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. Are the automatically constructed datasets subject to quality control?
Context 1: Introduction
Automatically answering questions, especially in the open-domain setting (i e , where minimal or no contextual knowledge is explicitly provided), requires bringing to bear considerable amount of background knowledge and reasoning abilities  For example, knowing the answers to the two questions in Figure FIGREF1 requires identifying a specific ISA relation (i e , that cooking is a type of learned behavior) as well as recalling the definition of a concept (i e , that global warming is defined as a worldwide increase in temperature)  In the multiple-choice setting, which is the variety of question-answering (QA) that we focus on in this paper, there is also pragmatic reasoning involved in selecting optimal answer choices (e g , while greenhouse effect might in some other context be a reasonable answer to the second question in Figure FIGREF1, global warming is a preferable candidate) 
Recent successes in QA, driven largely by the creation of new resources BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5 and advances in model pre-training BIBREF6, BIBREF7, raise a natural question: do state-of-the-art multiple-choice QA (MCQA) models that excel at standard tasks really have basic knowledge and reasoning skills?
Most existing MCQA datasets are constructed through either expensive crowd-sourcing BIBREF8 or hand engineering effort, in the former case making it possible to collect large amounts of data at the cost of losing systematic control over the semantics of the target questions  Hence, doing a controlled experiment to answer such a question for QA is difficult given a lack of targeted challenge datasets 
Having definitive empirical evidence of model competence on any given phenomenon requires constructing a wide range of systematic tests  For example, in measuring competence of definitions, not only do we want to see that the model can handle individual questions such as Figure FIGREF1 1 inside of benchmark tasks, but that it can answer a wider range of questions that exhaustively cover a broad set of concepts and question perturbations (i e , systematic adjustments to how the questions are constructed)  The same applies to ISA reasoning; not only is it important to recognize in the question in Figure FIGREF1 1 that cooking is a learned behavior, but also that cooking is a general type of behavior or, through a few more inferential steps, a type of human activity 
In this paper, we look at systematically constructing such tests by exploiting the vast amounts of structured information contained in various types of expert knowledge such as knowledge graphs and lexical taxonomies  Our general methodology works as illustrated in Figure FIGREF1: given any MCQA model trained on a set of benchmark tasks, we systematically generate a set of synthetic dataset probes (i e , MCQA renderings of the target information) from information in expert knowledge sources  We then use these probes to ask two empirical questions: 1) how well do models trained on benchmark tasks perform on these probing tasks and; 2) can such models be re-trained to master new challenges with minimal performance loss on their original tasks?
While our methodology is amenable to any knowledge source and set of models/benchmark tasks, we focus on probing state-of-the-art transformer models BIBREF7, BIBREF9 in the domain of science MCQA  For sources of expert knowledge, we use WordNet, a comprehensive lexical ontology, and other publicly available dictionary resources  We devise probes that measure model competence in definition and taxonomic knowledge in different settings (including hypernymy, hyponymy, and synonymy detection, and word sense disambiguation)  This choice is motivated by fact that the science domain is considered particularly challenging for QA BIBREF10, BIBREF11, BIBREF12, and existing science benchmarks are known to involve widespread use of such knowledge (see BIBREF1, BIBREF13 for analysis), which is also arguably fundamental to more complex forms of reasoning 
We show that accurately probing QA models via synthetic datasets is not straightforward, as unexpected artifacts can easily arise in such data  This motivates our carefully constructed baselines and close data inspection to ensure probe quality 
Our results confirm that transformer-based QA models have a remarkable ability to recognize certain types of knowledge captured in our probes—even without additional fine-tuning  Such models can even outperform strong task-specific models trained directly on our probing tasks (e g , on definitions, our best model achieves 77% test accuracy without specialized training, as opposed to 51% for a task-specific LSTM-based model)  We also show that the same models can be effectively re-fine-tuned on small samples (even 100 examples) of probe data, and that high performance on the probes tends to correlate with a smaller drop in the model's performance on the original QA task 
Our comprehensive assessment reveals several interesting nuances to the overall positive trend  For example, the performance of even the best QA models degrades substantially on our hyponym probes (by 8-15%) when going from 1-hop links to 2-hops  Further, the accuracy of even our best models on the WordNetQA probe drops by 14-44% under our cluster-based analysis, which assesses whether a model knows several facts about each individual concept, rather than just being good at answering isolated questions  State-of-the-art QA models thus have much room to improve even in some fundamental building blocks, namely definitions and taxonomic hierarchies, of more complex forms of reasoning 
Related Work
We follow recent work on constructing challenge datasets for probing neural models, which has primarily focused on the task of natural language inference (NLI) BIBREF14, BIBREF15, BIBREF16, BIBREF17, BIBREF18  Most of this work looks at constructing data through adversarial generation methods, which have also been found useful for creating stronger models BIBREF19  There has also been work on using synthetic data of the type we consider in this paper BIBREF20, BIBREF21, BIBREF22  We closely follow the methodology of BIBREF22, who use hand-constructed linguistic fragments to probe NLI models and study model re-training using a variant of the inoculation by fine-tuning strategy of BIBREF23  In contrast, we focus on probing open-domain MCQA models (see BIBREF24 for a related study in the reading comprehension setting) as well as constructing data from much larger sources of structured knowledge 
Our main study focuses on probing the BERT model and fine-tuning approach of BIBREF7, and other variants thereof, which are all based on the transformer architecture of BIBREF25  Related to our efforts, there have been recent studies into the types of relational knowledge contained in large-scale knowledge models BIBREF26, BIBREF27, BIBREF28, which, similar to our work, probe models using structured knowledge sources  This prior work, however, primarily focuses on unearthing the knowledge contained in the underlying language models as is without further training, using simple (single token) cloze-style probing tasks and templates (similar to what we propose in Section SECREF3)  In contrast, we focus on understanding the knowledge contained in language models after they have been trained for a QA end-task using benchmark datasets in which such knowledge is expected to be widespread  Further, our evaluation is done before and after these models are fine-tuned on our probe QA tasks, using a more complex set of QA templates and target inferences 
The use of lexical resources and knowledge graphs such as WordNet to construct datasets has a long history, and has recently appeared in work on adversarial attacks BIBREF14, BIBREF29 and general task construction BIBREF30, BIBREF31  In the area of MCQA, there is related work on constructing questions from tuples BIBREF32, BIBREF3, both of which involve standard crowd annotation to elicit question-answer pairs (see also BIBREF33, BIBREF34)  In contrast to this work, we focus on generating data in an entirely automatic fashion, which obviates the need for expensive annotation and gives us the flexibility to construct much larger datasets that control a rich set of semantic aspects of the target questions 
Dataset Probes and Construction
Our probing methodology starts by constructing challenge datasets (Figure FIGREF1, yellow box) from a target set of knowledge resources  Each of our probing datasets consists of multiple-choice questions that include a question $\textbf {q}$ and a set of answer choices or candidates $\lbrace a_{1},   a_{N}\rbrace $  This section describes in detail the 5 different datasets we build, which are drawn from two sources of expert knowledge, namely WordNet BIBREF35 and the GNU Collaborative International Dictionary of English (GCIDE)  We describe each resource in turn, and explain how the resulting dataset probes, which we call WordNetQA and DictionaryQA, are constructed 
For convenience, we will describe each source of expert knowledge as a directed, edge-labeled graph $G$  The nodes of this graph are $\mathcal {V} = \mathcal {C} \cup \mathcal {W} \cup \mathcal {S} \cup \mathcal {D}$, where $\mathcal {C}$ is a set of atomic concepts, $\mathcal {W}$ a set of words, $\mathcal {S}$ a set of sentences, and $\mathcal {D}$ a set of definitions (see Table TABREF4 for details for WordNet and GCIDE)  Each edge of $G$ is directed from an atomic concept in $\mathcal {C}$ to another node in $V$, and is labeled with a relation, such as hypernym or isa$^\uparrow $, from a set of relations $\mathcal {R}$ (see Table TABREF4) 
When defining our probe question templates, it will be useful to view $G$ as a set of (relation, source, target) triples $\mathcal {T} \subseteq \mathcal {R} \times \mathcal {C} \times \mathcal {V}$  Due to their origin in an expert knowledge source, such triples preserve semantic consistency  For instance, when the relation in a triple is def, the corresponding edge maps a concept in $\mathcal {C}$ to a definition in $\mathcal {D}$ 
To construct probe datasets, we rely on two heuristic functions, defined below for each individual probe: $\textsc {gen}_{\mathcal {Q}}(\tau )$, which generates gold question-answer pairs $(\textbf {q},\textbf {a})$ from a set of triples $\tau \subseteq \mathcal {T}$ and question templates $\mathcal {Q}$, and $\textsc {distr}(\tau ^{\prime })$, which generates distractor answers choices $\lbrace a^{\prime }_{1},   a^{\prime }_{N-1} \rbrace $ based on another set of triples $\tau ^{\prime }$ (where usually $\tau \subset \tau ^{\prime }$)  For brevity, we will use $\textsc {gen}(\tau )$ to denote $\textsc {gen}_{\mathcal {Q}}(\tau )$, leaving question templates $\mathcal {Q}$ implicit 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA
WordNet is an English lexical database consisting of around 117k concepts, which are organized into groups of synsets that each contain a gloss (i e , a definition of the target concept), a set of representative English words (called lemmas), and, in around 33k synsets, example sentences  In addition, many synsets have ISA links to other synsets that express complex taxonomic relations  Figure FIGREF6 shows an example and Table TABREF4 summarizes how we formulate WordNet as a set of triples $\mathcal {T}$ of various types  These triples together represent a directed, edge-labeled graph $G$  Our main motivation for using WordNet, as opposed to a resource such as ConceptNet BIBREF36, is the availability of glosses ($\mathcal {D}$) and example sentences ($\mathcal {S}$), which allows us to construct natural language questions that contextualize the types of concepts we want to probe 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA ::: Example Generation @!START@$\textsc {gen}(\tau )$@!END@ 
