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 is the quality of the data empirically evaluated? 
Context 1: Introduction
End-to-end speech-to-text translation (ST) has attracted much attention recently BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6 given its simplicity against cascading automatic speech recognition (ASR) and machine translation (MT) systems  The lack of labeled data, however, has become a major blocker for bridging the performance gaps between end-to-end models and cascading systems  Several corpora have been developed in recent years  post2013improved introduced a 38-hour Spanish-English ST corpus by augmenting the transcripts of the Fisher and Callhome corpora with English translations  di-gangi-etal-2019-must created the largest ST corpus to date from TED talks but the language pairs involved are out of English only  beilharz2019librivoxdeen created a 110-hour German-English ST corpus from LibriVox audiobooks  godard-etal-2018-low created a Moboshi-French ST corpus as part of a rare language documentation effort  woldeyohannis provided an Amharic-English ST corpus in the tourism domain  boito2019mass created a multilingual ST corpus involving 8 languages from a multilingual speech corpus based on Bible readings BIBREF7  Previous work either involves language pairs out of English, very specific domains, very low resource languages or a limited set of language pairs  This limits the scope of study, including the latest explorations on end-to-end multilingual ST BIBREF8, BIBREF9  Our work is mostly similar and concurrent to iranzosnchez2019europarlst who created a multilingual ST corpus from the European Parliament proceedings  The corpus we introduce has larger speech durations and more translation tokens  It is diversified with multiple speakers per transcript/translation  Finally, we provide additional out-of-domain test sets 
In this paper, we introduce CoVoST, a multilingual ST corpus based on Common Voice BIBREF10 for 11 languages into English, diversified with over 11,000 speakers and over 60 accents  It includes a total 708 hours of French (Fr), German (De), Dutch (Nl), Russian (Ru), Spanish (Es), Italian (It), Turkish (Tr), Persian (Fa), Swedish (Sv), Mongolian (Mn) and Chinese (Zh) speeches, with French and German ones having the largest durations among existing public corpora  We also collect an additional evaluation corpus from Tatoeba for French, German, Dutch, Russian and Spanish, resulting in a total of 9 3 hours of speech  Both corpora are created at the sentence level and do not require additional alignments or segmentation  Using the official Common Voice train-development-test split, we also provide baseline models, including, to our knowledge, the first end-to-end many-to-one multilingual ST models  CoVoST is released under CC0 license and free to use  The Tatoeba evaluation samples are also available under friendly CC licenses  All the data can be acquired at https://github com/facebookresearch/covost 
Data Collection and Processing ::: Common Voice (CoVo)
Common Voice BIBREF10 is a crowdsourcing speech recognition corpus with an open CC0 license  Contributors record voice clips by reading from a bank of donated sentences  Each voice clip was validated by at least two other users  Most of the sentences are covered by multiple speakers, with potentially different genders, age groups or accents 
Raw CoVo data contains samples that passed validation as well as those that did not  To build CoVoST, we only use the former one and reuse the official train-development-test partition of the validated data  As of January 2020, the latest CoVo 2019-06-12 release includes 29 languages  CoVoST is currently built on that release and covers the following 11 languages: French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese 
Validated transcripts were sent to professional translators  Note that the translators had access to the transcripts but not the corresponding voice clips since clips would not carry additional information  Since transcripts were duplicated due to multiple speakers, we deduplicated the transcripts before sending them to translators  As a result, different voice clips of the same content (transcript) will have identical translations in CoVoST for train, development and test splits 
In order to control the quality of the professional translations, we applied various sanity checks to the translations BIBREF11  1) For German-English, French-English and Russian-English translations, we computed sentence-level BLEU BIBREF12 with the NLTK BIBREF13 implementation between the human translations and the automatic translations produced by a state-of-the-art system BIBREF14 (the French-English system was a Transformer big BIBREF15 separately trained on WMT14)  We applied this method to these three language pairs only as we are confident about the quality of the corresponding systems  Translations with a score that was too low were manually inspected and sent back to the translators when needed  2) We manually inspected examples where the source transcript was identical to the translation  3) We measured the perplexity of the translations using a language model trained on a large amount of clean monolingual data BIBREF14  We manually inspected examples where the translation had a high perplexity and sent them back to translators accordingly  4) We computed the ratio of English characters in the translations  We manually inspected examples with a low ratio and sent them back to translators accordingly  5) Finally, we used VizSeq BIBREF16 to calculate similarity scores between transcripts and translations based on LASER cross-lingual sentence embeddings BIBREF17  Samples with low scores were manually inspected and sent back for translation when needed 
We also sanity check the overlaps of train, development and test sets in terms of transcripts and voice clips (via MD5 file hashing), and confirm they are totally disjoint 
Data Collection and Processing ::: Tatoeba (TT)
Tatoeba (TT) is a community built language learning corpus having sentences aligned across multiple languages with the corresponding speech partially available  Its sentences are on average shorter than those in CoVoST (see also Table TABREF2) given the original purpose of language learning  Sentences in TT are licensed under CC BY 2 0 FR and part of the speeches are available under various CC licenses 
