse direction of a sentence  Generally, LSTMs take inputs from left (past) of the sentence and computes the hidden state  However, it is proven beneficialBIBREF23 to use bi-directional LSTM, where, hidden states are computed based from right (future) of sentence and both of these hidden states are concatenated to produce the final output as $h_t$=[$\overrightarrow{h_t}$;$\overleftarrow{h_t}$], where $\overrightarrow{h_t}$, $\overleftarrow{h_t}$ = hidden state computed in forward and backward direction respectively 
Approach ::: Features ::: Word embeddings
We have used Word2Vec BIBREF16, GloVe BIBREF17 and FastText BIBREF18 word vectors of 300 dimensions  These vectors were trained on the corpus obtained from Nepali National Corpus  This pre-lemmatized corpus consists of 14 million words from books, web-texts and news papers  This corpus was mixed with the texts from the dataset before training CBOW and skip-gram version of word2vec using gensim libraryBIBREF24  This trained model consists of vectors for 72782 unique words 
Light pre-processing was performed on the corpus before training it  For example, invalid characters or characters other than Devanagari were removed but punctuation and numbers were not removed  We set the window context at 10 and the rare words whose count is below 5 are dropped  These word embeddings were not frozen during the training session because fine-tuning word embedding help achieve better performance compared to frozen oneBIBREF20 
We have used fasttext embeddings in particular because of its sub-word representation ability, which is very useful in highly inflectional language as shown in Table TABREF25  We have trained the word embedding in such a way that the sub-word size remains between 1 and 4  We particularly chose this size because in Nepali language a single letter can also be a word, for example e, t, C, r, l, n, u and a single character (grapheme) or sub-word can be formed after mixture of dependent vowel signs with consonant letters for example, C + O + = CO, here three different consonant letters form a single sub-word 
The two-dimensional visualization of an example word npAl is shown in FIGREF14  Principal Component Analysis (PCA) technique was used to generate this visualization which helps use to analyze the nearest neighbor words of a given sample word  84 and 104 nearest neighbors were observed using word2vec and fasttext embedding respectively on the same corpus 
Approach ::: Features ::: Character-level embeddings
BIBREF20 and BIBREF2 successfully presented that the character-level embeddings, extracted using CNN, when combined with word embeddings enhances the NER model performance significantly, as it is able to capture morphological features of a word  Figure FIGREF7 shows the grapheme-level CNN used in our model, where inputs to CNN are graphemes  Character-level CNN is also built in similar fashion, except the inputs are characters  Grapheme or Character -level embeddings are randomly initialized from [0,1] with real values with uniform distribution of dimension 30 
Approach ::: Features ::: Grapheme-level embeddings
Grapheme is atomic meaningful unit in writing system of any languages  Since, Nepali language is highly morphologically inflectional, we compared grapheme-level representation with character-level representation to evaluate its effect  For example, in character-level embedding, each character of a word npAl results into n + + p + A + l has its own embedding  However, in grapheme level, a word npAl is clustered into graphemes, resulting into n + pA + l  Here, each grapheme has its own embedding  This grapheme-level embedding results good scores on par with character-level embedding in highly inflectional languages like Nepali, because graphemes also capture syntactic information similar to characters  We created grapheme clusters using uniseg package which is helpful in unicode text segmentations 
Approach ::: Features ::: Part-of-speech (POS) one hot encoding
We created one-hot encoded vector of POS tags and then concatenated with pre-trained word embeddings before passing it to BiLSTM network  A sample of data is shown in figure FIGREF13 
Dataset Statistics ::: OurNepali dataset
Since, we there was no publicly available standard Nepali NER dataset and did not receive any dataset from the previous researchers, we had to create our own dataset  This dataset contains the sentences collected from daily newspaper of the year 2015-2016  This dataset has three major classes Person (PER), Location (LOC) and Organization (ORG)  Pre-processing was performed on the text before creation of the dataset, for example all punctuations and numbers besides ',', '-', '|' and ' ' were removed  Currently, the dataset is in standard CoNLL-2003 IO formatBIBREF25 
Since, this dataset is not lemmatized originally, we lemmatized only the post-positions like Ek, kO, l, mA, m, my, jF, sg, aEG which are just the few examples among 299 post positions in Nepali language  We obtained these post-positions from sanjaalcorps and added few more to match our dataset  We will be releasing this list in our github repository  We found out that lemmatizing the post-positions boosted the F1 score by almost 10% 
In order to label our dataset with POS-tags, we first created POS annotated dataset of 6946 sentences and 16225 unique words extracted from POS-tagged Nepali National Corpus and trained a BiLSTM model with 95 14% accuracy which was used to create POS-tags for our dataset 
The dataset released in our github repository contains each word in newline with space separated POS-tags and Entity-tags

ground_truth: improvement when the difficult subset with expert annotations is mixed with the remaining crowd annotation is 3.5 F1 score, much larger than when a random set of expert annotations are added

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How many different types of entities exist in the dataset?
