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. Why masking words in the decoder is helpful?
Context 1: Introduction
Text summarization generates summaries from input documents while keeping salient information  It is an important task and can be applied to several real-world applications  Many methods have been proposed to solve the text summarization problem BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   There are two main text summarization techniques: extractive and abstractive  Extractive summarization generates summary by selecting salient sentences or phrases from the source text, while abstractive methods paraphrase and restructure sentences to compose the summary  We focus on abstractive summarization in this work as it is more flexible and thus can generate more diverse summaries 
Recently, many abstractive approaches are introduced based on neural sequence-to-sequence framework BIBREF4 , BIBREF0 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF5   Based on the sequence-to-sequence model with copy mechanism BIBREF6 , BIBREF0 incorporates a coverage vector to track and control attention scores on source text  BIBREF4 introduce intra-temporal attention processes in the encoder and decoder to address the repetition and incoherent problem 
There are two issues in previous abstractive methods: 1) these methods use left-context-only decoder, thus do not have complete context when predicting each word  2) they do not utilize the pre-trained contextualized language models on the decoder side, so it is more difficult for the decoder to learn summary representations, context interactions and language modeling together 
Recently, BERT has been successfully used in various natural language processing tasks, such as textual entailment, name entity recognition and machine reading comprehensions  In this paper, we present a novel natural language generation model based on pre-trained language models (we use BERT in this work)  As far as we know, this is the first work to extend BERT to the sequence generation task  To address the above issues of previous abstractive methods, in our model, we design a two-stage decoding process to make good use of BERT's context modeling ability  On the first stage, we generate the summary using a left-context-only-decoder  On the second stage, we mask each word of the summary and predict the refined word one-by-one using a refine decoder  To further improve the naturalness of the generated sequence, we cooperate reinforcement objective with the refine decoder 
The main contributions of this work are:
1  We propose a natural language generation model based on BERT, making good use of the pre-trained language model in the encoder and decoder process, and the model can be trained end-to-end without handcrafted features 
2  We design a two-stage decoder process  In this architecture, our model can generate each word of the summary considering both sides' context information 
3  We conduct experiments on the benchmark datasets CNN/Daily Mail and New York Times  Our model achieves a 33 33 average of ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L on the CNN/Daily Mail, which is state-of-the-art  On the New York Times dataset, our model achieves about 5 6% relative improvement over ROUGE-1 
Text Summarization
In this paper, we focus on single-document multi-sentence summarization and propose a supervised abstractive model based on the neural attentive sequence-to-sequence framework which consists of two parts: a neural network for the encoder and another network for the decoder  The encoder encodes the input sequence to intermediate representation and the decoder predicts one word at a time step given the input sequence representation vector and previous decoded output  The goal of the model is to maximize the probability of generating the correct target sequences  In the encoding and generation process, the attention mechanism is used to concentrate on the most important positions of text  The learning objective of most sequence-to-sequence models is to minimize the negative log likelihood of the generated sequence as following equation shows, where $y^*_i$ is the i-th ground-truth summary token 
$$Loss = - \log \sum _{t=1}^N P(y_t^*|y_{<t}^*, X)$$   (Eq  3)
However, with this objective, traditional sequence generation models consider only one direction context in the decoding process, which could cause performance degradation since complete context of one token contains preceding and following tokens, thus feeding only preceded decoded words to the decoder so that the model may generate unnatural sequences  For example, attentive sequence-to-sequence models often generate sequences with repeated phrases which harm the naturalness  Some previous works mitigate this problem by improving the attention calculation process, but in this paper we show that feeding bi-directional context instead of left-only-context can better alleviate this problem 
Text summarization models are usually classified to abstractive and extractive ones  Recently, extractive models like DeepChannel BIBREF8 , rnn-ext+RL BIBREF9 and NeuSUM BIBREF2 achieve higher performances using well-designed structures  For example, DeepChannel propose a salience estimation network and iteratively extract salient sentences  BIBREF16 train a sentence compression model to teach another latent variable extractive model 
Also, several recent works focus on improving abstractive methods  BIBREF3 design a content selector to over-determine phrases in a source document that should be part of the summary  BIBREF11 introduce inconsistency loss to force words in less attended sentences(which determined by extractive model) to have lower generation probabilities  BIBREF5 extend seq2seq model with an information selection network to generate more informative summaries 
Bi-Directional Pre-Trained Context Encoders
Recently, context encoders such as ELMo, GPT, and BERT have been widely used in many NLP tasks  These models are pre-trained on a huge unlabeled corpus and can generate better contextualized token embeddings, thus the approaches built on top of them can achieve better performance 
Since our method is based on BERT, we illustrate the process briefly here  BERT consists of several layers  In each layer there is first a multi-head self-attention sub-layer and then a linear affine sub-layer with the residual connection  In each self-attention sub-layer the attention scores $e_{ij}$ are first calculated as Eq  ( 5 ) () shows, in which $d_e$ is output dimension, and $W^Q, W^K, W^V$ are parameter matrices 
$$&a_{ij} = \cfrac{(h_iW_Q)(h_jW_K)^T}{\sqrt{d_e}}  \\ &e_{ij} = \cfrac{\exp {e_{ij}}}{\sum _{k=1}^N\exp {e_{ik}}} $$   (Eq  5)
Then the output is calculated as Eq  ( 6 ) shows, which is the weighted sum of previous outputs $h$ added by previous output $h_i$   The last layer outputs is context encoding of input sequence 
$$o_i = h_i + \sum _{j=1}^{N} e_{ij}(h_j W_V) $$   (Eq  6)
Despite the wide usage and huge success, there is also a mismatch problem between these pre-trained context encoders and sequence-to-sequence models  The issue is that while using a pre-trained context encoder like GPT or BERT, they model token-level representations by conditioning on both direction context  During pre-training, they are fed with complete sequences  However, with a left-context-only decoder, these pre-trained language models will suffer from incomplete and inconsistent context and thus cannot generate good enough context-aware word representations, especially during the inference process 
Model
In this section, we describe the structure of our model, which learns to generate an abstractive multi-sentence summary from a given source document 