We build 4 individual datasets based on semantic relations native to WordNet (see BIBREF37): hypernymy (i e , generalization or ISA reasoning up a taxonomy, ISA$^\uparrow $), hyponymy (ISA$^{\downarrow }$), synonymy, and definitions  To generate a set of questions in each case, we employ a number of rule templates $\mathcal {Q}$ that operate over tuples  A subset of such templates is shown in Table TABREF8  The templates were designed to mimic naturalistic questions we observed in our science benchmarks 
For example, suppose we wish to create a question $\textbf {q}$ about the definition of a target concept $c \in \mathcal {C}$  We first select a question template from $\mathcal {Q}$ that first introduces the concept $c$ and its lemma $l \in \mathcal {W}$ in context using the example sentence $s \in \mathcal {S}$, and then asks to identify the corresponding WordNet gloss $d \in \mathcal {D}$, which serves as the gold answer $\textbf {a}$  The same is done for ISA reasoning; each question about a hypernym/hyponym relation between two concepts $c \rightarrow ^{\uparrow /\downarrow } c^{\prime } \in \mathcal {T}_{i}$ (e g , $\texttt {dog} \rightarrow ^{\uparrow /\downarrow } \texttt {animal/terrier}$) first introduces a context for $c$ and then asks for an answer that identifies $c^{\prime }$ (which is also provided with a gloss so as to contain all available context) 
In the latter case, the rules $(\texttt {isa}^{r},c,c^{\prime }) \in \mathcal {T}_i$ in Table TABREF8 cover only direct ISA links from $c$ in direction $r \in \lbrace \uparrow ,\downarrow \rbrace $  In practice, for each $c$ and direction $r$, we construct tests that cover the set HOPS$(c,r)$ of all direct as well as derived ISA relations of $c$:
This allows us to evaluate the extent to which models are able to handle complex forms of reasoning that require several inferential steps or hops 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA ::: Distractor Generation: @!START@$\textsc {distr}(\tau ^{\prime })$@!END@ 
An example of how distractors are generated is shown in Figure FIGREF6, which relies on similar principles as above  For each concept $c$, we choose 4 distractor answers that are close in the WordNet semantic space  For example, when constructing hypernymy tests for $c$ from the set hops$(c,\uparrow )$, we build distractors by drawing from $\textsc {hops}(c,\downarrow )$ (and vice versa), as well as from the $\ell $-deep sister family of $c$, defined as follows  The 1-deep sister family is simply $c$'s siblings or sisters, i e , the other children $\tilde{c} \ne c$ of the parent node $c^{\prime }$ of $c$  For $\ell > 1$, the $\ell $-deep sister family also includes all descendants of each $\tilde{c}$ up to $\ell -1$ levels deep, denoted $\textsc {hops}_{\ell -1}(\tilde{c},\downarrow )$  Formally:
For definitions and synonyms we build distractors from all of these sets (with a similar restriction on the depth of sister distractors as noted above)  In doing this, we can systematically investigate model performance on a wide range of distractor sets 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA ::: Perturbations and Semantic Clusters
Based on how we generate data, for each concept $c$ (i e , atomic WordNet synset) and probe type (i e , definitions, hypernymy, etc ), we have a wide variety of questions related to $c$ that manipulate 1) the complexity of reasoning that is involved (e g , the number of inferential hops) and; 2) the types of distractors (or distractor perturbations) that are employed  We call such sets semantic clusters  As we describe in the next section, semantic clusters allow us to devise new types of evaluation that reveal whether models have comprehensive and consistent knowledge of target concepts (e g , evaluating whether a model can correctly answer several questions associated with a concept, as opposed to a few disjoint instances) 
Details of the individual datasets are shown in Table TABREF12  From these sets, we follow BIBREF22 in allocating a maximum of 3k examples for training and reserve the rest for development and testing  Since we are interested in probing, having large held-out sets allows us to do detailed analysis and cluster-based evaluation 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: DictionaryQA
The DictionaryQA dataset is created from the GCIDE dictionary, which is a comprehensive open-source English dictionary built largely from the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary BIBREF38  Each entry consists of a word, its part-of-speech, its definition, and an optional example sentence (see Table TABREF14)  Overall, 33k entries (out of a total of 155k) contain example sentences/usages  As with the WordNet probes, we focus on this subset so as to contextualize each word being probed  In contrast to WordNet, GCIDE does not have ISA relations or explicit synsets, so we take each unique entry to be a distinct sense  We then use the dictionary entries to create a probe that centers around word-sense disambiguation, as described below 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: DictionaryQA ::: Example and Distractor Generation 
To generate gold questions and answers, we use the same generation templates for definitions exemplified in Figure TABREF8 for WordNetQA  To generate distractors, we simply take alternative definitions for the target words that represent a different word sense (e g , the alternative definitions of gift shown in Table TABREF14), as well as randomly chosen definitions if needed to create a 5-way multiple choice question  As above, we reserve a maximum of 3k examples for training  Since we have only 9k examples in total in this dataset (see WordSense in Table TABREF12), we also reserve 3k each for development and testing 
We note that initial attempts to build this dataset through standard random splitting gave rise to certain systematic biases that were exploited by the choice-only baseline models described in the next section, and hence inflated overall model scores  After several efforts at filtering we found that, among other factors, using definitions from entries without example sentences as distractors (e g , the first two entries in Table TABREF14) had a surprising correlation with such biases  This suggests that possible biases involving differences between dictionary entries with and without examples can taint the resulting automatically generated MCQA dataset (for more discussion on the pitfalls involved with automatic dataset construction, see Section SECREF5) 
Probing Methodology and Modeling
Given the probes above, we now can start to answer the empirical questions posed at the beginning  Our main focus is on looking at transformer-based MCQA models trained in the science domain (using the benchmarks shown in Table TABREF21)  In this section, we provide details of MCQA and the target models, as well as several baselines that we use to sanity check our new datasets  To evaluate model competence, we look at a combination of model performance after science pre-training and after additional model fine-tuning using the lossless inoculation strategy of BIBREF22 (Section SECREF22)  In Section SECREF24, we also discuss a cluster-level accuracy metric for measuring performance over semantic clusters 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Task Definition and Modeling
Given a dataset $D =\lbrace (\textbf {q}^{(d)}, \lbrace a_{1}^{(d)},   , a_{N}^{(d)}\rbrace ) \rbrace _{d}^{\mid D \mid }$ consisting of pairs of questions stems $\textbf {q}$ and answer choices $a_{i}$, the goal is to find the correct answer $a_{i^{*}}$ that correctly answers each $\textbf {q}$  Throughout this paper, we look at 5-way multiple-choice problems (i e , where each $N=5$) 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Task Definition and Modeling ::: Question+Answer Encoder 
To model this, our investigation centers around the use of the transformer-based BIBREF25 BERT encoder and fine-tuning approach of BIBREF7 (see also BIBREF6)  For each question and individual answer pair $q^{(j)}_{a_{i}}$, we assume the following rendering of this input:
which is run through the pre-trained BERT encoder to generate a representation for $ q^{(j)}_{a_{i}}$ using the hidden state representation for CLS (i e , the classifier token) $\textbf {c}_{i}$:
The probability of a given answer $p^{(j)}_{i}$ is then computed as $p^{(j)}_{i} \propto e^{\textbf {v}\cdot \textbf {c}^{(j)}_{i}}$, which uses an additional set of classification parameters $\textbf {v} \in \mathbb {R}^{H}$ that are optimized (along with the full transformer network) by taking the final loss of the probability of each correct answer $p_{i^{*}}$ over all answer choices:
We specifically use BERT-large uncased with whole-word masking, as well as the RoBERTa-large model from BIBREF9, which is a more robustly trained version of the original BERT model  Our system uses the implementations provided in AllenNLP BIBREF39 and Huggingface BIBREF40 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Task Definition and Modeling ::: Baselines and Sanity Checks 
When creating synthetic datasets, it is important to ensure that systematic biases, or annotation artifacts BIBREF41, are not introduced into the resulting probes and that the target datasets are sufficiently challenging (or good, in the sense of BIBREF42)  To test for this, we use several of the MCQA baseline models first introduced in BIBREF0, which take inspiration from the LSTM-based models used in BIBREF43 for NLI and various partial-input baselines based on these models 
Following the notation from BIBREF0, for any given sequence $s$ of tokens in $\lbrace q^{(j)}, a_{1}^{(j)},   ,a_{N}^{(j)}\rbrace $ in $D$, an encoding of $s$ is given as $h_{s}^{(j)} = \textbf {BiLSTM}(\textsc {embed}(s)) \in \mathbb {R}^{|s| \times 2h}$ (where $h$ is the dimension of the hidden state in each directional network, and embed$(\cdot )$ is an embedding function that assigns token-level embeddings to each token in $s$)  A contextual representation for each $s$ is then built by applying an element-wise max operation over $h_{s}$ as follows:
With these contextual representations, different baseline models can be constructed  For example, a Choice-Only model, which is a variant of the well-known hypothesis-only baseline used in NLI BIBREF46, scores each choice $c_{i}$ in the following way:
for $\textbf {W}^{T} \in \mathbb {R}^{2h}$ independently of the question and assigns a probability to each answer $p_{i}^{(j)} \propto e^{\alpha _{i}^{(j)}}$ 
A slight variant of this model, the Choice-to-choice model, tries to single out a given answer choice relative to other choices by scoring all choice pairs $\alpha _{i,i^{\prime }}^{(j)} = \textsc {Att}(r^{(j)}_{c_{i}},r^{(j)}_{c_{i^{\prime }}}) \in \mathbb {R}$ using a learned attention mechanism Att and finding the choice with the minimal similarity to other options (for full details, see their original paper)  In using these partial-input baselines, which we train directly on each target probe, we can check whether systematic biases related to answer choices were introduced into the data creation process 
A Question-to-choice model, in contrast, uses the contextual representations for each question and individual choice and an attention model Att model to get a score $\alpha ^{(j)}_{q,i} = \textsc {Att}(r^{(j)}_{q},r^{(j)}_{c_{i}}) \in \mathbb {R}$ as above  Here we also experiment with using ESIM BIBREF47 to generate the contextual representations $r$, as well as a simpler VecSimilarity model that measures the average vector similarity between question and answer tokens: $\alpha ^{(j)}_{q,i} = \textsc {Sim}(\textsc {embed}(q^{(j)}),\textsc {embed}(c^{(j)}_{i}))$  In contrast to the models above, these sets of baselines are used to check for artifacts between questions and answers that are not captured in the partial-input baselines (see discussion in BIBREF49) and ensure that the overall MCQA tasks are sufficiently difficult for our transformer models 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Inoculation and Pre-training