Context 2:  The sentences are separated by empty newline  A sample sentence from the dataset is presented in table FIGREF13 
Dataset Statistics ::: ILPRL dataset
After much time, we received the dataset from Bal Krishna Bal, ILPRL, KU  This dataset follows standard CoNLL-2003 IOB formatBIBREF25 with POS tags  This dataset is prepared by ILPRL Lab, KU and KEIV Technologies  Few corrections like correcting the NER tags had to be made on the dataset  The statistics of both the dataset is presented in table TABREF23 
Table TABREF24 presents the total entities (PER, LOC, ORG and MISC) from both of the dataset used in our experiments  The dataset is divided into three parts with 64%, 16% and 20% of the total dataset into training set, development set and test set respectively 
Experiments
In this section, we present the details about training our neural network  The neural network architecture are implemented using PyTorch framework BIBREF26  The training is performed on a single Nvidia Tesla P100 SXM2  We first run our experiment on BiLSTM, BiLSTM-CNN, BiLSTM-CRF BiLSTM-CNN-CRF using the hyper-parameters mentioned in Table TABREF30  The training and evaluation was done on sentence-level  The RNN variants are initialized randomly from $(-\sqrt{k},\sqrt{k})$ where $k=\frac{1}{hidden\_size}$ 
First we loaded our dataset and built vocabulary using torchtext library  This eased our process of data loading using its SequenceTaggingDataset class  We trained our model with shuffled training set using Adam optimizer with hyper-parameters mentioned in table TABREF30  All our models were trained on single layer of LSTM network  We found out Adam was giving better performance and faster convergence compared to Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)  We chose those hyper-parameters after many ablation studies  The dropout of 0 5 is applied after LSTM layer 
For CNN, we used 30 different filters of sizes 3, 4 and 5  The embeddings of each character or grapheme involved in a given word, were passed through the pipeline of Convolution, Rectified Linear Unit and Max-Pooling  The resulting vectors were concatenated and applied dropout of 0 5 before passing into linear layer to obtain the embedding size of 30 for the given word  This resulting embedding is concatenated with word embeddings, which is again concatenated with one-hot POS vector 
Experiments ::: Tagging Scheme
Currently, for our experiments we trained our model on IO (Inside, Outside) format for both the dataset, hence the dataset does not contain any B-type annotation unlike in BIO (Beginning, Inside, Outside) scheme 
Experiments ::: Early Stopping
We used simple early stopping technique where if the validation loss does not decrease after 10 epochs, the training was stopped, else the training will run upto 100 epochs  In our experience, training usually stops around 30-50 epochs 
Experiments ::: Hyper-parameters Tuning
We ran our experiment looking for the best hyper-parameters by changing learning rate from (0,1, 0 01, 0 001, 0 0001), weight decay from [$10^{-1}$, $10^{-2}$, $10^{-3}$, $10^{-4}$, $10^{-5}$, $10^{-6}$, $10^{-7}$], batch size from [1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128], hidden size from [8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512 1024]  Table TABREF30 shows all other hyper-parameter used in our experiment for both of the dataset 
Experiments ::: Effect of Dropout
Figure FIGREF31 shows how we end up choosing 0 5 as dropout rate  When the dropout layer was not used, the F1 score are at the lowest  As, we slowly increase the dropout rate, the F1 score also gradually increases, however after dropout rate = 0 5, the F1 score starts falling down  Therefore, we have chosen 0 5 as dropout rate for all other experiments performed 
Evaluation
In this section, we present the details regarding evaluation and comparison of our models with other baselines 
Table TABREF25 shows the study of various embeddings and comparison among each other in OurNepali dataset  Here, raw dataset represents such dataset where post-positions are not lemmatized  We can observe that pre-trained embeddings significantly improves the score compared to randomly initialized embedding  We can deduce that Skip Gram models perform better compared CBOW models for word2vec and fasttext  Here, fastText_Pretrained represents the embedding readily available in fastText website, while other embeddings are trained on the Nepali National Corpus as mentioned in sub-section SECREF11  From this table TABREF25, we can clearly observe that model using fastText_Skip Gram embeddings outperforms all other models 