We construct an evaluation set from TT (for French, German, Dutch, Russian and Spanish) as a complement to CoVoST development and test sets  We collect (speech, transcript, English translation) triplets for the 5 languages and do not include those whose speech has a broken URL or is not CC licensed  We further filter these samples by sentence lengths (minimum 4 words including punctuations) to reduce the portion of short sentences  This makes the resulting evaluation set closer to real-world scenarios and more challenging 
We run the same quality checks for TT as for CoVoST but we do not find poor quality translations according to our criteria  Finally, we report the overlap between CoVo transcripts and TT sentences in Table TABREF5  We found a minimal overlap, which makes the TT evaluation set a suitable additional test set when training on CoVoST 
Data Analysis ::: Basic Statistics
Basic statistics for CoVoST and TT are listed in Table TABREF2 including (unique) sentence counts, speech durations, speaker demographics (partially available) as well as vocabulary and token statistics (based on Moses-tokenized sentences by sacreMoses) on both transcripts and translations  We see that CoVoST has over 327 hours of German speeches and over 171 hours of French speeches, which, to our knowledge, corresponds to the largest corpus among existing public ST corpora (the second largest is 110 hours BIBREF18 for German and 38 hours BIBREF19 for French)  Moreover, CoVoST has a total of 18 hours of Dutch speeches, to our knowledge, contributing the first public Dutch ST resource  CoVoST also has around 27-hour Russian speeches, 37-hour Italian speeches and 67-hour Persian speeches, which is 1 8 times, 2 5 times and 13 3 times of the previous largest public one BIBREF7  Most of the sentences (transcripts) in CoVoST are covered by multiple speakers with potentially different accents, resulting in a rich diversity in the speeches  For example, there are over 1,000 speakers and over 10 accents in the French and German development / test sets  This enables good coverage of speech variations in both model training and evaluation 
Data Analysis ::: Speaker Diversity
As we can see from Table TABREF2, CoVoST is diversified with a rich set of speakers and accents  We further inspect the speaker demographics in terms of sample distributions with respect to speaker counts, accent counts and age groups, which is shown in Figure FIGREF6, FIGREF7 and FIGREF8  We observe that for 8 of the 11 languages, at least 60% of the sentences (transcripts) are covered by multiple speakers  Over 80% of the French sentences have at least 3 speakers  And for German sentences, even over 90% of them have at least 5 speakers  Similarly, we see that a large portion of sentences are spoken in multiple accents for French, German, Dutch and Spanish  Speakers of each language also spread widely across different age groups (below 20, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s) 
Baseline Results
We provide baselines using the official train-development-test split on the following tasks: automatic speech recognition (ASR), machine translation (MT) and speech translation (ST) 
Baseline Results ::: Experimental Settings ::: Data Preprocessing
We convert raw MP3 audio files from CoVo and TT into mono-channel waveforms, and downsample them to 16,000 Hz  For transcripts and translations, we normalize the punctuation, we tokenize the text with sacreMoses and lowercase it  For transcripts, we further remove all punctuation markers except for apostrophes  We use character vocabularies on all the tasks, with 100% coverage of all the characters  Preliminary experimentation showed that character vocabularies provided more stable training than BPE  For MT, the vocabulary is created jointly on both transcripts and translations  We extract 80-channel log-mel filterbank features, computed with a 25ms window size and 10ms window shift using torchaudio  The features are normalized to 0 mean and 1 0 standard deviation  We remove samples having more than 3,000 frames or more than 256 characters for GPU memory efficiency (less than 25 samples are removed for all languages) 
Baseline Results ::: Experimental Settings ::: Model Training
Our ASR and ST models follow the architecture in berard2018end, but have 3 decoder layers like that in pino2019harnessing  For MT, we use a Transformer base architecture BIBREF15, but with 3 encoder layers, 3 decoder layers and 0 3 dropout  We use a batch size of 10,000 frames for ASR and ST, and a batch size of 4,000 tokens for MT  We train all models using Fairseq BIBREF20 for up to 200,000 updates  We use SpecAugment BIBREF21 for ASR and ST to alleviate overfitting 
Baseline Results ::: Experimental Settings ::: Inference and Evaluation
We use a beam size of 5 for all models  We use the best checkpoint by validation loss for MT, and average the last 5 checkpoints for ASR and ST  For MT and ST, we report case-insensitive tokenized BLEU BIBREF22 using sacreBLEU BIBREF23  For ASR, we report word error rate (WER) and character error rate (CER) using VizSeq 
Baseline Results ::: Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR)
For simplicity, we use the same model architecture for ASR and ST, although we do not leverage ASR models to pretrain ST model encoders later  Table TABREF18 shows the word error rate (WER) and character error rate (CER) for ASR models  We see that French and German perform the best given they are the two highest resource languages in CoVoST  The other languages are relatively low resource (especially Turkish and Swedish) and the ASR models are having difficulties to learn from this data 
Baseline Results ::: Machine Translation (MT)
MT models take transcripts (without punctuation) as inputs and outputs translations (with punctuation)  For simplicity, we do not change the text preprocessing methods for MT to correct this mismatch  Moreover, this mismatch also exists in cascading ST systems, where MT model inputs are the outputs of an ASR model  Table TABREF20 shows the BLEU scores of MT models  We notice that the results are consistent with what we see from ASR models  For example thanks to abundant training data, French has a decent BLEU score of 29 8/25 4  German doesn't perform well, because of less richness of content (transcripts)  The other languages are low resource in CoVoST and it is difficult to train decent models without additional data or pre-training techniques 