Using the various models introduced above, we train these models on benchmark tasks in the science domain and look at model performance on our probes with and without additional training on samples of probe data, building on the idea of inoculation from BIBREF23  Model inoculation is the idea of continuing to train models on new challenge tasks (in our cases, separately for each probe) using only a small amount of examples  Unlike in ordinary fine-tuning, the goal is not to learn an entirely re-purposed model, but to improve on (or vaccinate against) particular phenomena (e g , our synthetic probes) that potentially deviate from a model's original training distribution (but that nonetheless might involve knowledge already contained in the model) 
In the variant proposed in BIBREF22, for each pre-trained (science) model and architecture $M_{a}$ we continue training the model on $k$ new probe examples (with a maximum of $k=$ 3k) under a set of different hyper-parameter configurations $j \in \lbrace 1,    , J\rbrace $ and identify, for each $k$, the model $M_{*}^{a,k}$ with the best aggregate performance $S$ on the original (orig) and new task:
As in BIBREF22, we found all models to be especially sensitive to different learning rates, and performed comprehensive hyper-parameters searches that also manipulate the number of iterations and random seeds used 
Using this methodology, we can see how much exposure to new data it takes for a given model to master a new task, and whether there are phenomena that stress particular models (e g , lead to catastrophic forgetting of the original task)  Given the restrictions on the number of fine-tuning examples, our assumption is that when models are able to maintain good performance on their original task during inoculation, the quickness with which they are able to learn the inoculated task provides evidence of prior competence, which is precisely what we aim to probe  To measure past performance, we define a model's inoculation cost as the difference in the performance of this model on its original task before and after inoculation 
We pre-train on an aggregated training set of the benchmark science exams detailed in Table TABREF21, and created an aggregate development set of around 4k science questions for evaluating overall science performance and inoculation costs  To handle the mismatch between number of answer choices in these sets, we made all sets 5-way by adding empty answers as needed  We also experimented with a slight variant of inoculation, called add-some inoculation, which involves balancing the inoculation training sets with naturalistic science questions  We reserve the MCQL dataset in Table TABREF21 for this purpose, and experiment with balancing each probe example with a science example (x1 matching) and adding twice as many science questions (x2 matching, up to 3k) for each new example 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Evaluating Model Competence
The standard way to evaluate our MCQA models is by looking at the overall accuracy of the correct answer prediction, or what we call instance-level accuracy (as in Table TABREF25)  Given the nature of our data and the existence of semantic clusters as detailed in Section SECREF11 (i e , sets of questions and answers under different distractor choices and inference complexity), we also measure a model's cluster-level (or strict cluster) accuracy, which requires correctly answering all questions in a cluster  Example semantic clusters are shown in Table TABREF30; in the first case, there are 6 ISA$^\uparrow $ questions (including perturbations) about the concept trouser n 01 (e g , involving knowing that trousers are a type of consumer good and garment/clothing), which a model must answer in order to receive full credit 
Our cluster-based analysis is motivated by the idea that if a model truly knows the meaning of a given concept, such as the concept of trousers, then it should be able to answer arbitrary questions about this concept without sensitivity to varied distractors  While our strict cluster metric is simplistic, it takes inspiration from work on visual QA BIBREF53, and allows us to evaluate how consistent and robust models are across our different probes, and to get insight into whether errors are concentrated on a small set of concepts or widespread across clusters 
Results and Findings
In this section, we provide the results of the empirical questions first introduced in Figure FIGREF1, starting with the results of our baseline models 
Results and Findings ::: Are our Probes Sufficiently Challenging?
As shown in Table TABREF25, most of our partial-input baselines (i e , Choice-Only and Choice-to-Choice models) failed to perform well on our dataset probes across a wide range of models, showing that such probes are generally immune from biases relating to how distractors were generated  As already discussed in Section SECREF13, however, initial versions of the DictionaryQA dataset had unforeseen biases partly related to whether distractors were sampled from entries without example sentences, which resulted in high Choice-Only-GloVe scores ranging around 56% accuracy before a filtering step was applied to remove these distractors 
We had similar issues with the hypernymy probe which, even after a filtering step that used our Choice-to-Choice-GloVe model, still leads to high results on the BERT and RoBERTa choice-only models  Given that several attempts were made to entirely de-duplicate the different splits (both in terms of gold answers and distractor types), the source of these biases is not at all obvious, which shows how easy it is for unintended biases in expert knowledge to appear in the resulting datasets and the importance of having rigorous baselines  We also note the large gap in some cases between the BERT and RoBERTa versus GloVe choice-only models, which highlights the need for having partial-input baselines that use the best available models 
Using a more conventional set of Task-Specific QA models (i e , the LSTM-based Question-to-Choice models trained directly on the probes), we can see that results are not particularly strong on any of the datasets, suggesting that our probes are indeed sufficiently challenging and largely immune from overt artifacts  The poor performance of the VecSimilarity (which uses pre-trained Word2Vec embeddings without additional training) provides additional evidence that elementary lexical matching strategies are insufficient for solving any of the probing tasks 
Results and Findings ::: How well do pre-trained MCQA models do?
Science models that use non-transformer based encoders, such as the ESIM model with GloVe and ELMO, perform poorly across all probes, in many cases scoring near random chance, showing limits to how well they generalize from science to other tasks even with pre-trained GloVe and ELMO embeddings  In sharp contrast, the transformer models have mixed results, the most striking result being the RoBERTa models on the definitions and synonymy probes (achieving a test accuracy of 77% and 61%, respectively), which outperform several of the task-specific LSTM models trained directly on the probes  At first glance, this suggests that RoBERTa, which generally far outpaces even BERT across most probes, has high competence of definitions and synonyms even without explicit training on our new tasks 
Given the controlled nature of our probes, we can get a more detailed view of how well the science models are performing across different reasoning and distractor types, as shown in the first column of Figure FIGREF28 for ESIM and RoBERTa  The ESIM science model without training has uniformly poor performance across all categories, whereas the performance of RoBERTa is more varied  Across all datasets and number of hops (i e , the rows in the heat maps), model performance for RoBERTa is consistently highest among examples with random distractors (i e , the first column), and lowest in cases involving distractors that are closest in WordNet space (e g , sister and ISA, or up/down, distractors of distance $k^{\prime }=1$)  This is not surprising, given that, in the first case, random distractors are likely to be the easiest category (and the opposite for distractors close in space), but suggests that RoBERTa might only be getting the easiest cases correct 
Model performance also clearly degrades for hypernymy and hyponymy across all models as the number of hops $k$ increases (see red dashed boxes)  For example, problems that involve hyponym reasoning with sister distractors of distance $k^{\prime }=1$ (i e , the second column) degrades from 47% to 15% when the number of hops $k$ increases from 1 to 4  This general tendency persists even after additional fine-tuning, as we discuss next, and gives evidence that models are limited in their capacity for certain types of multi-hop inferences 
As discussed by BIBREF26, the choice of generation templates can have a significant effect on model performance  The results so far should therefore be regarded as a lower bound on model competence  It is possible that model performance is high for definitions, for example, because the associated templates best align with the science training distribution (which we know little about)  For this reason, the subsequent inoculation step is important—it gives the model an opportunity to learn about our target templates and couple this learned knowledge with its general knowledge acquired during pre-training and science training (which is, again, what we aim to probe) 
Results and Findings ::: Can Models Be Effectively Inoculated?
Model performance after additional fine-tuning, or inoculation, is shown in the last 3 rows of Table TABREF25, along with learning curves shown in Figure FIGREF29 for a selection of probes and models  In the former case, the performance represents the model (and inoculation amount) with the highest aggregate performance over the old task and new probe  Here we again see the transformer-based models outperform non-transformer models, and that better models correlate with lower inoculation costs  For example, when inoculating on synonymy, the cost for ESIM is around 7% reduced accuracy on its original task, as opposed to $< 1$% and around 1% for BERT and RoBERTa, respectively  This shows the high capacity for transformer models to absorb new tasks with minimal costs, as also observed in BIBREF22 for NLI 
As shown in Figure FIGREF29, transformer models tend to learn most tasks fairly quickly while keeping constant scores on their original tasks (i e , the flat dashed lines observed in plots 1-4), which gives evidence of high competence  In both cases, add-some inoculation proves to be a cheap and easy way to 1) improve scores on the probing tasks (i e , the solid black and blue lines in plot 1) and; 2) minimize loss on science (e g , the blue and black dashed lines in plots 2-4)  The opposite is the case for ESIM (plots 5-6); models are generally unable to simultaneously learn individual probes without degrading on their original task, and adding more science data during inoculation confuses models on both tasks 
As shown in Figure FIGREF28, RoBERTa is able to significantly improve performance across most categories even after inoculation with a mere 100 examples (the middle plot), which again provides strong evidence of prior competence  As an example, RoBERTa improves on 2-hop hyponymy inference with random distractors by 18% (from 59% to 77%)  After 3k examples, the model has high performance on virtually all categories (the same score increases from 59% to 87%), however results still tends to degrade as a function of hop and distractor complexity, as discussed above 
Despite the high performance of our transformer models after inoculation, model performance on most probes (with the exception of Definitions) averages around 80% for our best models  This suggests that there is still considerable room for improvement, especially for synonymy and word sense, which is a topic that we discuss more in Section SECREF6 
Results and Findings ::: Are Models Consistent across Clusters?