Table TABREF35 shows the model architecture comparison between all the models experimented  The features used for Stanford CRF classifier are words, letter n-grams of upto length 6, previous word and next word  This model is trained till the current function value is less than $1\mathrm {e}{-2}$  The hyper-parameters of neural network experiments are set as shown in table TABREF30  Since, word embedding of character-level and grapheme-level is random, their scores are near 
All models are evaluated using CoNLL-2003 evaluation scriptBIBREF25 to calculate entity-wise precision, recall and f1 score 
Discussion
In this paper we present that we can exploit the power of neural network to train the model to perform downstream NLP tasks like Named Entity Recognition even in Nepali language  We showed that the word vectors learned through fasttext skip gram model performs better than other word embedding because of its capability to represent sub-word and this is particularly important to capture morphological structure of words and sentences in highly inflectional like Nepali  This concept can come handy in other Devanagari languages as well because the written scripts have similar syntactical structure 
We also found out that stemming post-positions can help a lot in improving model performance because of inflectional characteristics of Nepali language  So when we separate out its inflections or morphemes, we can minimize the variations of same word which gives its root word a stronger word vector representations compared to its inflected versions 
We can clearly imply from tables TABREF23, TABREF24, and TABREF35 that we need more data to get better results because OurNepali dataset volume is almost ten times bigger compared to ILPRL dataset in terms of entities 
Conclusion and Future work
In this paper, we proposed a novel NER for Nepali language and achieved relative improvement of upto 10% and studies different factors effecting the performance of the NER for Nepali language 
We also present a neural architecture BiLSTM+CNN(grapheme-level) which turns out to be performing on par with BiLSTM+CNN(character-level) under the same configuration  We believe this will not only help Nepali language but also other languages falling under the umbrellas of Devanagari languages  Our model BiLSTM+CNN(grapheme-level) and BiLSTM+CNN(G)+POS outperforms all other model experimented in OurNepali and ILPRL dataset respectively 
Since this is the first named entity recognition research in Nepal language using neural network, there are many rooms for improvement  We believe initializing the grapheme-level embedding with fasttext embeddings might help boosting the performance, rather than randomly initializing it  In future, we plan to apply other latest techniques like BERT, ELMo and FLAIR to study its effect on low-resource language like Nepali  We also plan to improve the model using cross-lingual or multi-lingual parameter sharing techniques by jointly training with other Devanagari languages like Hindi and Bengali 
Finally, we would like to contribute our dataset to Nepali NLP community to move forward the research going on in language understanding domain  We believe there should be special committee to create and maintain such dataset for Nepali NLP and organize various competitions which would elevate the NLP research in Nepal 
Some of the future works are listed below:
Proper initialization of grapheme level embedding from fasttext embeddings 
Apply robust POS-tagger for Nepali dataset
Lemmatize the OurNepali dataset with robust and efficient lemmatizer
Improve Nepali language score with cross-lingual learning techniques
Create more dataset using Wikipedia/Wikidata framework
Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper would like to express sincere thanks to Bal Krishna Bal, Kathmandu University Professor for providing us the POS-tagged Nepali NER data 

ground_truth: OurNepali contains 3 different types of entities, ILPRL contains 4 different types of entities

three

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 did they use?