Baseline Results ::: Speech Translation (ST)
CoVoST is a many-to-one multilingual ST corpus  While end-to-end one-to-many and many-to-many multilingual ST models have been explored very recently BIBREF8, BIBREF9, many-to-one multilingual models, to our knowledge, have not  We hence use CoVoST to examine this setting  Table TABREF22 and TABREF23 show the BLEU scores for both bilingual and multilingual end-to-end ST models trained on CoVoST  We observe that combining speeches from multiple languages is consistently bringing gains to low-resource languages (all besides French and German)  This includes combinations of distant languages, such as Ru+Fr, Tr+Fr and Zh+Fr  Moreover, some combinations do bring gains to high-resource language (French) as well: Es+Fr, Tr+Fr and Mn+Fr  We simply provide the most basic many-to-one multilingual baselines here, and leave the full exploration of the best configurations to future work  Finally, we note that for some language pairs, absolute BLEU numbers are relatively low as we restrict model training to the supervised data  We encourage the community to improve upon those baselines, for example by leveraging semi-supervised training 
Baseline Results ::: Multi-Speaker Evaluation
In CoVoST, large portion of transcripts are covered by multiple speakers with different genders, accents and age groups  Besides the standard corpus-level BLEU scores, we also want to evaluate model output variance on the same content (transcript) but different speakers  We hence propose to group samples (and their sentence BLEU scores) by transcript, and then calculate average per-group mean and average coefficient of variation defined as follows:
and
where $G$ is the set of sentence BLEU scores grouped by transcript and $G^{\prime } = \lbrace g | g\in G, |g|>1, \textrm {Mean}(g) > 0 \rbrace $ 
$\textrm {BLEU}_{MS}$ provides a normalized quality score as oppose to corpus-level BLEU or unnormalized average of sentence BLEU  And $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ is a standardized measure of model stability against different speakers (the lower the better)  Table TABREF24 shows the $\textrm {BLEU}_{MS}$ and $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ of our ST models on CoVoST test set  We see that German and Persian have the worst $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ (least stable) given their rich speaker diversity in the test set and relatively small train set (see also Figure FIGREF6 and Table TABREF2)  Dutch also has poor $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ because of the lack of training data  Multilingual models are consistantly more stable on low-resource languages  Ru+Fr, Tr+Fr, Fa+Fr and Zh+Fr even have better $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ than all individual languages 
Conclusion
We introduce a multilingual speech-to-text translation corpus, CoVoST, for 11 languages into English, diversified with over 11,000 speakers and over 60 accents  We also provide baseline results, including, to our knowledge, the first end-to-end many-to-one multilingual model for spoken language translation  CoVoST is free to use with a CC0 license, and the additional Tatoeba evaluation samples are also CC-licensed 
Context 2: Introduction
In practice, it is often difficult and costly to annotate sufficient training data for diverse application domains on-the-fly  We may have sufficient labeled data in an existing domain (called the source domain), but very few or no labeled data in a new domain (called the target domain)  This issue has motivated research on cross-domain sentiment classification, where knowledge in the source domain is transferred to the target domain in order to alleviate the required labeling effort 
One key challenge of domain adaptation is that data in the source and target domains are drawn from different distributions  Thus, adaptation performance will decline with an increase in distribution difference  Specifically, in sentiment analysis, reviews of different products have different vocabulary  For instance, restaurants reviews would contain opinion words such as “tender”, “tasty”, or “undercooked” and movie reviews would contain “thrilling”, “horrific”, or “hilarious”  The intersection between these two sets of opinion words could be small which makes domain adaptation difficult 
Several techniques have been proposed for addressing the problem of domain shifting  The aim is to bridge the source and target domains by learning domain-invariant feature representations so that a classifier trained on a source domain can be adapted to another target domain  In cross-domain sentiment classification, many works BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 utilize a key intuition that domain-specific features could be aligned with the help of domain-invariant features (pivot features)  For instance, “hilarious” and “tasty” could be aligned as both of them are relevant to “good” 
Despite their promising results, these works share two major limitations  First, they highly depend on the heuristic selection of pivot features, which may be sensitive to different applications  Thus the learned new representations may not effectively reduce the domain difference  Furthermore, these works only utilize the unlabeled target data for representation learning while the sentiment classifier was solely trained on the source domain  There have not been many studies on exploiting unlabeled target data for refining the classifier, even though it may contain beneficial information  How to effectively leverage unlabeled target data still remains an important challenge for domain adaptation 
In this work, we argue that the information from unlabeled target data is beneficial for domain adaptation and we propose a novel Domain Adaptive Semi-supervised learning framework (DAS) to better exploit it  Our main intuition is to treat the problem as a semi-supervised learning task by considering target instances as unlabeled data, assuming the domain distance can be effectively reduced through domain-invariant representation learning  Specifically, the proposed approach jointly performs feature adaptation and semi-supervised learning in a multi-task learning setting  For feature adaptation, it explicitly minimizes the distance between the encoded representations of the two domains  On this basis, two semi-supervised regularizations – entropy minimization and self-ensemble bootstrapping – are jointly employed to exploit unlabeled target data for classifier refinement 