Table TABREF32 shows cluster-level accuracies for the different WordNetQA probes  As with performance across the different inference/distractor categories, these results are mixed  For some probes, such as definitions, our best models appear to be rather robust; e g , our RoBERTa model has a cluster accuracy of $75\%$, meaning that it can answer all questions perfectly for 75% of the target concepts and that errors are concentrated on a small minority (25%) of concepts  On synonymy and hypernymy, both BERT and RoBERTa appear robust on the majority of concepts, showing that errors are similarly concentrated  In contrast, our best model on hyponymy has an accuracy of 36%, meaning that its errors are spread across many concepts, thus suggesting less robustness 
Table TABREF30 shows a selection of semantic clusters involving ISA reasoning, as well as the model performance over different answers (shown symbolically) and perturbations  For example, in the the second case, the cluster is based around the concept/synset oppose v 06 and involves 4 inferences and a total 24 questions (i e , inferences with perturbations)  Our weakest model, ESIM, answers only 5 out of 24 questions correctly, whereas RoBERTa gets 21/24  In the other cases, RoBERTa gets all clusters correct, whereas BERT and ESIM get none of them correct 
We emphasize that these results only provide a crude look into model consistency and robustness  Recalling again the details in Table TABREF12, probes differ in terms of average size of clusters  Hyponymy, in virtue of having many more questions per cluster, might simply be a much more difficult dataset  In addition, such a strict evaluation does not take into account potential errors inside of clusters, which is an important issue that we discuss in the next section  We leave addressing such issues and coming up with more insightful cluster-based metrics for future work 
Discussion and Conclusion
We presented several new challenge datasets and a novel methodology for automatically building such datasets from knowledge graphs and taxonomies  We used these to probe state-of-the-art open-domain QA models (centering around models based on variants of BERT)  While our general methodology is amendable to any target knowledge resource or QA model/domain, we focus on probing definitions and ISA knowledge using open-source dictionaries and MCQA models trained in the science domain 
We find, consistent with recent probing studies BIBREF26, that transformer-based models have a remarkable ability to answer questions that involve complex forms of relational knowledge, both with and without explicit exposure to our new target tasks  In the latter case, a newer RoBERTa model trained only on benchmark science tasks is able to outperform several task-specific LSTM-based models trained directly on our probing data  When re-trained on small samples (e g , 100 examples) of probing data using variations of the lossless inoculation strategy from BIBREF22, RoBERTa is able to master many aspects of our probes with virtually no performance loss on its original QA task 
These positive results suggest that transformer-based models, especially models additionally fine-tuned on small samples of synthetic data, can be used in place of task-specific models used for querying relational knowledge, as has already been done for targeted tasks such as word sense disambiguation BIBREF54  Since models seem to already contain considerable amounts of relational knowledge, our simple inoculation strategy, which tries to nudge models to bring out this knowledge explicitly, could serve as a cheaper alternative to recent attempts to build architectures that explicitly incorporate structured knowledge BIBREF55; we see many areas where our inoculation strategy could be improved for such purposes, including having more complex loss functions that manage old and new information, as well as using techniques that take into account network plasticity BIBREF56 
The main appeal of using automatically generate datasets is the ability to systematically manipulate and control the complexity of target questions, which allows for more controlled experimentation and new forms of evaluation  Despite the positive results described above, results that look directly at the effect of different types of distractors and the complexity of reasoning show that our best models, even after additional fine-tuning, struggle with certain categories of hard distractors and multi-hop inferences  For some probes, our cluster-based analysis also reveals that errors are widespread across concept clusters, suggesting that models are not always consistent and robust  These results, taken together with our findings about the vulnerability of synthetic datasets to systematic biases, suggest that there is much room for improvement and that the positive results should be taken with a grain of salt  Developing better ways to evaluate semantic clusters and model robustness would be a step in this direction 
We emphasize that using synthetic versus naturalistic QA data comes with important trade-offs  While we are able to generate large amounts of systematically controlled data at virtually no cost or need for manual annotation, it is much harder to validate the quality of such data at such a scale and such varying levels of complexity  Conversely, with benchmark QA datasets, it is much harder to perform the type of careful manipulations and cluster-based analyses we report here  While we assume that the expert knowledge we employ, in virtue of being hand-curated by human experts, is generally correct, we know that such resources are fallible and error-prone  Initial crowd-sourcing experiments that look at validating samples of our data show high agreement across probes and that human scores correlate with the model trends across the probe categories  More details of these studies are left for future work 
Context 2: Introduction
The irony is a kind of figurative language, which is widely used on social media BIBREF0   The irony is defined as a clash between the intended meaning of a sentence and its literal meaning BIBREF1   As an important aspect of language, irony plays an essential role in sentiment analysis BIBREF2 , BIBREF0 and opinion mining BIBREF3 , BIBREF4  
Although some previous studies focus on irony detection, little attention is paid to irony generation  As ironies can strengthen sentiments and express stronger emotions, we mainly focus on generating ironic sentences  Given a non-ironic sentence, we implement a neural network to transfer it to an ironic sentence and constrain the sentiment polarity of the two sentences to be the same  For example, the input is “I hate it when my plans get ruined" which is negative in sentiment polarity and the output should be ironic and negative in sentiment as well, such as “I like it when my plans get ruined"  The speaker uses “like" to be ironic and express his or her negative sentiment  At the same time, our model can preserve contents which are irrelevant to sentiment polarity and irony  According to the categories mentioned in BIBREF5 , irony can be classified into 3 classes: verbal irony by means of a polarity contrast, the sentences containing expression whose polarity is inverted between the intended and the literal evaluation; other types of verbal irony, the sentences that show no polarity contrast between the literal and intended meaning but are still ironic; and situational irony, the sentences that describe situations that fail to meet some expectations  As ironies in the latter two categories are obscure and hard to understand, we decide to only focus on ironies in the first category in this work  For example, our work can be specifically described as: given a sentence “I hate to be ignored", we train our model to generate an ironic sentence such as “I love to be ignored"  Although there is “love" in the generated sentence, the speaker still expresses his or her negative sentiment by irony  We also make some explorations in the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences at the end of our work  Because of the lack of previous work and baselines on irony generation, we implement our model based on style transfer  Our work will not only provide the first large-scale irony dataset but also make our model as a benchmark for the irony generation 
Recently, unsupervised style transfer becomes a very popular topic  Many state-of-the-art studies try to solve the task with sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) framework  There are three main ways to build up models  The first is to learn a latent style-independent content representation and generate sentences with the content representation and another style BIBREF6 , BIBREF7   The second is to directly transfer sentences from one style to another under the control of classifiers and reinforcement learning BIBREF8   The third is to remove style attribute words from the input sentence and combine the remaining content with new style attribute words BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   The first method usually obtains better performances via adversarial training with discriminators  The style-independent content representation, nevertheless, is not easily obtained BIBREF11 , which results in poor performances  The second method is suitable for complex styles which are difficult to model and describe  The model can learn the deep semantic features by itself but sometimes the model is sensitive to parameters and hard to train  The third method succeeds to preserve content but cannot work for some complex styles such as democratic and republican  Sentences with those styles usually do not have specific style attribute words  Unfortunately, due to the lack of large irony dataset and difficulties of modeling ironies, there has been little work trying to generate ironies based on seq2seq framework as far as we know  Inspired by methods for style transfer, we decide to implement a specifically designed model based on unsupervised style transfer to explore irony generation 
In this paper, in order to address the lack of irony data, we first crawl over 2M tweets from twitter to build a dataset with 262,755 ironic and 112,330 non-ironic tweets  Then, due to the lack of parallel data, we propose a novel model to transfer non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences in an unsupervised way  As ironic style is hard to model and describe, we implement our model with the control of classifiers and reinforcement learning  Different from other studies in style transfer, the transformation from non-ironic to ironic sentences has to preserve sentiment polarity as mentioned above  Therefore, we not only design an irony reward to control the irony accuracy and implement denoising auto-encoder and back-translation to control content preservation but also design a sentiment reward to control sentiment preservation 
Experimental results demonstrate that our model achieves a high irony accuracy with well-preserved sentiment and content  The contributions of our work are as follows:
Related Work
Style Transfer: As irony is a complicated style and hard to model with some specific style attribute words, we mainly focus on studies without editing style attribute words 
Some studies are trying to disentangle style representation from content representation  In BIBREF12 , authors leverage adversarial networks to learn separate content representations and style representations  In BIBREF13 and BIBREF6 , researchers combine variational auto-encoders (VAEs) with style discriminators 