Context 3: Introduction
Automatic classification of sentiment has mainly focused on categorizing tweets in either two (binary sentiment analysis) or three (ternary sentiment analysis) categories BIBREF0   In this work we study the problem of fine-grained sentiment classification where tweets are classified according to a five-point scale ranging from VeryNegative to VeryPositive  To illustrate this, Table TABREF3 presents examples of tweets associated with each of these categories  Five-point scales are widely adopted in review sites like Amazon and TripAdvisor, where a user's sentiment is ordered with respect to its intensity  From a sentiment analysis perspective, this defines a classification problem with five categories  In particular, Sebastiani et al  BIBREF1 defined such classification problems whose categories are explicitly ordered to be ordinal classification problems  To account for the ordering of the categories, learners are penalized according to how far from the true class their predictions are 
Although considering different scales, the various settings of sentiment classification are related  First, one may use the same feature extraction and engineering approaches to represent the text spans such as word membership in lexicons, morpho-syntactic statistics like punctuation or elongated word counts BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   Second, one would expect that knowledge from one task can be transfered to the others and this would benefit the performance  Knowing that a tweet is “Positive” in the ternary setting narrows the classification decision between the VeryPositive and Positive categories in the fine-grained setting  From a research perspective this raises the question of whether and how one may benefit when tackling such related tasks and how one can transfer knowledge from one task to another during the training phase 
Our focus in this work is to exploit the relation between the sentiment classification settings and demonstrate the benefits stemming from combining them  To this end, we propose to formulate the different classification problems as a multitask learning problem and jointly learn them  Multitask learning BIBREF4 has shown great potential in various domains and its benefits have been empirically validated BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 using different types of data and learning approaches  An important benefit of multitask learning is that it provides an elegant way to access resources developed for similar tasks  By jointly learning correlated tasks, the amount of usable data increases  For instance, while for ternary classification one can label data using distant supervision with emoticons BIBREF9 , there is no straightforward way to do so for the fine-grained problem  However, the latter can benefit indirectly, if the ternary and fine-grained tasks are learned jointly 
The research question that the paper attempts to answer is the following: Can twitter sentiment classification problems, and fine-grained sentiment classification in particular, benefit from multitask learning? To answer the question, the paper brings the following two main contributions: (i) we show how jointly learning the ternary and fine-grained sentiment classification problems in a multitask setting improves the state-of-the-art performance, and (ii) we demonstrate that recurrent neural networks outperform models previously proposed without access to huge corpora while being flexible to incorporate different sources of data 
Multitask Learning for Twitter Sentiment Classification
In his work, Caruana BIBREF4 proposed a multitask approach in which a learner takes advantage of the multiplicity of interdependent tasks while jointly learning them  The intuition is that if the tasks are correlated, the learner can learn a model jointly for them while taking into account the shared information which is expected to improve its generalization ability  People express their opinions online on various subjects (events, products  ), on several languages and in several styles (tweets, paragraph-sized reviews  ), and it is exactly this variety that motivates the multitask approaches  Specifically for Twitter for instance, the different settings of classification like binary, ternary and fine-grained are correlated since their difference lies in the sentiment granularity of the classes which increases while moving from binary to fine-grained problems 
There are two main decisions to be made in our approach: the learning algorithm, which learns a decision function, and the data representation  With respect to the former, neural networks are particularly suitable as one can design architectures with different properties and arbitrary complexity  Also, as training neural network usually relies on back-propagation of errors, one can have shared parts of the network trained by estimating errors on the joint tasks and others specialized for particular tasks  Concerning the data representation, it strongly depends on the data type available  For the task of sentiment classification of tweets with neural networks, distributed embeddings of words have shown great potential  Embeddings are defined as low-dimensional, dense representations of words that can be obtained in an unsupervised fashion by training on large quantities of text BIBREF10  
Concerning the neural network architecture, we focus on Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) that are capable of modeling short-range and long-range dependencies like those exhibited in sequence data of arbitrary length like text  While in the traditional information retrieval paradigm such dependencies are captured using INLINEFORM0 -grams and skip-grams, RNNs learn to capture them automatically BIBREF11   To circumvent the problems with capturing long-range dependencies and preventing gradients from vanishing, the long short-term memory network (LSTM) was proposed BIBREF12   In this work, we use an extended version of LSTM called bidirectional LSTM (biLSTM)  While standard LSTMs access information only from the past (previous words), biLSTMs capture both past and future information effectively BIBREF13 , BIBREF11   They consist of two LSTM networks, for propagating text forward and backwards with the goal being to capture the dependencies better  Indeed, previous work on multitask learning showed the effectiveness of biLSTMs in a variety of problems: BIBREF14 tackled sequence prediction, while BIBREF6 and BIBREF15 used biLSTMs for Named Entity Recognition and dependency parsing respectively 