Based on the sequence-to-sequence framework built on top of BERT, we first design a refine decoder at word-level to tackle the two problems described in the above section  We also introduce a discrete objective for the refine decoders to reduce the exposure bias problem  The overall structure of our model is illustrated in Figure 1  
Problem Formulation
We denote the input document as $X = \lbrace x_1, \ldots , x_m\rbrace $ where $x_i \in \mathcal {X}$ represents one source token  The corresponding summary is denoted as $Y = \lbrace y_1, \ldots , y_L\rbrace $ , $L$ represents the summary length 
Given input document $X$ , we first predict the summary draft by a left-context-only decoder, and then using the generated summary draft we can condition on both context sides and refine the content of the summary  The draft will guide and constrain the refine process of summary 
Summary Draft Generation
The summary draft is based on the sequence-to-sequence model  On the encoder side the input document $X$ is encoded into representation vectors $H = \lbrace h_1, \ldots , h_m\rbrace $ , and then fed to the decoder to generate the summary draft $A = \lbrace a_1, \ldots , a_{|a|}\rbrace $  
We simply use BERT as the encoder  It first maps the input sequence to word embeddings and then computes document embeddings as the encoder's output, denoted by following equation 
$$H = BERT(x_1, \ldots , x_m)$$   (Eq  10)
In the draft decoder, we first introduce BERT's word embedding matrix to map the previous summary draft outputs $\lbrace y_1, \ldots , y_{t-1}\rbrace $ into embeddings vectors $\lbrace q_1, \ldots , q_{t-1}\rbrace $ at t-th time step  Note that as the input sequence of the decoder is not complete, we do not use the BERT network to predict the context vectors here 
Then we introduce an $N$ layer Transformer decoder to learn the conditional probability $P(A|H)$   Transformer's decoder-encoder multi-head attention helps the decoder learn soft alignments between summary and source document  At the t-th time step, the draft decoder predicts output probability conditioned on previous outputs and encoder hidden representations as Eq  ( 13 ) shows, in which $q_{<t} = \lbrace q_1, \ldots , q_{t-1}\rbrace $   Each generated sequence will be truncated in the first position of a special token '[PAD]' 
$$&P^{vocab}_t(w) = f_{dec}(q_{<t}, H)  \\ &L_{dec} = \sum _{i=1}^{|a|} -\log P(a_i = y_i^*|a_{< i}, H) $$   (Eq  13)
As Eq  () shows, the decoder's learning objective is to minimize negative likelihood of conditional probability, in which $y_i^*$ is the i-th ground truth word of summary 
However a decoder with this structure is not sufficient enough: if we use the BERT network in this decoder, then during training and inference, in-complete context(part of sentence) is fed into the BERT module, and although we can fine-tune BERT's parameters, the input distribution is quite different from the pre-train process, and thus harms the quality of generated context representations 
If we just use the embedding matrix here, it will be more difficult for the decoder with fresh parameters to learn to model representations as well as vocabulary probabilities, from a relative small corpus compared to BERT's huge pre-training corpus  In a word, the decoder cannot utilize BERT's ability to generate high quality context vectors, which will also harm performance 
This issue exists when using any other contextualized word representations, so we design a refine process to mitigate it in our approach which will be described in the next sub-section 
As some summary tokens are out-of-vocabulary words and occurs in input document, we incorporate copy mechanism BIBREF6 based on the Transformer decoder, we will describe it briefly 
At decoder time step $t$ , we first calculate the attention probability distribution over source document $X$ using the bi-linear dot product of the last layer decoder output of Transformer $o_t$ and the encoder output $h_j$ , as Eq  ( 15 ) () shows 
$$u_t^j =& o_t W_c h_j \\ \alpha _t^j =& \cfrac{\exp {u_t^j}}{\sum _{k=1}^N\exp {u_t^k}} $$   (Eq  15)
We then calculate copying gate $g_t\in [0, 1]$ , which makes a soft choice between selecting from source and generating from vocabulary, $W_c, W_g, b_g$ are parameters:
$$g_t = sigmoid(W_g \cdot [o_t, h] + b_g) $$   (Eq  16)
Using $g_t$ we calculate the weighted sum of copy probability and generation probability to get the final predicted probability of extended vocabulary $\mathcal {V} + \mathcal {X}$ , where $\mathcal {X}$ is the set of out of vocabulary words from the source document  The final probability is calculated as follow:
$$P_t(w) = (1-g_t)P_t^{vocab}(w) + g_t\sum _{i:w_i=w} \alpha _t^i$$   (Eq  17)
Summary Refine Process
The main reason to introduce the refine process is to enhance the decoder using BERT's contextualized representations, so we do not modify the encoder and reuse it during this process 
On the decoder side, we propose a new word-level refine decoder  The refine decoder receives a generated summary draft as input, and outputs a refined summary  It first masks each word in the summary draft one by one, then feeds the draft to BERT to generate context vectors  Finally it predicts a refined summary word using an $N$ layer Transformer decoder which is the same as the draft decoder  At t-th time step the n-th word of input summary is masked, and the decoder predicts the n-th refined word given other words of the summary 
The learning objective of this process is shown in Eq  ( 19 ), $y_i$ is the i-th summary word and $y_{i}^*$ for the ground-truth summary word, and $a_{\ne i} = \lbrace a_1, \ldots , a_{i-1}, a_{i+1}, \ldots , a_{|y|}\rbrace $  
$$L_{refine} = \sum _{i=1}^{|y|} -\log P(y_i = y_i^*|a_{\ne i}, H) $$   (Eq  19)
From the view of BERT or other contextualized embeddings, the refine decoding process provides a more complete input sequence which is consistent with their pre-training processes  Intuitively, this process works as follows: first the draft decoder writes a summary draft based on a document, and then the refine decoder edits the draft  It concentrates on one word at a time, based on the source document as well as other words 
We design the word-level refine decoder because this process is similar to the cloze task in BERT's pre-train process, therefore by using the ability of the contextual language model the decoder can generate more fluent and natural sequences 
The parameters are shared between the draft decoder and refine decoder, as we find that using individual parameters the model's performance degrades a lot  The reason may be that we use teach-forcing during training, and thus the word-level refine decoder learns to predict words given all the other ground-truth words of summary  This objective is similar to the language model's pre-train objective, and is probably not enough for the decoder to learn to generate refined summaries  So in our model all decoders share the same parameters 
Researchers usually use ROUGE as the evaluation metric for summarization, however during sequence-to-sequence model training, the objective is to maximize the log likelihood of generated sequences  This mis-match harms the model's performance, so we add a discrete objective to the model, and optimize it by introducing the policy gradient method  For example, the discrete objective for the summary draft process is as Eq  ( 21 ) shows, where $a^s$ is the draft summary sampled from predicted distribution, and $R(a^s)$ is the reward score compared with the ground-truth summary, we use ROUGE-L in our experiment  To balance between optimizing the discrete objective and generating readable sequences, we mix the discrete objective with maximum-likelihood objective  As Eq  () shows, minimizing $\hat{L}_{dec}$ is the final objective for the draft process, note here $L_{dec}$ is $-logP(a|x)$   In the refine process we introduce similar objectives 