However, some recent studies BIBREF11 reveal that the disentanglement of content and style representations may not be achieved in practice  Therefore, some other research studies BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 strive to separate content and style by removing stylistic words  Nonetheless, many non-ironic sentences do not have specific stylistic words and as a result, we find it difficult to transfer non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences through this way in practice 
Besides, some other research studies do not disentangle style from content but directly learn representations of sentences  In BIBREF8 , authors propose a dual reinforcement learning framework without separating content and style representations  In BIBREF7 , researchers utilize a machine translation model to learn a sentence representation preserving the meaning of the sentence but reducing stylistic properties  In this method, the quality of generated sentences relies on the performance of classifiers to a large extent  Meanwhile, such models are usually sensitive to parameters and difficult to train  In contrast, we combine a pre-training process with reinforcement learning to build up a stable language model and design special rewards for our task 
Irony Detection: With the development of social media, irony detection becomes a more important task  Methods for irony detection can be mainly divided into two categories: methods based on feature engineering and methods based on neural networks 
As for methods based on feature engineering, In BIBREF1 , authors investigate pragmatic phenomena and various irony markers  In BIBREF14 , researchers leverage a combination of sentiment, distributional semantic and text surface features  Those models rely on hand-crafted features and are hard to implement 
When it comes to methods based on neural networks, long short-term memory (LSTM) BIBREF15 network is widely used and is very efficient for irony detection  In BIBREF16 , a tweet is divided into two segments and a subtract layer is implemented to calculate the difference between two segments in order to determine whether the tweet is ironic  In BIBREF17 , authors utilize a recurrent neural network with Bi-LSTM and self-attention without hand-crafted features  In BIBREF18 , researchers propose a system based on a densely connected LSTM network 
Our Dataset
In this section, we describe how we build our dataset with tweets  First, we crawl over 2M tweets from twitter using GetOldTweets-python  We crawl English tweets from 04/09/2012 to /12/18/2018  We first remove all re-tweets and use langdetect to remove all non-English sentences  Then, we remove hashtags attached at the end of the tweets because they are usually not parts of sentences and will confuse our language model  After that, we utilize Ekphrasis to process tweets  We remove URLs and restore remaining hashtags, elongated words, repeated words, and all-capitalized words  To simplify our dataset, We replace all “ INLINEFORM0 money INLINEFORM1 " and “ INLINEFORM2 time INLINEFORM3 " tokens with “ INLINEFORM4 number INLINEFORM5 " token when using Ekphrasis  And we delete sentences whose lengths are less than 10 or greater than 40  In order to restore abbreviations, we download an abbreviation dictionary from webopedia and restore abbreviations to normal words or phrases according to the dictionary  Finally, we remove sentences which have more than two rare words (appearing less than three times) in order to constrain the size of vocabulary  Finally, we get 662,530 sentences after pre-processing 
As neural networks are proved effective in irony detection, we decide to implement a neural classifier in order to classify the sentences into ironic and non-ironic sentences  However, the only high-quality irony dataset we can obtain is the dataset of Semeval-2018 Task 3 and the dataset is pretty small, which will cause overfitting to complex models  Therefore, we just implement a simple one-layer RNN with LSTM cell to classify pre-processed sentences into ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences because LSTM networks are widely used in irony detection  We train the model with the dataset of Semeval-2018 Task 3  After classification, we get 262,755 ironic sentences and 399,775 non-ironic sentences  According to our observation, not all non-ironic sentences are suitable to be transferred into ironic sentences  For example, “just hanging out   watching   is it monday yet" is hard to transfer because it does not have an explicit sentiment polarity  So we remove all interrogative sentences from the non-ironic sentences and only obtain the sentences which have words expressing strong sentiments  We evaluate the sentiment polarity of each word with TextBlob and we view those words with sentiment scores greater than 0 5 or less than -0 5 as words expressing strong sentiments  Finally, we build our irony dataset with 262,755 ironic sentences and 102,330 non-ironic sentences 
[t] Irony Generation Algorithm
INLINEFORM0 pre-train with auto-encoder Pre-train INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 with INLINEFORM3 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF16 Pre-train INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 with INLINEFORM6 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF17 INLINEFORM7 pre-train with back-translation Pre-train INLINEFORM8 , INLINEFORM9 , INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 with INLINEFORM12 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF19 Pre-train INLINEFORM13 , INLINEFORM14 , INLINEFORM15 , INLINEFORM16 with INLINEFORM17 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF20
INLINEFORM0 train with RL each epoch e = 1, 2,    , INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2 train non-irony2irony with RL INLINEFORM3 in N INLINEFORM4 update INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 , using INLINEFORM7 based on Eq  EQREF29 INLINEFORM8 back-translation INLINEFORM9 INLINEFORM10 INLINEFORM11 update INLINEFORM12 , INLINEFORM13 , INLINEFORM14 , INLINEFORM15 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF19 INLINEFORM16 train irony2non-irony with RL INLINEFORM17 in I INLINEFORM18 update INLINEFORM19 , INLINEFORM20 , using INLINEFORM21 similar to Eq  EQREF29 INLINEFORM22 back-translation INLINEFORM23 INLINEFORM24 INLINEFORM25 update INLINEFORM26 , INLINEFORM27 , INLINEFORM28 , INLINEFORM29 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF20
Our Method
Given two non-parallel corpora: non-ironic corpus N={ INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 ,    , INLINEFORM2 } and ironic corpus I={ INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 ,    , INLINEFORM5 }, the goal of our irony generation model is to generate an ironic sentence from a non-ironic sentence while preserving the content and sentiment polarity of the source input sentence  We implement an encoder-decoder framework where two encoders are utilized to encode ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences respectively and two decoders are utilized to decode ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences from latent representations respectively  In order to enforce a shared latent space, we share two layers on both the encoder side and the decoder side  Our model architecture is illustrated in Figure FIGREF13   We denote irony encoder as INLINEFORM6 , irony decoder as INLINEFORM7 and non-irony encoder as INLINEFORM8 , non-irony decoder as INLINEFORM9   Their parameters are INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , INLINEFORM12 and INLINEFORM13  
Our irony generation algorithm is shown in Algorithm SECREF3   We first pre-train our model using denoising auto-encoder and back-translation to build up language models for both styles (section SECREF14 )  Then we implement reinforcement learning to train the model to transfer sentences from one style to another (section SECREF21 )  Meanwhile, to achieve content preservation, we utilize back-translation for one time in every INLINEFORM0 time steps 
Pretraining
In order to build up our language model and preserve the content, we apply the auto-encoder model  To prevent the model from simply copying the input sentence, we randomly add some noises in the input sentence  Specifically, for every word in the input sentence, there is 10% chance that we delete it, 10 % chance that we duplicate it, 10% chance that we swap it with the next word, or it remains unchanged  We first encode the input sentence INLINEFORM0 or INLINEFORM1 with respective encoder INLINEFORM2 or INLINEFORM3 to obtain its latent representation INLINEFORM4 or INLINEFORM5 and reconstruct the input sentence with the latent representation and respective decoder  So we can get the reconstruction loss for auto-encoder INLINEFORM6 : DISPLAYFORM0 DISPLAYFORM1
In addition to denoising auto-encoder, we implement back-translation BIBREF19 to generate a pseudo-parallel corpus  Suppose our model takes non-ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 as input  We first encode INLINEFORM1 with INLINEFORM2 to obtain its latent representation INLINEFORM3 and decode the latent representation with INLINEFORM4 to get a transferred sentence INLINEFORM5   Then we encode INLINEFORM6 with INLINEFORM7 and decode its latent representation with INLINEFORM8 to reconstruct the original input sentence INLINEFORM9   Therefore, our reconstruction loss for back-translation INLINEFORM10 : DISPLAYFORM0
And if our model takes ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 as input, we can get the reconstruction loss for back-translation as: DISPLAYFORM0
Reinforcement Learning
Since the gold transferred result of input is unavailable, we cannot evaluate the quality of the generated sentence directly  Therefore, we implement reinforcement learning and elaborately design two rewards to describe the irony accuracy and sentiment preservation, respectively 
A pre-trained binary irony classifier based on CNN BIBREF20 is used to evaluate how ironic a sentence is  We denote the parameter of the classifier as INLINEFORM0 and it is fixed during the training process 
In order to facilitate the transformation, we design the irony reward as the difference between the irony score of the input sentence and that of the output sentence  Formally, when we input a non-ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 and transfer it to an ironic sentence INLINEFORM1 , our irony reward is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes ironic style and INLINEFORM1 is the probability of that a sentence INLINEFORM2 is ironic 
To preserve the sentiment polarity of the input sentence, we also need to use classifiers to evaluate the sentiment polarity of the sentences  However, the sentiment analysis of ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences are different  In the case of figurative languages such as irony, sarcasm or metaphor, the sentiment polarity of the literal meaning may differ significantly from that of the intended figurative meaning BIBREF0   As we aim to train our model to transfer sentences from non-ironic to ironic, using only one classifier is not enough  As a result, we implement two pre-trained sentiment classifiers for non-ironic sentences and ironic sentences respectively  We denote the parameter of the sentiment classifier for ironic sentences as INLINEFORM0 and that of the sentiment classifier for non-ironic sentences as INLINEFORM1  