We evaluate our method rigorously under multiple experimental settings by taking label distribution and corpus size into consideration  The results show that our model is able to obtain significant improvements over strong baselines  We also demonstrate through a series of analysis that the proposed method benefits greatly from incorporating unlabeled target data via semi-supervised learning, which is consistent with our motivation  Our datasets and source code can be obtained from https://github com/ruidan/DAS 
Related Work
Domain Adaptation: The majority of feature adaptation methods for sentiment analysis rely on a key intuition that even though certain opinion words are completely distinct for each domain, they can be aligned if they have high correlation with some domain-invariant opinion words (pivot words) such as “excellent” or “terrible”  Blitzer et al  ( BIBREF0 ) proposed a method based on structural correspondence learning (SCL), which uses pivot feature prediction to induce a projected feature space that works well for both the source and the target domains  The pivot words are selected in a way to cover common domain-invariant opinion words  Subsequent research aims to better align the domain-specific words BIBREF1 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF3 such that the domain discrepancy could be reduced  More recently, Yu and Jiang ( BIBREF4 ) borrow the idea of pivot feature prediction from SCL and extend it to a neural network-based solution with auxiliary tasks  In their experiment, substantial improvement over SCL has been observed due to the use of real-valued word embeddings  Unsupervised representation learning with deep neural networks (DNN) such as denoising autoencoders has also been explored for feature adaptation BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   It has been shown that DNNs could learn transferable representations that disentangle the underlying factors of variation behind data samples 
Although the aforementioned methods aim to reduce the domain discrepancy, they do not explicitly minimize the distance between distributions, and some of them highly rely on the selection of pivot features  In our method, we formally construct an objective for this purpose  Similar ideas have been explored in many computer vision problems, where the representations of the underlying domains are encouraged to be similar through explicit objectives BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 such as maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) BIBREF14   In NLP tasks, Li et al  ( BIBREF15 ) and Chen et al  ( BIBREF16 ) both proposed using adversarial training framework for reducing domain difference  In their model, a sub-network is added as a domain discriminator while deep features are learned to confuse the discriminator  The feature adaptation component in our model shares similar intuition with MMD and adversary training  We will show a detailed comparison with them in our experiments 
Semi-supervised Learning: We attempt to treat domain adaptation as a semi-supervised learning task by considering the target instances as unlabeled data  Some efforts have been initiated on transfer learning from unlabeled data BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   In our model, we reduce the domain discrepancy by feature adaptation, and thereafter adopt semi-supervised learning techniques to learn from unlabeled data  Primarily motivated by BIBREF20 and BIBREF21 , we employed entropy minimization and self-ensemble bootstrapping as regularizations to incorporate unlabeled data  Our experimental results show that both methods are effective when jointly trained with the feature adaptation objective, which confirms to our motivation 
Notations and Model Overview
We conduct most of our experiments under an unsupervised domain adaptation setting, where we have no labeled data from the target domain  Consider two sets INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1   INLINEFORM2 is from the source domain with INLINEFORM3 labeled examples, where INLINEFORM4 is a one-hot vector representation of sentiment label and INLINEFORM5 denotes the number of classes  INLINEFORM6 is from the target domain with INLINEFORM7 unlabeled examples  INLINEFORM8 denotes the total number of training documents including both labeled and unlabeled  We aim to learn a sentiment classifier from INLINEFORM13 and INLINEFORM14 such that the classifier would work well on the target domain  We also present some results under a setting where we assume that a small number of labeled target examples are available (see Figure FIGREF27 ) 
For the proposed model, we denote INLINEFORM0 parameterized by INLINEFORM1 as a neural-based feature encoder that maps documents from both domains to a shared feature space, and INLINEFORM2 parameterized by INLINEFORM3 as a fully connected layer with softmax activation serving as the sentiment classifier  We aim to learn feature representations that are domain-invariant and at the same time discriminative on both domains, thus we simultaneously consider three factors in our objective: (1) minimize the classification error on the labeled source examples; (2) minimize the domain discrepancy; and (3) leverage unlabeled data via semi-supervised learning 
Suppose we already have the encoded features of documents INLINEFORM0 (see Section SECREF10 ), the objective function for purpose (1) is thus the cross entropy loss on the labeled source examples DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the predicted label distribution  In the following subsections, we will explain how to perform feature adaptation and domain adaptive semi-supervised learning in details for purpose (2) and (3) respectively 
Feature Adaptation
Unlike prior works BIBREF0 , BIBREF4 , our method does not attempt to align domain-specific words through pivot words  In our preliminary experiments, we found that word embeddings pre-trained on a large corpus are able to adequately capture this information  As we will later show in our experiments, even without adaptation, a naive neural network classifier with pre-trained word embeddings can already achieve reasonably good results 