$$L^{rl}_{dec} = R(a^s)\cdot [-\log (P(a^s|x))]  \\ \hat{L}_{dec} = \gamma * L^{rl}_{dec} + (1 - \gamma ) * L_{dec} $$   (Eq  21)
Learning and Inference
During model training, the objective of our model is sum of the two processes, jointly trained using "teacher-forcing" algorithm  During training we feed the ground-truth summary to each decoder and minimize the objective 
$$L_{model} = \hat{L}_{dec} + \hat{L}_{refine}$$   (Eq  23)
At test time, each time step we choose the predicted word by $\hat{y} = argmax_{y^{\prime }} P(y^{\prime }|x)$ , use beam search to generate the draft summaries, and use greedy search to generate the refined summaries 
Settings
In this work, all of our models are built on $BERT_{BASE}$ , although another larger pre-trained model with better performance ( $BERT_{LARGE}$ ) has published but it costs too much time and GPU memory  We use WordPiece embeddings with a 30,000 vocabulary which is the same as BERT  We set the layer of transformer decoders to 12(8 on NYT50), and set the attention heads number to 12(8 on NYT50), set fully-connected sub-layer hidden size to 3072  We train the model using an Adam optimizer with learning rate of $3e-4$ , $\beta _1=0 9$ , $\beta _2=0 999$ and $\epsilon =10^{-9}$ and use a dynamic learning rate during the training process  For regularization, we use dropout BIBREF13 and label smoothing BIBREF14 in our models and set the dropout rate to 0 15, and the label smoothing value to 0 1  We set the RL objective factor $\gamma $ to 0 99 
During training, we set the batch size to 36, and train for 4 epochs(8 epochs for NYT50 since it has many fewer training samples), after training the best model are selected from last 10 models based on development set performance  Due to GPU memory limit, we use gradient accumulation, set accumulate step to 12 and feed 3 samples at each step  We use beam size 4 and length penalty of 1 0 to generate logical form sequences 
We filter repeated tri-grams in beam-search process by setting word probability to zero if it will generate an tri-gram which exists in the existing summary  It is a nice method to avoid phrase repetition since the two datasets seldom contains repeated tri-grams in one summary  We also fine tune the generated sequences using another two simple rules  When there are multi summary sentences with exactly the same content, we keep the first one and remove the other sentences; we also remove sentences with less than 3 words from the result 
To evaluate the performance of our model, we conduct experiments on CNN/Daily Mail dataset, which is a large collection of news articles and modified for summarization  Following BIBREF0 we choose the non-anonymized version of the dataset, which consists of more than 280,000 training samples and 11490 test set samples 
We also conduct experiments on the New York Times(NYT) dataset which also consists of many news articles  The original dataset can be applied here  In our experiment, we follow the dataset splits and other pre-process settings of BIBREF15   We first filter all samples without a full article text or abstract and then remove all samples with summaries shorter than 50 words  Then we choose the test set based on the date of publication(all examples published after January 1, 2007)  The final dataset contains 22,000 training samples and 3,452 test samples and is called NYT50 since all summaries are longer than 50 words 
We tokenize all sequences of the two datasets using the WordPiece tokenizer  After tokenizing, the average article length and summary length of CNN/Daily Mail are 691 and 51, and NYT50's average article length and summary length are 1152 and 75  We truncate the article length to 512, and the summary length to 100 in our experiment(max summary length is set to 150 on NYT50 as its average golden summary length is longer) 
On CNN/Daily Mail dataset, we report the full-length F-1 score of the ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L metrics, calculated using PyRouge package and the Porter stemmer option  On NYT50, following BIBREF4 we evaluate limited length ROUGE recall score(limit the generated summary length to the ground truth length)  We split NYT50 summaries into sentences by semicolons to calculate the ROUGE scores 
Results and Analysis
Table 1 shows the results on CNN/Daily Mail dataset, we compare the performance of many recent approaches with our model  We classify them to two groups based on whether they are extractive or abstractive models  As the last line of the table shows, the ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-2 score of our full model is comparable with DCA, and outperforms on ROUGE-L  Also, compared to extractive models NeuSUM and MASK- $LM^{global}$ , we achieve slight higher ROUGE-1  Except the four scores, our model outperforms these models on all the other scores, and since we have 95% confidence interval of at most $\pm $ 0 20, these improvements are statistically significant 
As the last four lines of Table 1 show, we conduct an ablation study on our model variants to analyze the importance of each component  We use three ablation models for the experiments  One-Stage: A sequence-to-sequence model with copy mechanism based on BERT; Two-Stage: Adding the word-refine decoder to the One-Stage model; Two-Stage + RL: Full model with refine process cooperated with RL objective 
First, we compare the Two-Stage+RL model with Two-Stage ablation, we observe that the full model outperforms by 0 30 on average ROUGE, suggesting that the reinforcement objective helps the model effectively  Then we analyze the effect of refine process by removing word-level refine from the Two-Stage model, we observe that without the refine process the average ROUGE score drops by 1 69  The ablation study shows that each module is necessary for our full model, and the improvements are statistically significant on all metrics 
To evaluate the impact of summary length on model performance, we compare the average rouge score improvements of our model with different length of ground-truth summaries  As the above sub-figure of Figure 2 shows, compared to Pointer-Generator with Coverage, on length interval 40-80(occupies about 70% of test set) the improvements of our model are higher than shorter samples, confirms that with better context representations, in longer documents our model can achieve higher performance 
As the below sub-figure of Figure 2 shows, compared to extractive baseline: Lead-3 BIBREF0 , the advantage of our model will fall when golden summary length is greater than 80  This probably because that we truncate the long documents and golden summaries and cannot get full information, it could also because that the training data in these intervals is too few to train an abstractive model, so simple extractive method will not fall too far behind 
Additional Results on NYT50
Table 2 shows experiments on the NYT50 corpus  Since the short summary samples are filtered, NYT50 has average longer summaries than CNN/Daily Mail  So the model needs to catch long-term dependency of the sequences to generate good summaries 
The first two lines of Table 2 show results of the two baselines introduced by BIBREF15 : these baselines select first n sentences, or select the first k words from the original document  Also we compare performance of our model with two recent models, we see 2 39 ROUGE-1 improvements compared to the ML+RL with intra-attn approach(previous SOTA) carries over to this dataset, which is a large margin  On ROUGE-2, our model also get an improvement of 0 51  The experiment proves that our approach can outperform competitive methods on different data distributions 
Pre-trained language models