A challenge, when we implement two classifiers to evaluate the sentiment polarity, is that the two classifiers trained with different datasets may have different distributions of scores  That means we cannot directly calculate the sentiment reward with scores applied by two classifiers  To alleviate this problem and standardize the prediction results of two classifiers, we set a threshold for each classifier and subtract the respective threshold from scores applied by the classifier to obtain the comparative sentiment polarity score  We get the optimal threshold by maximizing the ability of the classifier according to the distribution of our training data 
We denote the threshold of ironic sentiment classifier as INLINEFORM0 and the threshold of non-ironic sentiment classifier as INLINEFORM1   The standardized sentiment score is defined as INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 where INLINEFORM4 denotes the positive sentiment polarity and INLINEFORM5 is the probability of that a sentence is positive in sentiment polarity 
As mentioned above, the input sentence and the generated sentence should express the same sentiment  For example, if we input a non-ironic sentence “I hate to be ignored" which is negative in sentiment polarity, the generated ironic sentence should be also negative, such as “I love to be ignored"  To achieve sentiment preservation, we design the sentiment reward as that one minus the absolute value of the difference between the standardized sentiment score of the input sentence and that of the generated sentence  Formally, when we input a non-ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 and transfer it to an ironic sentence INLINEFORM1 , our sentiment reward is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
To encourage our model to focus on both the irony accuracy and the sentiment preservation, we apply the harmonic mean of irony reward and sentiment reward: DISPLAYFORM0
Policy Gradient
The policy gradient algorithm BIBREF21 is a simple but widely-used algorithm in reinforcement learning  It is used to maximize the expected reward INLINEFORM0   The objective function to minimize is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 is the reward of INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 is the input size 
Training Details
INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 in our model are Transformers BIBREF22 with 4 layers and 2 shared layers  The word embeddings of 128 dimensions are learned during the training process  Our maximum sentence length is set as 40  The optimizer is Adam BIBREF23 and the learning rate is INLINEFORM4   The batch size is 32 and harmonic weight INLINEFORM5 in Eq 9 is 0 5  We set the interval INLINEFORM6 as 200  The model is pre-trained for 6 epochs and trained for 15 epochs for reinforcement learning 
Irony Classifier: We implement a CNN classifier trained with our irony dataset  All the CNN classifiers we utilize in this paper use the same parameters as BIBREF20  
Sentiment Classifier for Irony: We first implement a one-layer LSTM network to classify ironic sentences in our dataset into positive and negative ironies  The LSTM network is trained with the dataset of Semeval 2015 Task 11 BIBREF0 which is used for the sentiment analysis of figurative language in twitter  Then, we use the positive ironies and negative ironies to train the CNN sentiment classifier for irony 
Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony: Similar to the training process of the sentiment classifier for irony, we first implement a one-layer LSTM network trained with the dataset for the sentiment analysis of common twitters to classify the non-ironies into positive and negative non-ironies  Then we use the positive and negative non-ironies to train the sentiment classifier for non-irony 
Baselines
We compare our model with the following state-of-art generative models:
BackTrans BIBREF7 : In BIBREF7 , authors propose a model using machine translation in order to preserve the meaning of the sentence while reducing stylistic properties 
Unpaired BIBREF10 : In BIBREF10 , researchers implement a method to remove emotional words and add desired sentiment controlled by reinforcement learning 
CrossAlign BIBREF6 : In BIBREF6 , authors leverage refined alignment of latent representations to perform style transfer and a cross-aligned auto-encoder is implemented 
CPTG BIBREF24 : An interpolated reconstruction loss is introduced in BIBREF24 and a discriminator is implemented to control attributes in this work 
DualRL BIBREF8 : In BIBREF8 , researchers use two reinforcement rewards simultaneously to control style accuracy and content preservation 
Evaluation Metrics
In order to evaluate sentiment preservation, we use the absolute value of the difference between the standardized sentiment score of the input sentence and that of the generated sentence  We call the value as sentiment delta (senti delta)  Besides, we report the sentiment accuracy (Senti ACC) which measures whether the output sentence has the same sentiment polarity as the input sentence based on our standardized sentiment classifiers  The BLEU score BIBREF25 between the input sentences and the output sentences is calculated to evaluate the content preservation performance  In order to evaluate the overall performance of different models, we also report the geometric mean (G2) and harmonic mean (H2) of the sentiment accuracy and the BLEU score  As for the irony accuracy, we only report it in human evaluation results because it is more accurate for the human to evaluate the quality of irony as it is very complicated 
We first sample 50 non-ironic input sentences and their corresponding output sentences of different models  Then, we ask four annotators who are proficient in English to evaluate the qualities of the generated sentences of different models  They are required to rank the output sentences of our model and baselines from the best to the worst in terms of irony accuracy (Irony), Sentiment preservation (Senti) and content preservation (Content)  The best output is ranked with 1 and the worst output is ranked with 6  That means that the smaller our human evaluation value is, the better the corresponding model is 
Results and Discussions
Table TABREF35 shows the automatic evaluation results of the models in the transformation from non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences  From the results, our model obtains the best result in sentiment delta  The DualRL model achieves the highest result in other metrics, but most of its outputs are the almost same as the input sentences  So it is reasonable that DualRL system outperforms ours in these metrics but it actually does not transfer the non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences at all  From this perspective, we cannot view DualRL as an effective model for irony generation  In contrast, our model gets results close to those of DualRL and obtains a balance between irony accuracy, sentiment preservation, and content preservation if we also consider the irony accuracy discussed below 
And from human evaluation results shown in Table TABREF36 , our model gets the best average rank in irony accuracy  And as mentioned above, the DualRL model usually does not change the input sentence and outputs the same sentence  Therefore, it is reasonable that it obtains the best rank in sentiment and content preservation and ours is the second  However, it still demonstrates that our model, instead of changing nothing, transfers the style of the input sentence with content and sentiment preservation at the same time 
Case Study
In the section, we present some example outputs of different models  Table TABREF37 shows the results of the transformation from non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences  We can observe that: (1) The BackTrans system, the Unpaired system, the CrossAlign system and the CPTG system tends to generate sentences which are towards irony but do not preserve content  (2) The DualRL system preserves content and sentiment very well but even does not change the input sentence  (3) Our model considers both aspects and achieves a better balance among irony accuracy, sentiment and content preservation 
Error Analysis
Although our model outperforms other style transfer baselines according to automatic and human evaluation results, there are still some failure cases because irony generation is still a very challenging task  We would like to share the issues we meet during our experiments and our solutions to some of them in this section 
No Change: As mentioned above, many style transfer models, such as DualRL, tend to make few changes to the input sentence and output the same sentence  Actually, this is a common issue for unsupervised style transfer systems and we also meet it during our experiments  The main reason for the issue is that rewards for content preservation are too prominent and rewards for style accuracy cannot work well  In contrast, in order to guarantee the readability and fluency of the output sentence, we also cannot emphasize too much on rewards for style accuracy because it may cause some other issues such as word repetition mentioned below  A method to solve the problem is tuning hyperparameters and this is also the method we implement in this work  As for content preservation, maybe MLE methods such as back-translation are not enough because they tend to force models to generate specific words  In the future, we should further design some more suitable methods to control content preservation for models without disentangling style and content representations, such as DualRL and ours 
Word Repetition: During our experiments, we observe that some of the outputs prefer to repeat the same word as shown in Table TABREF38   This is because reinforcement learning rewards encourage the model to generate words which can get high scores from classifiers and even back-translation cannot stop it  Our solution is that we can lower the probability of decoding a word in decoders if the word has been generated in the previous time steps during testing  We also try to implement this method during training time but obtain worse performances because it may limit the effects of training  Some previous studies utilize language models to control the fluency of the output sentence and we also try this method  Nonetheless, pre-training a language model with tweets and using it to generate rewards is difficult because tweets are more casual and have more noise  Rewards from that kind of language model are usually not accurate and may confuse the model  In the future, we should come up with better methods to model language fluency with the consideration of irony accuracy, sentiment and content preservation, especially for tweets 
Improper Words: As ironic style is hard for our model to learn, it may generate some improper words which make the sentence strange  As the example shown in the Table TABREF38 , the sentiment word in the input sentence is “wonderful" and the model should change it into a negative word such as “sad" to make the output sentence ironic  However, the model changes “friday" and “fifa" which are not related to ironic styles  We have not found a very effective method to address this issue and maybe we should further explore stronger models to learn ironic styles better 
Additional Experiments
In this section, we describe some additional experiments on the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences  Sometimes ironies are hard to understand and may cause misunderstanding, for which our task also explores the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences 