We attempt to explicitly minimize the distance between the source and target feature representations ( INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 )  A few methods from literature can be applied such as Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) BIBREF14 or adversary training BIBREF15 , BIBREF16   The main idea of MMD is to estimate the distance between two distributions as the distance between sample means of the projected embeddings in Hilbert space  MMD is implicitly computed through a characteristic kernel, which is used to ensure that the sample mean is injective, leading to the MMD being zero if and only if the distributions are identical  In our implementation, we skip the mapping procedure induced by a characteristic kernel for simplifying the computation and learning  We simply estimate the distribution distance as the distance between the sample means in the current embedding space  Although this approximation cannot preserve all statistical features of the underlying distributions, we find it performs comparably to MMD on our problem  The following equations formally describe the feature adaptation loss INLINEFORM2 : DISPLAYFORM0
INLINEFORM0 normalization is applied on the mean representations INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 , rescaling the vectors such that all entries sum to 1  We adopt a symmetric version of KL divergence BIBREF12 as the distance function  Given two distribution vectors INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4  
Domain Adaptive Semi-supervised Learning (DAS)
We attempt to exploit the information in target data through semi-supervised learning objectives, which are jointly trained with INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1   Normally, to incorporate target data, we can minimize the cross entropy loss between the true label distributions INLINEFORM2 and the predicted label distributions INLINEFORM3 over target samples  The challenge here is that INLINEFORM4 is unknown, and thus we attempt to estimate it via semi-supervised learning  We use entropy minimization and bootstrapping for this purpose  We will later show in our experiments that both methods are effective, and jointly employing them overall yields the best results 
Entropy Minimization: In this method, INLINEFORM0 is estimated as the predicted label distribution INLINEFORM1 , which is a function of INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3   The loss can thus be written as DISPLAYFORM0
Assume the domain discrepancy can be effectively reduced through feature adaptation, by minimizing the entropy penalty, training of the classifier is influenced by the unlabeled target data and will generally maximize the margins between the target examples and the decision boundaries, increasing the prediction confidence on the target domain 
Self-ensemble Bootstrapping: Another way to estimate INLINEFORM0 corresponds to bootstrapping  The idea is to estimate the unknown labels as the predictions of the model learned from the previous round of training  Bootstrapping has been explored for domain adaptation in previous works BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   However, in their methods, domain discrepancy was not explicitly minimized via feature adaptation  Applying bootstrapping or other semi-supervised learning techniques in this case may worsen the results as the classifier can perform quite bad on the target data 
[t] Pseudocode for training DAS INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 INLINEFORM4 = ensembling momentum, INLINEFORM5 INLINEFORM6 = weight ramp-up function INLINEFORM7 INLINEFORM8 INLINEFORM9 each minibatch INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , INLINEFORM12 in
INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 compute loss INLINEFORM3 on INLINEFORM4 compute loss INLINEFORM5 on INLINEFORM6 compute loss INLINEFORM7 on INLINEFORM8 compute loss INLINEFORM9 on INLINEFORM10 INLINEFORM11
update network parameters INLINEFORM0 , for INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2 INLINEFORM3
Inspired by the ensembling method proposed in BIBREF21 , we estimate INLINEFORM0 by forming ensemble predictions of labels during training, using the outputs on different training epochs  The loss is formulated as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the estimated labels computed on the ensemble predictions from different epochs  The loss is applied on all documents  It serves for bootstrapping on the unlabeled target data, and it also serves as a regularization that encourages the network predictions to be consistent in different training epochs  INLINEFORM1 is jointly trained with INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 , and INLINEFORM4   Algorithm SECREF6 illustrates the overall training process of the proposed domain adaptive semi-supervised learning (DAS) framework 
In Algorithm SECREF6 , INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 are weights to balance the effects of INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 , and INLINEFORM5 respectively  INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7 are constant hyper-parameters  We set INLINEFORM8 as a Gaussian curve to ramp up the weight from 0 to INLINEFORM9   This is to ensure the ramp-up of the bootstrapping loss component is slow enough in the beginning of the training  After each training epoch, we compute INLINEFORM10 which denotes the predictions made by the network in current epoch, and then the ensemble prediction INLINEFORM11 is updated as a weighted average of the outputs from previous epochs and the current epoch, with recent epochs having larger weight  For generating estimated labels INLINEFORM12 , INLINEFORM13 is converted to a one-hot vector where the entry with the maximum value is set to one and other entries are set to zeros  The self-ensemble bootstrapping is a generalized version of bootstrappings that only use the outputs from the previous round of training BIBREF18 , BIBREF19   The ensemble prediction is likely to be closer to the correct, unknown labels of the target data 
CNN Encoder Implementation