Pre-trained word vectors BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19 have been widely used in many NLP tasks  More recently, pre-trained language models (ELMo, GPT and BERT), have also achieved great success on several NLP problems such as textual entailment, semantic similarity, reading comprehension, and question answering BIBREF20 , BIBREF21 , BIBREF22  
Some recent works also focus on leveraging pre-trained language models in summarization  BIBREF23 pretrain a language model and use it as the sentiment analyser when generating reviews of goods  BIBREF24 train a language model on golden summaries, and then use it on the decoder side to incorporate prior knowledge 
In this work, we use BERT(which is a pre-trained language model using large scale unlabeled data) on the encoder and decoder of a seq2seq model, and by designing a two stage decoding structure we build a competitive model for abstractive text summarization 
Conclusion and Future Work
In this work, we propose a two-stage model based on sequence-to-sequence paradigm  Our model utilize BERT on both encoder and decoder sides, and introduce reinforce objective in learning process  We evaluate our model on two benchmark datasets CNN/Daily Mail and New York Times, the experimental results show that compared to previous systems our approach effectively improves performance 
Although our experiments are conducted on summarization task, our model can be used in most natural language generation tasks, such as machine translation, question generation and paraphrasing  The refine decoder and mixed objective can also be applied on other sequence generation tasks, and we will investigate on them in future work 
Context 2: Introduction
We posses a wealth of prior knowledge about many natural language processing tasks  For example, in text categorization, we know that words such as NBA, player, and basketball are strong indicators of the sports category BIBREF0 , and words like terrible, boring, and messing indicate a negative polarity while words like perfect, exciting, and moving suggest a positive polarity in sentiment classification 
A key problem arisen here, is how to leverage such knowledge to guide the learning process, an interesting problem for both NLP and machine learning communities  Previous studies addressing the problem fall into several lines  First, to leverage prior knowledge to label data BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Second, to encode prior knowledge with a prior on parameters, which can be commonly seen in many Bayesian approaches BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   Third, to formalise prior knowledge with additional variables and dependencies BIBREF5   Last, to use prior knowledge to control the distributions over latent output variables BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , which makes the output variables easily interpretable 
However, a crucial problem, which has rarely been addressed, is the bias in the prior knowledge that we supply to the learning model  Would the model be robust or sensitive to the prior knowledge? Or, which kind of knowledge is appropriate for the task? Let's see an example: we may be a baseball fan but unfamiliar with hockey so that we can provide a few number of feature words of baseball, but much less of hockey for a baseball-hockey classification task  Such prior knowledge may mislead the model with heavy bias to baseball  If the model cannot handle this situation appropriately, the performance may be undesirable 
In this paper, we investigate into the problem in the framework of Generalized Expectation Criteria BIBREF7   The study aims to reveal the factors of reducing the sensibility of the prior knowledge and therefore to make the model more robust and practical  To this end, we introduce auxiliary regularization terms in which our prior knowledge is formalized as distribution over output variables  Recall the example just mentioned, though we do not have enough knowledge to provide features for class hockey, it is easy for us to provide some neutral words, namely words that are not strong indicators of any class, like player here  As one of the factors revealed in this paper, supplying neutral feature words can boost the performance remarkably, making the model more robust 
More attractively, we do not need manual annotation to label these neutral feature words in our proposed approach 
More specifically, we explore three regularization terms to address the problem: (1) a regularization term associated with neutral features; (2) the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term; and (3) the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution  For the first manner, we simply use the most common features as neutral features and assume the neutral features are distributed uniformly over class labels  For the second and third one, we assume we have some knowledge about the class distribution which will be detailed soon later 
To summarize, the main contributions of this work are as follows:
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we briefly describe the generalized expectation criteria and present the proposed regularization terms  In Section 3, we conduct extensive experiments to justify the proposed methods  We survey related work in Section 4, and summarize our work in Section 5 
Method
We address the robustness problem on top of GE-FL BIBREF0 , a GE method which leverages labeled features as prior knowledge  A labeled feature is a strong indicator of a specific class and is manually provided to the classifier  For example, words like amazing, exciting can be labeled features for class positive in sentiment classification 
Generalized Expectation Criteria
Generalized expectation (GE) criteria BIBREF7 provides us a natural way to directly constrain the model in the preferred direction  For example, when we know the proportion of each class of the dataset in a classification task, we can guide the model to predict out a pre-specified class distribution 
Formally, in a parameter estimation objective function, a GE term expresses preferences on the value of some constraint functions about the model's expectation  Given a constraint function $G({\rm x}, y)$ , a conditional model distribution $p_\theta (y|\rm x)$ , an empirical distribution $\tilde{p}({\rm x})$ over input samples and a score function $S$ , a GE term can be expressed as follows:
$$S(E_{\tilde{p}({\rm x})}[E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]])$$   (Eq  4)
Learning from Labeled Features
Druck et al  ge-fl proposed GE-FL to learn from labeled features using generalized expectation criteria  When given a set of labeled features $K$ , the reference distribution over classes of these features is denoted by $\hat{p}(y| x_k), k \in K$   GE-FL introduces the divergence between this reference distribution and the model predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ , as a term of the objective function:
$$\mathcal {O} = \sum _{k \in K} KL(\hat{p}(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) + \sum _{y,i} \frac{\theta _{yi}^2}{2 \sigma ^2}$$   (Eq  6)
where $\theta _{yi}$ is the model parameter which indicates the importance of word $i$ to class $y$   The predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ can be expressed as follows: $ p_\theta (y | x_k) = \frac{1}{C_k} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y|{\rm x})I(x_k) $
in which $I(x_k)$ is 1 if feature $k$ occurs in instance ${\rm x}$ and 0 otherwise, $C_k = \sum _{\rm x} I(x_k)$ is the number of instances with a non-zero value of feature $k$ , and $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ takes a softmax form as follows: $ p_\theta (y|{\rm x}) = \frac{1}{Z(\rm x)}\exp (\sum _i \theta _{yi}x_i)  $
To solve the optimization problem, L-BFGS can be used for parameter estimation 