As shown in Table TABREF46 , we also conduct automatic evaluations and the conclusions are similar to those of the transformation from non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences  As for human evaluation results in Table TABREF47 , our model still can achieve the second-best results in sentiment and content preservation  Nevertheless, DualRL system and ours get poor performances in irony accuracy  The reason may be that the other four baselines tend to generate common and even not fluent sentences which are irrelevant to the input sentences and are hard to be identified as ironies  So annotators usually mark these output sentences as non-ironic sentences, which causes these models to obtain better performances than DualRL and ours but much poorer results in sentiment and content preservation  Some examples are shown in Table TABREF52  
Conclusion and Future Work
In this paper, we first systematically define irony generation based on style transfer  Because of the lack of irony data, we make use of twitter and build a large-scale dataset  In order to control irony accuracy, sentiment preservation and content preservation at the same time, we also design a combination of rewards for reinforcement learning and incorporate reinforcement learning with a pre-training process  Experimental results demonstrate that our model outperforms other generative models and our rewards are effective  Although our model design is effective, there are still many errors and we systematically analyze them  In the future, we are interested in exploring these directions and our work may extend to other kinds of ironies which are more difficult to model 
Context 3: Introduction
Data imbalance is a common issue in a variety of NLP tasks such as tagging and machine reading comprehension  Table TABREF3 gives concrete examples: for the Named Entity Recognition (NER) task BIBREF2, BIBREF3, most tokens are backgrounds with tagging class $O$  Specifically, the number of tokens tagging class $O$ is 5 times as many as those with entity labels for the CoNLL03 dataset and 8 times for the OntoNotes5 0 dataset; Data-imbalanced issue is more severe for MRC tasks BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8 with the value of negative-positive ratio being 50-200 
Data imbalance results in the following two issues: (1) the training-test discrepancy: Without balancing the labels, the learning process tends to converge to a point that strongly biases towards class with the majority label  This actually creates a discrepancy between training and test: at training time, each training instance contributes equally to the objective function while at test time, F1 score concerns more about positive examples; (2) the overwhelming effect of easy-negative examples  As pointed out by meng2019dsreg, significantly large number of negative examples also means that the number of easy-negative example is large  The huge number of easy examples tends to overwhelm the training, making the model not sufficiently learned to distinguish between positive examples and hard-negative examples  The cross-entropy objective (CE for short) or maximum likelihood (MLE) objective, which is widely adopted as the training objective for data-imbalanced NLP tasks BIBREF9, BIBREF10, BIBREF11, BIBREF12, BIBREF13, BIBREF14, BIBREF15, handles neither of the issues 
To handle the first issue, we propose to replace CE or MLE with losses based on the Sørensen–Dice coefficient BIBREF0 or Tversky index BIBREF1  The Sørensen–Dice coefficient, dice loss for short, is the harmonic mean of precision and recall  It attaches equal importance to false positives (FPs) and false negatives (FNs) and is thus more immune to data-imbalanced datasets  Tversky index extends dice loss by using a weight that trades precision and recall, which can be thought as the approximation of the $F_{\beta }$ score, and thus comes with more flexibility  Therefore, We use dice loss or Tversky index to replace CE loss to address the first issue 
Only using dice loss or Tversky index is not enough since they are unable to address the dominating influence of easy-negative examples  This is intrinsically because dice loss is actually a hard version of the F1 score  Taking the binary classification task as an example, at test time, an example will be classified as negative as long as its probability is smaller than 0 5, but training will push the value to 0 as much as possible  This gap isn't a big issue for balanced datasets, but is extremely detrimental if a big proportion of training examples are easy-negative ones: easy-negative examples can easily dominate training since their probabilities can be pushed to 0 fairly easily  Meanwhile, the model can hardly distinguish between hard-negative examples and positive ones  Inspired by the idea of focal loss BIBREF16 in computer vision, we propose a dynamic weight adjusting strategy, which associates each training example with a weight in proportion to $(1-p)$, and this weight dynamically changes as training proceeds  This strategy helps to deemphasize confident examples during training as their $p$ approaches the value of 1, makes the model attentive to hard-negative examples, and thus alleviates the dominating effect of easy-negative examples 
Combing both strategies, we observe significant performance boosts on a wide range of data imbalanced NLP tasks  Notably, we are able to achieve SOTA results on CTB5 (97 92, +1 86), CTB6 (96 57, +1 80) and UD1 4 (96 98, +2 19) for the POS task; SOTA results on CoNLL03 (93 33, +0 29), OntoNotes5 0 (92 07, +0 96)), MSRA 96 72(+0 97) and OntoNotes4 0 (84 47,+2 36) for the NER task; along with competitive results on the tasks of machine reading comprehension and paraphrase identification 
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: related work is presented in Section 2  We describe different training objectives in Section 3  Experimental results are presented in Section 4  We perform ablation studies in Section 5, followed by a brief conclusion in Section 6 
Related Work ::: Data Resample
The idea of weighting training examples has a long history  Importance sampling BIBREF17 assigns weights to different samples and changes the data distribution  Boosting algorithms such as AdaBoost BIBREF18 select harder examples to train subsequent classifiers  Similarly, hard example mining BIBREF19 downsamples the majority class and exploits the most difficult examples  Oversampling BIBREF20, BIBREF21 is used to balance the data distribution  Another line of data resampling is to dynamically control the weights of examples as training proceeds  For example, focal loss BIBREF16 used a soft weighting scheme that emphasizes harder examples during training  In self-paced learning BIBREF22, example weights are obtained through optimizing the weighted training loss which encourages learning easier examples first  At each training step, self-paced learning algorithm optimizes model parameters and example weights jointly  Other works BIBREF23, BIBREF24 adjusted the weights of different training examples based on training loss  Besides, recent work BIBREF25, BIBREF26 proposed to learn a separate network to predict sample weights 
Related Work ::: Data Imbalance Issue in Object Detection
The background-object label imbalance issue is severe and thus well studied in the field of object detection BIBREF27, BIBREF28, BIBREF29, BIBREF30, BIBREF31  The idea of hard negative mining (HNM) BIBREF30 has gained much attention recently  shrivastava2016ohem proposed the online hard example mining (OHEM) algorithm in an iterative manner that makes training progressively more difficult, and pushes the model to learn better  ssd2016liu sorted all of the negative samples based on the confidence loss and picking the training examples with the negative-positive ratio at 3:1  pang2019rcnn proposed a novel method called IoU-balanced sampling and aploss2019chen designed a ranking model to replace the conventional classification task with a average-precision loss to alleviate the class imbalance issue  The efforts made on object detection have greatly inspired us to solve the data imbalance issue in NLP 
Losses ::: Notation
For illustration purposes, we use the binary classification task to demonstrate how different losses work  The mechanism can be easily extended to multi-class classification 
Let $\lbrace x_i\rbrace $ denote a set of instances  Each $x_i$ is associated with a golden label vector $y_i = [y_{i0},y_{i1} ]$, where $y_{i1}\in \lbrace 0,1\rbrace $ and $y_{i0}\in \lbrace 0,1\rbrace $ respectively denote the positive and negative classes, and thus $y_i$ can be either $[0,1]$ or $[0,1]$  Let $p_i = [p_{i0},p_{i1} ]$ denote the probability vector, and $p_{i1}$ and $p_{i0}$ respectively denote the probability that a model assigns the positive and negative label to $x_i$ 
Losses ::: Cross Entropy Loss
The vanilla cross entropy (CE) loss is given by:
As can be seen from Eq DISPLAY_FORM8, each $x_i$ contributes equally to the final objective  Two strategies are normally used to address the the case where we wish that not all $x_i$ are treated equal: associating different classes with different weighting factor $\alpha $ or resampling the datasets  For the former, Eq DISPLAY_FORM8 is adjusted as follows:
where $\alpha _i\in [0,1]$ may be set by the inverse class frequency or treated as a hyperparameter to set by cross validation  In this work, we use $\lg (\frac{n-n_t}{n_t}+K)$ to calculate the coefficient $\alpha $, where $n_t$ is the number of samples with class $t$ and $n$ is the total number of samples in the training set  $K$ is a hyperparameter to tune  The data resampling strategy constructs a new dataset by sampling training examples from the original dataset based on human-designed criteria, e g , extract equal training samples from each class  Both strategies are equivalent to changing the data distribution and thus are of the same nature  Empirically, these two methods are not widely used due to the trickiness of selecting $\alpha $ especially for multi-class classification tasks and that inappropriate selection can easily bias towards rare classes BIBREF32 
Losses ::: Dice coefficient and Tversky index
Sørensen–Dice coefficient BIBREF0, BIBREF33, dice coefficient (DSC) for short, is a F1-oriented statistic used to gauge the similarity of two sets  Given two sets $A$ and $B$, the dice coefficient between them is given as follows:
In our case, $A$ is the set that contains of all positive examples predicted by a specific model, and $B$ is the set of all golden positive examples in the dataset  When applied to boolean data with the definition of true positive (TP), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN), it can be then written as follows:
For an individual example $x_i$, its corresponding DSC loss is given as follows:
As can be seen, for a negative example with $y_{i1}=0$, it does not contribute to the objective  For smoothing purposes, it is common to add a $\gamma $ factor to both the nominator and the denominator, making the form to be as follows:
As can be seen, negative examples, with $y_{i1}$ being 0 and DSC being $\frac{\gamma }{ p_{i1}+\gamma }$, also contribute to the training  Additionally, milletari2016v proposed to change the denominator to the square form for faster convergence, which leads to the following dice loss (DL):
Another version of DL is to directly compute set-level dice coefficient instead of the sum of individual dice coefficient  We choose the latter due to ease of optimization

ground_truth: No

No

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What experiments are conducted?