We have left the feature encoder INLINEFORM0 unspecified, for which, a few options can be considered  In our implementation, we adopt a one-layer CNN structure from previous works BIBREF22 , BIBREF4 , as it has been demonstrated to work well for sentiment classification tasks  Given a review document INLINEFORM1 consisting of INLINEFORM2 words, we begin by associating each word with a continuous word embedding BIBREF23 INLINEFORM3 from an embedding matrix INLINEFORM4 , where INLINEFORM5 is the vocabulary size and INLINEFORM6 is the embedding dimension  INLINEFORM7 is jointly updated with other network parameters during training  Given a window of dense word embeddings INLINEFORM8 , the convolution layer first concatenates these vectors to form a vector INLINEFORM9 of length INLINEFORM10 and then the output vector is computed by Equation ( EQREF11 ): DISPLAYFORM0
INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 is the parameter set of the encoder INLINEFORM2 and is shared across all windows of the sequence  INLINEFORM3 is an element-wise non-linear activation function  The convolution operation can capture local contextual dependencies of the input sequence and the extracted feature vectors are similar to INLINEFORM4 -grams  After the convolution operation is applied to the whole sequence, we obtain a list of hidden vectors INLINEFORM5   A max-over-time pooling layer is applied to obtain the final vector representation INLINEFORM6 of the input document 
Datasets and Experimental Settings
Existing benchmark datasets such as the Amazon benchmark BIBREF0 typically remove reviews with neutral labels in both domains  This is problematic as the label information of the target domain is not accessible in an unsupervised domain adaptation setting  Furthermore, removing neutral instances may bias the dataset favorably for max-margin-based algorithms like ours, since the resulting dataset has all uncertain labels removed, leaving only high confidence examples  Therefore, we construct new datasets by ourselves  The results on the original Amazon benchmark is qualitatively similar, and we present them in Appendix SECREF6 for completeness since most of previous works reported results on it 
Small-scale datasets: Our new dataset was derived from the large-scale Amazon datasets released by McAuley et al  ( BIBREF24 )  It contains four domains: Book (BK), Electronics (E), Beauty (BT), and Music (M)  Each domain contains two datasets  Set 1 contains 6000 instances with exactly balanced class labels, and set 2 contains 6000 instances that are randomly sampled from the large dataset, preserving the original label distribution, which we believe better reflects the label distribution in real life  The examples in these two sets do not overlap  Detailed statistics of the generated datasets are given in Table TABREF9  
In all our experiments on the small-scale datasets, we use set 1 of the source domain as the only source with sentiment label information during training, and we evaluate the trained model on set 1 of the target domain  Since we cannot control the label distribution of unlabeled data during training, we consider two different settings:
Setting (1): Only set 1 of the target domain is used as the unlabeled set  This tells us how the method performs in a condition when the target domain has a close-to-balanced label distribution  As we also evaluate on set 1 of the target domain, this is also considered as a transductive setting 
Setting (2): Set 2 from both the source and target domains are used as unlabeled sets

ground_truth: Validated transcripts were sent to professional translators., various sanity checks to the translations,  sanity check the overlaps of train, development and test sets

computed sentence-level BLEU, We manually inspected examples where the source transcript was identical to the translation, measured the perplexity of the translations, computed the ratio of English characters in the translations, calculate similarity scores between transcripts and translations

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What are the source and target domains?
Context 2:  Since set 2 is directly sampled from millions of reviews, it better reflects real-life sentiment distribution 
Large-scale datasets: We further conduct experiments on four much larger datasets: IMDB (I), Yelp2014 (Y), Cell Phone (C), and Baby (B)  IMDB and Yelp2014 were previously used in BIBREF25 , BIBREF26   Cell phone and Baby are from the large-scale Amazon dataset BIBREF24 , BIBREF27   Detailed statistics are summarized in Table TABREF9   We keep all reviews in the original datasets and consider a transductive setting where all target examples are used for both training (without label information) and evaluation  We perform sampling to balance the classes of labeled source data in each minibatch INLINEFORM3 during training 
Selection of Development Set
Ideally, the development set should be drawn from the same distribution as the test set  However, under the unsupervised domain adaptation setting, we do not have any labeled target data at training phase which could be used as development set  In all of our experiments, for each pair of domains, we instead sample 1000 examples from the training set of the source domain as development set  We train the network for a fixed number of epochs, and the model with the minimum classification error on this development set is saved for evaluation  This approach works well on most of the problems since the target domain is supposed to behave like the source domain if the domain difference is effectively reduced 
Another problem is how to select the values for hyper-parameters  If we tune INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 directly on the development set from the source domain, most likely both of them will be set to 0, as unlabeled target data is not helpful for improving in-domain accuracy of the source domain  Other neural network models also have the same problem for hyper-parameter tuning  Therefore, our strategy is to use the development set from the target domain to optimize INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 for one problem (e g , we only do this on E INLINEFORM4 BK), and fix their values on the other problems  This setting assumes that we have at least two labeled domains such that we can optimize the hyper-parameters, and then we fix them for other new unlabeled domains to transfer to 
Training Details and Hyper-parameters
We initialize word embeddings using the 300-dimension GloVe vectors supplied by Pennington et al , ( BIBREF28 ), which were trained on 840 billion tokens from the Common Crawl  For each pair of domains, the vocabulary consists of the top 10000 most frequent words  For words in the vocabulary but not present in the pre-trained embeddings, we randomly initialize them 