Figure FIGREF2 presents the architecture we use for multitask learning  In the top-left of the figure a biLSTM network (enclosed by the dashed line) is fed with embeddings INLINEFORM0 that correspond to the INLINEFORM1 words of a tokenized tweet  Notice, as discussed above, the biLSTM consists of two LSTMs that are fed with the word sequence forward and backwards  On top of the biLSTM network one (or more) hidden layers INLINEFORM2 transform its output  The output of INLINEFORM3 is led to the softmax layers for the prediction step  There are INLINEFORM4 softmax layers and each is used for one of the INLINEFORM5 tasks of the multitask setting  In tasks such as sentiment classification, additional features like membership of words in sentiment lexicons or counts of elongated/capitalized words can be used to enrich the representation of tweets before the classification step BIBREF3   The lower part of the network illustrates how such sources of information can be incorporated to the process  A vector “Additional Features” for each tweet is transformed from the hidden layer(s) INLINEFORM6 and then is combined by concatenation with the transformed biLSTM output in the INLINEFORM7 layer 
Experimental setup
Our goal is to demonstrate how multitask learning can be successfully applied on the task of sentiment classification of tweets  The particularities of tweets are to be short and informal text spans  The common use of abbreviations, creative language etc , makes the sentiment classification problem challenging  To validate our hypothesis, that learning the tasks jointly can benefit the performance, we propose an experimental setting where there are data from two different twitter sentiment classification problems: a fine-grained and a ternary  We consider the fine-grained task to be our primary task as it is more challenging and obtaining bigger datasets, e g  by distant supervision, is not straightforward and, hence we report the performance achieved for this task 
Ternary and fine-grained sentiment classification were part of the SemEval-2016 “Sentiment Analysis in Twitter” task BIBREF16   We use the high-quality datasets the challenge organizers released  The dataset for fine-grained classification is split in training, development, development_test and test parts  In the rest, we refer to these splits as train, development and test, where train is composed by the training and the development instances  Table TABREF7 presents an overview of the data  As discussed in BIBREF16 and illustrated in the Table, the fine-grained dataset is highly unbalanced and skewed towards the positive sentiment: only INLINEFORM0 of the training examples are labeled with one of the negative classes 
Feature representation We report results using two different feature sets  The first one, dubbed nbow, is a neural bag-of-words that uses text embeddings to generate low-dimensional, dense representations of the tweets  To construct the nbow representation, given the word embeddings dictionary where each word is associated with a vector, we apply the average compositional function that averages the embeddings of the words that compose a tweet  Simple compositional functions like average were shown to be robust and efficient in previous work BIBREF17   Instead of training embeddings from scratch, we use the pre-trained on tweets GloVe embeddings of BIBREF10   In terms of resources required, using only nbow is efficient as it does not require any domain knowledge  However, previous research on sentiment analysis showed that using extra resources, like sentiment lexicons, can benefit significantly the performance BIBREF3 , BIBREF2   To validate this and examine at which extent neural networks and multitask learning benefit from such features we evaluate the models using an augmented version of nbow, dubbed nbow+  The feature space of the latter, is augmented using 1,368 extra features consisting mostly of counts of punctuation symbols ('!?#@'), emoticons, elongated words and word membership features in several sentiment lexicons  Due to space limitations, for a complete presentation of these features, we refer the interested reader to BIBREF2 , whose open implementation we used to extract them 
Evaluation measure To reproduce the setting of the SemEval challenges BIBREF16 , we optimize our systems using as primary measure the macro-averaged Mean Absolute Error ( INLINEFORM0 ) given by: INLINEFORM1
where INLINEFORM0 is the number of categories, INLINEFORM1 is the set of instances whose true class is INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 is the true label of the instance INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5 the predicted label  The measure penalizes decisions far from the true ones and is macro-averaged to account for the fact that the data are unbalanced  Complementary to INLINEFORM6 , we report the performance achieved on the micro-averaged INLINEFORM7 measure, which is a commonly used measure for classification 
The models To evaluate the multitask learning approach, we compared it with several other models  Support Vector Machines (SVMs) are maximum margin classification algorithms that have been shown to achieve competitive performance in several text classification problems BIBREF16   SVM INLINEFORM0 stands for an SVM with linear kernel and an one-vs-rest approach for the multi-class problem  Also, SVM INLINEFORM1 is an SVM with linear kernel that employs the crammer-singer strategy BIBREF18 for the multi-class problem  Logistic regression (LR) is another type of linear classification method, with probabilistic motivation  Again, we use two types of Logistic Regression depending on the multi-class strategy: LR INLINEFORM2 that uses an one-vs-rest approach and multinomial Logistic Regression also known as the MaxEnt classifier that uses a multinomial criterion 