In the framework of GE, this term can be obtained by setting the constraint function $G({\rm x}, y) = \frac{1}{C_k} \vec{I} (y)I(x_k)$ , where $\vec{I}(y)$ is an indicator vector with 1 at the index corresponding to label $y$ and 0 elsewhere 
Regularization Terms
GE-FL reduces the heavy load of instance annotation and performs well when we provide prior knowledge with no bias  In our experiments, we observe that comparable numbers of labeled features for each class have to be supplied  But as mentioned before, it is often the case that we are not able to provide enough knowledge for some of the classes  For the baseball-hockey classification task, as shown before, GE-FL will predict most of the instances as baseball  In this section, we will show three terms to make the model more robust 
Neutral features are features that are not informative indicator of any classes, for instance, word player to the baseball-hockey classification task  Such features are usually frequent words across all categories  When we set the preference distribution of the neutral features to be uniform distributed, these neutral features will prevent the model from biasing to the class that has a dominate number of labeled features 
Formally, given a set of neutral features $K^{^{\prime }}$ , the uniform distribution is $\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) = \frac{1}{|C|}, k \in K^{^{\prime }}$ , where $|C|$ is the number of classes  The objective function with the new term becomes
$$\mathcal {O}_{NE} = \mathcal {O} + \sum _{k \in K^{^{\prime }}} KL(\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) $$   (Eq  9)
Note that we do not need manual annotation to provide neutral features  One simple way is to take the most common features as neutral features  Experimental results show that this strategy works successfully 
Another way to prevent the model from drifting from the desired direction is to constrain the predicted class distribution on unlabeled data  When lacking knowledge about the class distribution of the data, one feasible way is to take maximum entropy principle, as below:
$$\mathcal {O}_{ME} = \mathcal {O} + \lambda \sum _{y} p(y) \log p(y)$$   (Eq  11)
where $p(y)$ is the predicted class distribution, given by $ p(y) = \frac{1}{|X|} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y | \rm x)  $ To control the influence of this term on the overall objective function, we can tune $\lambda $ according to the difference in the number of labeled features of each class  In this paper, we simply set $\lambda $ to be proportional to the total number of labeled features, say $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This maximum entropy term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$   Therefore, $E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]$ is just the model distribution $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ and its expectation with the empirical distribution $\tilde{p}(\rm x)$ is simply the average over input samples, namely $p(y)$   When $S$ takes the maximum entropy form, we can derive the objective function as above 
Sometimes, we have already had much knowledge about the corpus, and can estimate the class distribution roughly without labeling instances  Therefore, we introduce the KL divergence between the predicted and reference class distributions into the objective function 
Given the preference class distribution $\hat{p}(y)$ , we modify the objective function as follows:
$$\mathcal {O}_{KL} &= \mathcal {O} + \lambda KL(\hat{p}(y) || p(y))$$   (Eq  13)
Similarly, we set $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This divergence term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$ and setting the score function to $S(\hat{p}, p) = \sum _i \hat{p}_i \log \frac{\hat{p}_i}{p_i}$ , where $p$ and $\hat{p}$ are distributions  Note that this regularization term involves the reference class distribution which will be discussed later 
Experiments
In this section, we first justify the approach when there exists unbalance in the number of labeled features or in class distribution  Then, to test the influence of $\lambda $ , we conduct some experiments with the method which incorporates the KL divergence of class distribution  Last, we evaluate our approaches in 9 commonly used text classification datasets  We set $\lambda = 5|K|$ by default in all experiments unless there is explicit declaration  The baseline we choose here is GE-FL BIBREF0 , a method based on generalization expectation criteria 
Data Preparation
We evaluate our methods on several commonly used datasets whose themes range from sentiment, web-page, science to medical and healthcare  We use bag-of-words feature and remove stopwords in the preprocess stage  Though we have labels of all documents, we do not use them during the learning process, instead, we use the label of features 
The movie dataset, in which the task is to classify the movie reviews as positive or negtive, is used for testing the proposed approaches with unbalanced labeled features, unbalanced datasets or different $\lambda $ parameters  All unbalanced datasets are constructed based on the movie dataset by randomly removing documents of the positive class  For each experiment, we conduct 10-fold cross validation 
As described in BIBREF0 , there are two ways to obtain labeled features  The first way is to use information gain  We first calculate the mutual information of all features according to the labels of the documents and select the top 20 as labeled features for each class as a feature pool  Note that using information gain requires the document label, but this is only to simulate how we human provide prior knowledge to the model  The second way is to use LDA BIBREF9 to select features  We use the same selection process as BIBREF0 , where they first train a LDA on the dataset, and then select the most probable features of each topic (sorted by $P(w_i|t_j)$ , the probability of word $w_i$ given topic $t_j$ ) 
Similar to BIBREF10 , BIBREF0 , we estimate the reference distribution of the labeled features using a heuristic strategy  If there are $|C|$ classes in total, and $n$ classes are associated with a feature $k$ , the probability that feature $k$ is related with any one of the $n$ classes is $\frac{0 9}{n}$ and with any other class is $\frac{0 1}{|C| - n}$  
Neutral features are the most frequent words after removing stop words, and their reference distributions are uniformly distributed  We use the top 10 frequent words as neutral features in all experiments 
With Unbalanced Labeled Features
In this section, we evaluate our approach when there is unbalanced knowledge on the categories to be classified  The labeled features are obtained through information gain  Two settings are chosen:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
As shown in Figure 1 , Maximum entropy principle shows improvement only on the balanced case  An obvious reason is that maximum entropy only favors uniform distribution 
Incorporating Neutral features performs similarly to maximum entropy since we assume that neutral words are uniformly distributed  Its accuracy decreases slowly when the number of labeled features becomes larger ( $t>4$ ) (Figure 1 (a)), suggesting that the model gradually biases to the class with more labeled features, just like GE-FL 
Incorporating the KL divergence of class distribution performs much better than GE-FL on both balanced and unbalanced datasets  This shows that it is effective to control the unbalance in labeled features and in the dataset 
With Balanced Labeled Features