We set hyper-parameters of the CNN encoder following previous works BIBREF22 , BIBREF4 without specific tuning on our datasets  The window size is set to 3 and the size of the hidden layer is set to 300  The nonlinear activation function is Relu  For regularization, we also follow their settings and employ dropout with probability set to 0 5 on INLINEFORM0 before feeding it to the output layer INLINEFORM1 , and constrain the INLINEFORM2 -norm of the weight vector INLINEFORM3 , setting its max norm to 3 
On the small-scale datasets and the Aamzon benchmark, INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are set to 200 and 1, respectively, tuned on the development set of task E INLINEFORM2 BK under setting 1  On the large-scale datasets, INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 are set to 500 and 0 2, respectively, tuned on I INLINEFORM5 Y  We use a Gaussian curve INLINEFORM6 to ramp up the weight of the bootstrapping loss INLINEFORM7 from 0 to INLINEFORM8 , where INLINEFORM9 denotes the maximum number of training epochs  We train 30 epochs for all experiments  We set INLINEFORM10 to 3 and INLINEFORM11 to 0 5 for all experiments 
The batch size is set to 50 on the small-scale datasets and the Amazon benchmark  We increase the batch size to 250 on the large-scale datasets to reduce the number of iterations  RMSProp optimizer with learning rate set to 0 0005 is used for all experiments 
Models for Comparison
We compare with the following baselines:
(1) Naive: A non-domain-adaptive baseline with bag-of-words representations and SVM classifier trained on the source domain 
(2) mSDA BIBREF7 : This is the state-of-the-art method based on discrete input features  Top 1000 bag-of-words features are kept as pivot features  We set the number of stacked layers to 3 and the corruption probability to 0 5 
(3) NaiveNN: This is a non-domain-adaptive CNN trained on source domain, which is a variant of our model by setting INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 to zeros 
(4) AuxNN BIBREF4 : This is a neural model that exploits auxiliary tasks, which has achieved state-of-the-art results on cross-domain sentiment classification  The sentence encoder used in this model is the same as ours 
(5) ADAN BIBREF16 : This method exploits adversarial training to reduce representation difference between domains  The original paper uses a simple feedforward network as encoder  For fair comparison, we replace it with our CNN-based encoder  We train 5 iterations on the discriminator per iteration on the encoder and sentiment classifier as suggested in their paper 
(6) MMD: MMD has been widely used for minimizing domain discrepancy on images  In those works BIBREF9 , BIBREF13 , variants of deep CNNs are used for encoding images and the MMDs of multiple layers are jointly minimized  In NLP, adding more layers of CNNs may not be very helpful and thus those models from image-related tasks can not be directly applied to our problem  To compare with MMD-based method, we train a model that jointly minimize the classification loss INLINEFORM0 on the source domain and MMD between INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2   For computing MMD, we use a Gaussian RBF which is a common choice for characteristic kernel 
In addition to the above baselines, we also show results of different variants of our model  DAS as shown in Algorithm SECREF6 denotes our full model  DAS-EM denotes the model with only entropy minimization for semi-supervised learning (set INLINEFORM0 )  DAS-SE denotes the model with only self-ensemble bootstrapping for semi-supervised learning (set INLINEFORM1 )  FANN (feature-adaptation neural network) denotes the model without semi-supervised learning performed (set both INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 to zeros) 
Main Results
Figure FIGREF17 shows the comparison of adaptation results (see Appendix SECREF7 for the exact numerical numbers)  We report classification accuracy on the small-scale dataset  For the large-scale dataset, macro-F1 is instead used since the label distribution in the test set is extremely unbalanced  Key observations are summarized as follows  (1) Both DAS-EM and DAS-SE perform better in most cases compared with ADAN, MDD, and FANN, in which only feature adaptation is performed  This demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed domain adaptive semi-supervised learning framework  DAS-EM is more effective than DAS-SE in most cases, and the full model DAS with both techniques jointly employed overall has the best performance  (2) When comparing the two settings on the small-scale dataset, all domain-adaptive methods generally perform better under setting 1  In setting 1, the target examples are balanced in classes, which can provide more diverse opinion-related features  However, when considering unsupervised domain adaptation, we should not presume the label distribution of the unlabeled data  Thus, it is necessary to conduct experiments using datasets that reflect real-life sentiment distribution as what we did on setting2 and the large-scale dataset  Unfortunately, this is ignored by most of previous works  (3) Word-embeddings are very helpful, as we can see even NaiveNN can substantially outperform mSDA on most tasks 
To see the effect of semi-supervised learning alone, we also conduct experiments by setting INLINEFORM0 to eliminate the effect of feature adaptation  Both entropy minimization and bootstrapping perform very badly in this setting  Entropy minimization gives almost random predictions with accuracy below 0 4, and the results of bootstrapping are also much lower compared to NaiveNN  This suggests that the feature adaptation component is essential  Without it, the learned target representations are less meaningful and discriminative  Applying semi-supervised learning in this case is likely to worsen the results 
Further Analysis
In Figure FIGREF23 , we show the change of accuracy with respect to the percentage of unlabeled data used for training on three particular problems under setting 1  The value at INLINEFORM0 denotes the accuracies of NaiveNN which does not utilize any target data  For DAS, we observe a nonlinear increasing trend where the accuracy quickly improves at the beginning, and then gradually stabilizes  For other methods, this trend is less obvious, and adding more unlabeled data sometimes even worsen the results  This finding again suggests that the proposed approach can better exploit the information from unlabeled data 