Context 3: 
Tversky index (TI), which can be thought as the approximation of the $F_{\beta }$ score, extends dice coefficient to a more general case  Given two sets $A$ and $B$, tversky index is computed as follows:
Tversky index offers the flexibility in controlling the tradeoff between false-negatives and false-positives  It degenerates to DSC if $\alpha =\beta =0 5$  The Tversky loss (TL) for the training set $\lbrace x_i,y_i\rbrace $ is thus as follows:
Losses ::: Self-adusting Dice Loss
Consider a simple case where the dataset consists of only one example $x_i$, which is classified as positive as long as $p_{i1}$ is larger than 0 5  The computation of $F1$ score is actually as follows:
Comparing Eq DISPLAY_FORM14 with Eq DISPLAY_FORM22, we can see that Eq DISPLAY_FORM14 is actually a soft form of $F1$, using a continuous $p$ rather than the binary $\mathbb {I}( p_{i1}>0 5)$  This gap isn't a big issue for balanced datasets, but is extremely detrimental if a big proportion of training examples are easy-negative ones: easy-negative examples can easily dominate training since their probabilities can be pushed to 0 fairly easily  Meanwhile, the model can hardly distinguish between hard-negative examples and positive ones, which has a huge negative effect on the final F1 performance 
To address this issue, we propose to multiply the soft probability $p$ with a decaying factor $(1-p)$, changing Eq DISPLAY_FORM22 to the following form:
One can think $(1-p_{i1})$ as a weight associated with each example, which changes as training proceeds  The intuition of changing $p_{i1}$ to $(1-p_{i1}) p_{i1}$ is to push down the weight of easy examples  For easy examples whose probability are approaching 0 or 1, $(1-p_{i1}) p_{i1}$ makes the model attach significantly less focus to them  Figure FIGREF23 gives gives an explanation from the perspective in derivative: the derivative of $\frac{(1-p)p}{1+(1-p)p}$ with respect to $p$ approaches 0 immediately after $p$ approaches 0, which means the model attends less to examples once they are correctly classified 
A close look at Eq DISPLAY_FORM14 reveals that it actually mimics the idea of focal loss (FL for short) BIBREF16 for object detection in vision  Focal loss was proposed for one-stage object detector to handle foreground-background tradeoff encountered during training  It down-weights the loss assigned to well-classified examples by adding a $(1-p)^{\beta }$ factor, leading the final loss to be $(1-p)^{\beta }\log p$ 
In Table TABREF18, we show the losses used in our experiments, which is described in the next section 
Experiments
We evaluate the proposed method on four NLP tasks: part-of-speech tagging, named entity recognition, machine reading comprehension and paraphrase identification  Baselines in our experiments are optimized by using the standard cross-entropy training objective 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging
Part-of-speech tagging (POS) is the task of assigning a label (e g , noun, verb, adjective) to each word in a given text  In this paper, we choose BERT as the backbone and conduct experiments on three Chinese POS datasets  We report the span-level micro-averaged precision, recall and F1 for evaluation  Hyperparameters are tuned on the corresponding development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging ::: Datasets
We conduct experiments on the widely used Chinese Treebank 5 0, 6 0 as well as UD1 4 
CTB5 is a Chinese dataset for tagging and parsing, which contains 507,222 words, 824,983 characters and 18,782 sentences extracted from newswire sources 
CTB6 is an extension of CTB5, containing 781,351 words, 1,285,149 characters and 28,295 sentences 
UD is the abbreviation of Universal Dependencies, which is a framework for consistent annotation of grammar (parts of speech, morphological features, and syntactic dependencies) across different human languages  In this work, we use UD1 4 for Chinese POS tagging 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging ::: Baselines
We use the following baselines:
Joint-POS: shao2017character jointly learns Chinese word segmentation and POS 
Lattice-LSTM: lattice2018zhang constructs a word-character lattice 
Bert-Tagger: devlin2018bert treats part-of-speech as a tagging task 
Experiments ::: Part-of-Speech Tagging ::: Results
Table presents the experimental results on the POS task  As can be seen, the proposed DSC loss outperforms the best baseline results by a large margin, i e , outperforming BERT-tagger by +1 86 in terms of F1 score on CTB5, +1 80 on CTB6 and +2 19 on UD1 4  As far as we are concerned, we are achieving SOTA performances on the three datasets  Weighted cross entropy and focal loss only gain a little performance improvement on CTB5 and CTB6, and the dice loss obtains huge gain on CTB5 but not on CTB6, which indicates the three losses are not consistently robust in resolving the data imbalance issue  The proposed DSC loss performs robustly on all the three datasets 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition
Named entity recognition (NER) refers to the task of detecting the span and semantic category of entities from a chunk of text  Our implementation uses the current state-of-the-art BERT-MRC model proposed by xiaoya2019ner as a backbone  For English datasets, we use BERT$_\text{Large}$ English checkpoints, while for Chinese we use the official Chinese checkpoints  We report span-level micro-averaged precision, recall and F1-score  Hyperparameters are tuned on the development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition ::: Datasets
For the NER task, we consider both Chinese datasets, i e , OntoNotes4 0 BIBREF34 and MSRA BIBREF35, and English datasets, i e , CoNLL2003 BIBREF36 and OntoNotes5 0 BIBREF37 
CoNLL2003 is an English dataset with 4 entity types: Location, Organization, Person and Miscellaneous  We followed data processing protocols in BIBREF14 
English OntoNotes5 0 consists of texts from a wide variety of sources and contains 18 entity types  We use the standard train/dev/test split of CoNLL2012 shared task 
Chinese MSRA performs as a Chinese benchmark dataset containing 3 entity types  Data in MSRA is collected from news domain  Since the development set is not provided in the original MSRA dataset, we randomly split the training set into training and development splits by 9:1  We use the official test set for evaluation 
Chinese OntoNotes4 0 is a Chinese dataset and consists of texts from news domain, which has 18 entity types  In this paper, we take the same data split as wu2019glyce did 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition ::: Baselines
We use the following baselines:
ELMo: a tagging model from peters2018deep 
Lattice-LSTM: lattice2018zhang constructs a word-character lattice, only used in Chinese datasets 
CVT: from kevin2018cross, which uses Cross-View Training(CVT) to improve the representations of a Bi-LSTM encoder 
Bert-Tagger: devlin2018bert treats NER as a tagging task 
Glyce-BERT: wu2019glyce combines glyph information with BERT pretraining 
BERT-MRC: The current SOTA model for both Chinese and English NER datasets proposed by xiaoya2019ner, which formulate NER as machine reading comprehension task 
Experiments ::: Named Entity Recognition ::: Results
Table shows experimental results on NER datasets

ground_truth: Irony Classifier, Sentiment Classifier for Irony, Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony, transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences

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 method improvements of F1 for paraphrase identification?
Context 3:  For English datasets including CoNLL2003 and OntoNotes5 0, our proposed method outperforms BERT-MRCBIBREF38 by +0 29 and +0 96 respectively  We observe huge performance boosts on Chinese datasets, achieving F1 improvements by +0 97 and +2 36 on MSRA and OntoNotes4 0, respectively  As far as we are concerned, we are setting new SOTA performances on all of the four NER datasets 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension
Machine reading comprehension (MRC) BIBREF39, BIBREF40, BIBREF41, BIBREF40, BIBREF42, BIBREF15 has become a central task in natural language understanding  MRC in the SQuAD-style is to predict the answer span in the passage given a question and the passage  In this paper, we choose the SQuAD-style MRC task and report Extract Match (EM) in addition to F1 score on validation set  All hyperparameters are tuned on the development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension ::: Datasets
The following five datasets are used for MRC task: SQuAD v1 1, SQuAD v2 0 BIBREF4, BIBREF6 and Quoref BIBREF8 
SQuAD v1 1 and SQuAD v2 0 are the most widely used QA benchmarks  SQuAD1 1 is a collection of 100K crowdsourced question-answer pairs, and SQuAD2 0 extends SQuAD1 1 allowing no short answer exists in the provided passage 
Quoref is a QA dataset which tests the coreferential reasoning capability of reading comprehension systems, containing 24K questions over 4 7K paragraphs from Wikipedia 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension ::: Baselines
We use the following baselines:
QANet: qanet2018 builds a model based on convolutions and self-attention  Convolution to model local interactions and self-attention to model global interactions 
BERT: devlin2018bert treats NER as a tagging task 
XLNet: xlnet2019 proposes a generalized autoregressive pretraining method that enables learning bidirectional contexts 
Experiments ::: Machine Reading Comprehension ::: Results
Table shows the experimental results for MRC tasks  With either BERT or XLNet, our proposed DSC loss obtains significant performance boost on both EM and F1  For SQuADv1 1, our proposed method outperforms XLNet by +1 25 in terms of F1 score and +0 84 in terms of EM and achieves 87 65 on EM and 89 51 on F1 for SQuAD v2 0  Moreover, on QuoRef, the proposed method surpasses XLNet results by +1 46 on EM and +1 41 on F1  Another observation is that, XLNet outperforms BERT by a huge margin, and the proposed DSC loss can obtain further performance improvement by an average score above 1 0 in terms of both EM and F1, which indicates the DSC loss is complementary to the model structures 
Experiments ::: Paraphrase Identification
Paraphrases are textual expressions that have the same semantic meaning using different surface words  Paraphrase identification (PI) is the task of identifying whether two sentences have the same meaning or not  We use BERT BIBREF11 and XLNet BIBREF43 as backbones and report F1 score for comparison  Hyperparameters are tuned on the development set of each dataset 
Experiments ::: Paraphrase Identification ::: Datasets
We conduct experiments on two widely used datasets for PI task: MRPC BIBREF44 and QQP 
MRPC is a corpus of sentence pairs automatically extracted from online news sources, with human annotations of whether the sentence pairs are semantically equivalent  The MRPC dataset has imbalanced classes (68% positive, 32% for negative) 
QQP is a collection of question pairs from the community question-answering website Quora  The class distribution in QQP is also unbalanced (37% positive, 63% negative) 
Experiments ::: Paraphrase Identification ::: Results
Table shows the results for PI task  We find that replacing the training objective with DSC introduces performance boost for both BERT and XLNet  Using DSC loss improves the F1 score by +0 58 for MRPC and +0 73 for QQP 
Ablation Studies ::: The Effect of Dice Loss on Accuracy-oriented Tasks
We argue that the most commonly used cross-entropy objective is actually accuracy-oriented, whereas the proposed dice loss (DL) performs as a hard version of F1-score  To explore the effect of the dice loss on accuracy-oriented tasks such as text classification, we conduct experiments on the Stanford Sentiment Treebank sentiment classification datasets including SST-2 and SST-5  We fine-tune BERT$_\text{Large}$ with different training objectives  Experiment results for SST are shown in   For SST-5, BERT with CE achieves 55 57 in terms of accuracy, with DL and DSC losses slightly degrade the accuracy performance and achieve 54 63 and 55 19, respectively  For SST-2, BERT with CE achieves 94 9 in terms of accuracy  The same as SST-5, we observe a slight performance drop with DL and DSC, which means that the dice loss actually works well for F1 but not for accuracy 
Ablation Studies ::: The Effect of Hyperparameters in Tversky index
As mentioned in Section SECREF10, Tversky index (TI) offers the flexibility in controlling the tradeoff between false-negatives and false-positives  In this subsection, we explore the effect of hyperparameters (i e , $\alpha $ and $\beta $) in TI to test how they manipulate the tradeoff  We conduct experiments on the Chinese OntoNotes4 0 NER dataset and English QuoRef MRC dataset to examine the influence of tradeoff between precision and recall  Experiment results are shown in Table   The highest F1 for Chinese OntoNotes4 0 is 84 67 when $\alpha $ is set to 0 6 while for QuoRef, the highest F1 is 68 44 when $\alpha $ is set to 0 4  In addition, we can observe that the performance varies a lot as $\alpha $ changes in distinct datasets, which shows that the hyperparameters $\alpha ,\beta $ play an important role in the proposed method 
Conclusion
In this paper, we alleviate the severe data imbalance issue in NLP tasks  We propose to use dice loss in replacement of the standard cross-entropy loss, which performs as a soft version of F1 score  Using dice loss can help narrow the gap between training objectives and evaluation metrics  Empirically, we show that the proposed training objective leads to significant performance boost for part-of-speech, named entity recognition, machine reading comprehension and paraphrase identification tasks 

ground_truth: Using DSC loss improves the F1 score by +0.58 for MRPC and +0.73 for QQP

+0.58