We also compare with the baseline when the labeled features are balanced  Similar to the experiment above, the labeled features are obtained by information gain  Two settings are experimented with:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for each class, and conduct comparisons on the original balanced movie dataset (positive:negtive=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the class distribution is unbalanced, by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 2   When the dataset is balanced (Figure 2 (a)), there is little difference between GE-FL and our methods  The reason is that the proposed regularization terms provide no additional knowledge to the model and there is no bias in the labeled features  On the unbalanced dataset (Figure 2 (b)), incorporating KL divergence is much better than GE-FL since we provide additional knowledge(the true class distribution), but maximum entropy and neutral features are much worse because forcing the model to approach the uniform distribution misleads it 
With Unbalanced Class Distributions
Our methods are also evaluated on datasets with different unbalanced class distributions  We manually construct several movie datasets with class distributions of 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 by randomly removing 50%, 67%, 75% positive documents  The original balanced movie dataset is used as a control group  We test with both balanced and unbalanced labeled features  For the balanced case, we randomly select 10 features from the feature pool for each class, and for the unbalanced case, we select 10 features for one class, and 1 feature for the other  Results are shown in Figure 3  
Figure 3 (a) shows that when the dataset and the labeled features are both balanced, there is little difference between our methods and GE-FL(also see Figure 2 (a))  But when the class distribution becomes more unbalanced, the difference becomes more remarkable  Performance of neutral features and maximum entropy decrease significantly but incorporating KL divergence increases remarkably  This suggests if we have more accurate knowledge about class distribution, KL divergence can guide the model to the right direction 
Figure 3 (b) shows that when the labeled features are unbalanced, our methods significantly outperforms GE-FL  Incorporating KL divergence is robust enough to control unbalance both in the dataset and in labeled features while the other three methods are not so competitive 
The Influence of λ\lambda 
We present the influence of $\lambda $ on the method that incorporates KL divergence in this section  Since we simply set $\lambda = \beta |K|$ , we just tune $\beta $ here  Note that when $\beta = 0$ , the newly introduced regularization term is disappeared, and thus the model is actually GE-FL  Again, we test the method with different $\lambda $ in two settings:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other class  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 4   As expected, $\lambda $ reflects how strong the regularization is  The model tends to be closer to our preferences with the increasing of $\lambda $ on both cases 
Using LDA Selected Features
We compare our methods with GE-FL on all the 9 datasets in this section  Instead of using features obtained by information gain, we use LDA to select labeled features  Unlike information gain, LDA does not employ any instance labels to find labeled features  In this setting, we can build classification models without any instance annotation, but just with labeled features 
Table 1 shows that our three methods significantly outperform GE-FL  Incorporating neutral features performs better than GE-FL on 7 of the 9 datasets, maximum entropy is better on 8 datasets, and KL divergence better on 7 datasets 
LDA selects out the most predictive features as labeled features without considering the balance among classes  GE-FL does not exert any control on such an issue, so the performance is severely suffered  Our methods introduce auxiliary regularization terms to control such a bias problem and thus promote the model significantly 
Related Work
There have been much work that incorporate prior knowledge into learning, and two related lines are surveyed here  One is to use prior knowledge to label unlabeled instances and then apply a standard learning algorithm  The other is to constrain the model directly with prior knowledge 
Liu et al text manually labeled features which are highly predictive to unsupervised clustering assignments and use them to label unlabeled data  Chang et al guiding proposed constraint driven learning  They first used constraints and the learned model to annotate unlabeled instances, and then updated the model with the newly labeled data  Daumé daume2008cross proposed a self training method in which several models are trained on the same dataset, and only unlabeled instances that satisfy the cross task knowledge constraints are used in the self training process 
MaCallum et al gec proposed generalized expectation(GE) criteria which formalised the knowledge as constraint terms about the expectation of the model into the objective function Graça et al pr proposed posterior regularization(PR) framework which projects the model's posterior onto a set of distributions that satisfy the auxiliary constraints  Druck et al ge-fl explored constraints of labeled features in the framework of GE by forcing the model's predicted feature distribution to approach the reference distribution  Andrzejewski et al andrzejewski2011framework proposed a framework in which general domain knowledge can be easily incorporated into LDA  Altendorf et al altendorf2012learning explored monotonicity constraints to improve the accuracy while learning from sparse data  Chen et al chen2013leveraging tried to learn comprehensible topic models by leveraging multi-domain knowledge 
Mann and McCallum simple,generalized incorporated not only labeled features but also other knowledge like class distribution into the objective function of GE-FL  But they discussed only from the semi-supervised perspective and did not investigate into the robustness problem, unlike what we addressed in this paper 
There are also some active learning methods trying to use prior knowledge  Raghavan et al feedback proposed to use feedback on instances and features interlacedly, and demonstrated that feedback on features boosts the model much  Druck et al active proposed an active learning method which solicits labels on features rather than on instances and then used GE-FL to train the model 
Conclusion and Discussions
This paper investigates into the problem of how to leverage prior knowledge robustly in learning models  We propose three regularization terms on top of generalized expectation criteria  As demonstrated by the experimental results, the performance can be considerably improved when taking into account these factors  Comparative results show that our proposed methods is more effective and works more robustly against baselines  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to address the robustness problem of leveraging knowledge, and may inspire other research 
We then present more detailed discussions about the three regularization methods  Incorporating neutral features is the simplest way of regularization, which doesn't require any modification of GE-FL but just finding out some common features  But as Figure 1 (a) shows, only using neutral features are not strong enough to handle extremely unbalanced labeled features 
The maximum entropy regularization term shows the strong ability of controlling unbalance 
This method doesn't need any extra knowledge, and is thus suitable when we know nothing about the corpus  But this method assumes that the categories are uniformly distributed, which may not be the case in practice, and it will have a degraded performance if the assumption is violated (see Figure 1 (b), Figure 2 (b), Figure 3 (a)) 
The KL divergence performs much better on unbalanced corpora than other methods  The reason is that KL divergence utilizes the reference class distribution and doesn't make any assumptions  The fact suggests that additional knowledge does benefit the model 