Both SVMs and LRs as discussed above treat the problem as a multi-class one, without considering the ordering of the classes  For these four models, we tuned the hyper-parameter INLINEFORM0 that controls the importance of the L INLINEFORM1 regularization part in the optimization problem with grid-search over INLINEFORM2 using 10-fold cross-validation in the union of the training and development data and then retrained the models with the selected values  Also, to account for the unbalanced classification problem we used class weights to penalize more the errors made on the rare classes  These weights were inversely proportional to the frequency of each class  For the four models we used the implementations of Scikit-learn BIBREF19  
For multitask learning we use the architecture shown in Figure FIGREF2 , which we implemented with Keras BIBREF20   The embeddings are initialized with the 50-dimensional GloVe embeddings while the output of the biLSTM network is set to dimension 50  The activation function of the hidden layers is the hyperbolic tangent  The weights of the layers were initialized from a uniform distribution, scaled as described in BIBREF21   We used the Root Mean Square Propagation optimization method  We used dropout for regularizing the network  We trained the network using batches of 128 examples as follows: before selecting the batch, we perform a Bernoulli trial with probability INLINEFORM0 to select the task to train for  With probability INLINEFORM1 we pick a batch for the fine-grained sentiment classification problem, while with probability INLINEFORM2 we pick a batch for the ternary problem  As shown in Figure FIGREF2 , the error is backpropagated until the embeddings, that we fine-tune during the learning process  Notice also that the weights of the network until the layer INLINEFORM3 are shared and therefore affected by both tasks 
To tune the neural network hyper-parameters we used 5-fold cross validation  We tuned the probability INLINEFORM0 of dropout after the hidden layers INLINEFORM1 and for the biLSTM for INLINEFORM2 , the size of the hidden layer INLINEFORM3 and the probability INLINEFORM4 of the Bernoulli trials from INLINEFORM5   During training, we monitor the network's performance on the development set and apply early stopping if the performance on the validation set does not improve for 5 consecutive epochs 
Experimental results Table TABREF9 illustrates the performance of the models for the different data representations  The upper part of the Table summarizes the performance of the baselines  The entry “Balikas et al ” stands for the winning system of the 2016 edition of the challenge BIBREF2 , which to the best of our knowledge holds the state-of-the-art  Due to the stochasticity of training the biLSTM models, we repeat the experiment 10 times and report the average and the standard deviation of the performance achieved 
Several observations can be made from the table  First notice that, overall, the best performance is achieved by the neural network architecture that uses multitask learning  This entails that the system makes use of the available resources efficiently and improves the state-of-the-art performance  In conjunction with the fact that we found the optimal probability INLINEFORM0 , this highlights the benefits of multitask learning over single task learning  Furthermore, as described above, the neural network-based models have only access to the training data as the development are hold for early stopping  On the other hand, the baseline systems were retrained on the union of the train and development sets  Hence, even with fewer resources available for training on the fine-grained problem, the neural networks outperform the baselines  We also highlight the positive effect of the additional features that previous research proposed  Adding the features both in the baselines and in the biLSTM-based architectures improves the INLINEFORM1 scores by several points 
Lastly, we compare the performance of the baseline systems with the performance of the state-of-the-art system of BIBREF2   While BIBREF2 uses n-grams (and character-grams) with INLINEFORM0 , the baseline systems (SVMs, LRs) used in this work use the nbow+ representation, that relies on unigrams  Although they perform on par, the competitive performance of nbow highlights the potential of distributed representations for short-text classification  Further, incorporating structure and distributed representations leads to the gains of the biLSTM network, in the multitask and single task setting 
Similar observations can be drawn from Figure FIGREF10 that presents the INLINEFORM0 scores  Again, the biLSTM network with multitask learning achieves the best performance  It is also to be noted that although the two evaluation measures are correlated in the sense that the ranking of the models is the same, small differences in the INLINEFORM1 have large effect on the scores of the INLINEFORM2 measure 
Conclusion
In this paper, we showed that by jointly learning the tasks of ternary and fine-grained classification with a multitask learning model, one can greatly improve the performance on the second  This opens several avenues for future research  Since sentiment is expressed in different textual types like tweets and paragraph-sized reviews, in different languages (English, German,   ) and in different granularity levels (binary, ternary,  ) one can imagine multitask approaches that could benefit from combining such resources  Also, while we opted for biLSTM networks here, one could use convolutional neural networks or even try to combine different types of networks and tasks to investigate the performance effect of multitask learning  Lastly, while our approach mainly relied on the foundations of BIBREF4 , the internal mechanisms and the theoretical guarantees of multitask learning remain to be better understood 
Acknowledgements
This work is partially supported by the CIFRE N 28/2015 

ground_truth:  high-quality datasets  from SemEval-2016 “Sentiment Analysis in Twitter” task

 SemEval-2016 “Sentiment Analysis in Twitter”