We also conduct experiments under a setting with a small number of labeled target examples available  Figure FIGREF27 shows the change of accuracy with respect to the number of labeled target examples added for training  We can observe that DAS is still more effective under this setting, while the performance differences to other methods gradually decrease with the increasing number of labeled target examples 
CNN Filter Analysis
In this subsection, we aim to better understand DAS by analyzing sentiment-related CNN filters  To do that, 1) we first select a list of the most related CNN filters for predicting each sentiment label (positive, negative neutral)  Those filters can be identified according to the learned weights INLINEFORM0 of the output layer INLINEFORM1   Higher weight indicates stronger relatedness  2) Recall that in our implementation, each CNN filter has a window size of 3 with Relu activation  We can thus represent each selected filter as a ranked list of trigrams with highest activation values 
We analyze the CNN filters learned by NaiveNN, FANN and DAS respectively on task E INLINEFORM0 BT under setting 1  We focus on E INLINEFORM1 BT for study because electronics and beauty are very different domains and each of them has a diverse set of domain-specific sentiment expressions  For each method, we identify the top 10 most related filters for each sentiment label, and extract the top trigrams of each selected filter on both source and target domains  Since labeled source examples are used for training, we find the filters learned by the three methods capture similar expressions on the source domain, containing both domain-invariant and domain-specific trigrams  On the target domain, DAS captures more target-specific expressions compared to the other two methods  Due to space limitation, we only present a small subset of positive-sentiment-related filters in Table TABREF34   The complete results are provided in Appendix SECREF8   From Table TABREF34 , we can observe that the filters learned by NaiveNN are almost unable to capture target-specific sentiment expressions, while FANN is able to capture limited target-specific words such as “clean” and “scent”  The filters learned by DAS are more domain-adaptive, capturing diverse sentiment expressions in the target domain 
Conclusion
In this work, we propose DAS, a novel framework that jointly performs feature adaptation and semi-supervised learning  We have demonstrated through multiple experiments that DAS can better leverage unlabeled data, and achieve substantial improvements over baseline methods  We have also shown that feature adaptation is an essential component, without which, semi-supervised learning is not able to function properly  The proposed framework could be potentially adapted to other domain adaptation tasks, which is the focus of our future studies 
Results on Amazon Benchmark
Most previous works BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF29 carried out experiments on the Amazon benchmark released by Blitzer et al  ( BIBREF0 )  The dataset contains 4 different domains: Book (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E), and Kitchen (K)  Following their experimental settings, we consider the binary classification task to predict whether a review is positive or negative on the target domain  Each domain consists of 1000 positive and 1000 negative reviews respectively  We also allow 4000 unlabeled reviews to be used for both the source and the target domains, of which the positive and negative reviews are balanced as well, following the settings in previous works  We construct 12 cross-domain sentiment classification tasks and split the labeled data in each domain into a training set of 1600 reviews and a test set of 400 reviews  The classifier is trained on the training set of the source domain and is evaluated on the test set of the target domain  The comparison results are shown in Table TABREF37  
Numerical Results of Figure 
Due to space limitation, we only show results in figures in the paper  All numerical numbers used for plotting Figure FIGREF17 are presented in Table TABREF38   We can observe that DAS-EM, DAS-SE, and DAS all achieve substantial improvements over baseline methods under different settings 
CNN Filter Analysis Full Results
As mentioned in Section SECREF36 , we conduct CNN filter analysis on NaiveNN, FANN, and DAS  For each method, we identify the top 10 most related filters for positive, negative, neutral sentiment labels respectively, and then represent each selected filter as a ranked list of trigrams with the highest activation values on it  Table TABREF39 , TABREF40 , TABREF41 in the following pages illustrate the trigrams from the target domain (beauty) captured by the selected filters learned on E INLINEFORM0 BT for each method 
We can observe that compared to NaiveNN and FANN, DAS is able to capture a more diverse set of relevant sentiment expressions on the target domain for each sentiment label  This observation is consistent with our motivation  Since NaiveNN, FANN and other baseline methods solely train the sentiment classifier on the source domain, the learned encoder is not able to produce discriminative features on the target domain  DAS addresses this problem by refining the classifier on the target domain with semi-supervised learning, and the overall objective forces the encoder to learn feature representations that are not only domain-invariant but also discriminative on both domains 
Context 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 
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

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

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

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What baselines do they compare with?
Context 3: 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  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: They compare with the following models: by Pedersen (2017), by Pramanick and Das (2017), by Mikhalkova and Karyakin (2017),  by Vadehra (2017), Indurthi and Oota (2017), by Vechtomova (2017), by (Cai et al., 2018), and CRF.