However, the KL divergence term requires providing the true class distribution  Sometimes, we may have the exact knowledge about the true distribution, but sometimes we may not  Fortunately, the model is insensitive to the true distribution and therefore a rough estimation of the true distribution is sufficient  In our experiments, when the true class distribution is 1:2, where the reference class distribution is set to 1:1 5/1:2/1:2 5, the accuracy is 0 755/0 756/0 760 respectively  This provides us the possibility to perform simple computing on the corpus to obtain the distribution in reality  Or, we can set the distribution roughly with domain expertise 
Context 3: Introduction
There exists a class of language construction known as pun in natural language texts and utterances, where a certain word or other lexical items are used to exploit two or more separate meanings  It has been shown that understanding of puns is an important research question with various real-world applications, such as human-computer interaction BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 and machine translation BIBREF2   Recently, many researchers show their interests in studying puns, like detecting pun sentences BIBREF3 , locating puns in the text BIBREF4 , interpreting pun sentences BIBREF5 and generating sentences containing puns BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   A pun is a wordplay in which a certain word suggests two or more meanings by exploiting polysemy, homonymy, or phonological similarity to another sign, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect  Puns can be generally categorized into two groups, namely heterographic puns (where the pun and its latent target are phonologically similar) and homographic puns (where the two meanings of the pun reflect its two distinct senses) BIBREF9   Consider the following two examples:
The first punning joke exploits the sound similarity between the word “propane" and the latent target “profane", which can be categorized into the group of heterographic puns  Another categorization of English puns is homographic pun, exemplified by the second instance leveraging distinct senses of the word “gut" 
Pun detection is the task of detecting whether there is a pun residing in the given text  The goal of pun location is to find the exact word appearing in the text that implies more than one meanings  Most previous work addresses such two tasks separately and develop separate systems BIBREF10 , BIBREF5   Typically, a system for pun detection is built to make a binary prediction on whether a sentence contains a pun or not, where all instances (with or without puns) are taken into account during training  For the task of pun location, a separate system is used to make a single prediction as to which word in the given sentence in the text that trigger more than one semantic interpretations of the text, where the training data involves only sentences that contain a pun  Therefore, if one is interested in solving both problems at the same time, a pipeline approach that performs pun detection followed by pun location can be used 
Compared to the pipeline methods, joint learning has been shown effective BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 since it is able to reduce error propagation and allows information exchange between tasks which is potentially beneficial to all the tasks  In this work, we demonstrate that the detection and location of puns can be jointly addressed by a single model  The pun detection and location tasks can be combined as a sequence labeling problem, which allows us to jointly detect and locate a pun in a sentence by assigning each word a tag  Since each context contains a maximum of one pun BIBREF9 , we design a novel tagging scheme to capture this structural constraint  Statistics on the corpora also show that a pun tends to appear in the second half of a context  To capture such a structural property, we also incorporate word position knowledge into our structured prediction model  Experiments on the benchmark datasets show that detection and location tasks can reinforce each other, leading to new state-of-the-art performance on these two tasks  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that performs joint detection and location of English puns by using a sequence labeling approach 
Problem Definition
We first design a simple tagging scheme consisting of two tags { INLINEFORM0 }:
INLINEFORM0 tag means the current word is not a pun 
INLINEFORM0 tag means the current word is a pun 
If the tag sequence of a sentence contains a INLINEFORM0 tag, then the text contains a pun and the word corresponding to INLINEFORM1 is the pun 
The contexts have the characteristic that each context contains a maximum of one pun BIBREF9   In other words, there exists only one pun if the given sentence is detected as the one containing a pun  Otherwise, there is no pun residing in the text  To capture this interesting property, we propose a new tagging scheme consisting of three tags, namely { INLINEFORM0 } 
INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears before the pun in the given context 
INLINEFORM0 tag highlights the current word is a pun 
INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears after the pun 
We empirically show that the INLINEFORM0 scheme can guarantee the context property that there exists a maximum of one pun residing in the text 
Given a context from the training set, we will be able to generate its corresponding gold tag sequence using a deterministic procedure  Under the two schemes, if a sentence does not contain any puns, all words will be tagged with INLINEFORM0 or INLINEFORM1 , respectively  Exemplified by the second sentence “Some diets cause a gut reaction," the pun is given as “gut " Thus, under the INLINEFORM2 scheme, it should be tagged with INLINEFORM3 , while the words before it are assigned with the tag INLINEFORM4 and words after it are with INLINEFORM5 , as illustrated in Figure FIGREF8   Likewise, the INLINEFORM6 scheme tags the word “gut" with INLINEFORM7 , while other words are tagged with INLINEFORM8   Therefore, we can combine the pun detection and location tasks into one problem which can be solved by the sequence labeling approach 
Model
Neural models have shown their effectiveness on sequence labeling tasks BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   In this work, we adopt the bidirectional Long Short Term Memory (BiLSTM) BIBREF16 networks on top of the Conditional Random Fields BIBREF17 (CRF) architecture to make labeling decisions, which is one of the classical models for sequence labeling  Our model architecture is illustrated in Figure FIGREF8 with a running example  Given a context/sentence INLINEFORM0 where INLINEFORM1 is the length of the context, we generate the corresponding tag sequence INLINEFORM2 based on our designed tagging schemes and the original annotations for pun detection and location provided by the corpora  Our model is then trained on pairs of INLINEFORM3  
Input  The contexts in the pun corpus hold the property that each pun contains exactly one content word, which can be either a noun, a verb, an adjective, or an adverb  To capture this characteristic, we consider lexical features at the character level  Similar to the work of BIBREF15 , the character embeddings are trained by the character-level LSTM networks on the unannotated input sequences  Nonlinear transformations are then applied to the character embeddings by highway networks BIBREF18 , which map the character-level features into different semantic spaces 
We also observe that a pun tends to appear at the end of a sentence  Specifically, based on the statistics, we found that sentences with a pun that locate at the second half of the text account for around 88% and 92% in homographic and heterographic datasets, respectively  We thus introduce a binary feature that indicates if a word is located at the first or the second half of an input sentence to capture such positional information  A binary indicator can be mapped to a vector representation using a randomly initialized embedding table BIBREF19 , BIBREF20   In this work, we directly adopt the value of the binary indicator as part of the input 
The concatenation of the transformed character embeddings, the pre-trained word embeddings BIBREF21 , and the position indicators are taken as input of our model 
Tagging  The input is then fed into a BiLSTM network, which will be able to capture contextual information  For a training instance INLINEFORM0 , we suppose the output by the word-level BiLSTM is INLINEFORM1   The CRF layer is adopted to capture label dependencies and make final tagging decisions at each position, which has been included in many state-of-the-art sequence labeling models BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   The conditional probability is defined as:
where INLINEFORM0 is a set of all possible label sequences consisting of tags from INLINEFORM1 (or INLINEFORM2 ), INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 are weight and bias parameters corresponding to the label pair INLINEFORM5   During training, we minimize the negative log-likelihood summed over all training instances:
where INLINEFORM0 refers to the INLINEFORM1 -th instance in the training set  During testing, we aim to find the optimal label sequence for a new input INLINEFORM2 :
This search process can be done efficiently using the Viterbi algorithm 
Datasets and Settings
We evaluate our model on two benchmark datasets BIBREF9   The homographic dataset contains 2,250 contexts, 1,607 of which contain a pun  The heterographic dataset consists of 1,780 contexts with 1,271 containing a pun  We notice there is no standard splitting information provided for both datasets  Thus we apply 10-fold cross validation  To make direct comparisons with prior studies, following BIBREF4 , we accumulated the predictions for all ten folds and calculate the scores in the end 
For each fold, we randomly select 10% of the instances from the training set for development  Word embeddings are initialized with the 100-dimensional Glove BIBREF21   The dimension of character embeddings is 30 and they are randomly initialized, which can be fine tuned during training  The pre-trained word embeddings are not updated during training  The dimensions of hidden vectors for both char-level and word-level LSTM units are set to 300  We adopt stochastic gradient descent (SGD) BIBREF26 with a learning rate of 0

ground_truth: ecause this process is similar to the cloze task in BERT's pre-train process, therefore by using the ability of the contextual language model the decoder can generate more fluent and natural sequences.

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 NLP tasks do they consider?
Context 3: 015 
For the pun detection task, if the predicted tag sequence contains at least one INLINEFORM0 tag, we regard the output (i e , the prediction of our pun detection model) for this task as true, otherwise false  For the pun location task, a predicted pun is regarded as correct if and only if it is labeled as the gold pun in the dataset  As to pun location, to make fair comparisons with prior studies, we only consider the instances that are labeled as the ones containing a pun  We report precision, recall and INLINEFORM1 score in Table TABREF11   A list of prior works that did not employ joint learning are also shown in the first block of Table TABREF11  
Results
We also implemented a baseline model based on conditional random fields (CRF), where features like POS tags produced by the Stanford POS tagger BIBREF27 , n-grams, label transitions, word suffixes and relative position to the end of the text are considered  We can see that our model with the INLINEFORM0 tagging scheme yields new state-of-the-art INLINEFORM1 scores on pun detection and competitive results on pun location, compared to baselines that do not adopt joint learning in the first block  For location on heterographic puns, our model's performance is slightly lower than the system of BIBREF25 , which is a rule-based locator  Compared to CRF, we can see that our model, either with the INLINEFORM2 or the INLINEFORM3 scheme, yields significantly higher recall on both detection and location tasks, while the precisions are relatively close  This demonstrates the effectiveness of BiLSTM, which learns the contextual features of given texts – such information appears to be helpful in recalling more puns 
Compared to the INLINEFORM0 scheme, the INLINEFORM1 tagging scheme is able to yield better performance on these two tasks  After studying outputs from these two approaches, we found that one leading source of error for the INLINEFORM2 approach is that there exist more than one words in a single instance that are assigned with the INLINEFORM3 tag  However, according to the description of pun in BIBREF9 , each context contains a maximum of one pun  Thus, such a useful structural constraint is not well captured by the simple approach based on the INLINEFORM4 tagging scheme  On the other hand, by applying the INLINEFORM5 tagging scheme, such a constraint is properly captured in the model  As a result, the results for such a approach are significantly better than the approach based on the INLINEFORM6 tagging scheme, as we can observe from the table  Under the same experimental setup, we also attempted to exclude word position features  Results are given by INLINEFORM7 - INLINEFORM8   It is expected that the performance of pun location drops, since such position features are able to capture the interesting property that a pun tends to appear in the second half of a sentence  While such knowledge is helpful for the location task, interestingly, a model without position knowledge yields improved performance on the pun detection task  One possible reason is that detecting whether a sentence contains a pun is not concerned with such word position information 
Additionally, we conduct experiments over sentences containing a pun only, namely 1,607 and 1,271 instances from homographic and heterographic pun corpora separately  It can be regarded as a “pipeline” method where the classifier for pun detection is regarded as perfect  Following the prior work of BIBREF4 , we apply 10-fold cross validation  Since we are given that all input sentences contain a pun, we only report accumulated results on pun location, denoted as Pipeline in Table TABREF11   Compared with our approaches, the performance of such an approach drops significantly  On the other hand, such a fact demonstrates that the two task, detection and location of puns, can reinforce each other  These figures demonstrate the effectiveness of our sequence labeling method to detect and locate English puns in a joint manner 
Error Analysis
We studied the outputs from our system and make some error analysis  We found the errors can be broadly categorized into several types, and we elaborate them here  1) Low word coverage: since the corpora are relatively small, there exist many unseen words in the test set  Learning the representations of such unseen words is challenging, which affects the model's performance  Such errors contribute around 40% of the total errors made by our system  2) Detection errors: we found many errors are due to the model's inability to make correct pun detection  Such inability harms both pun detection and pun location  Although our approach based on the INLINEFORM0 tagging scheme yields relatively higher scores on the detection task, we still found that 40% of the incorrectly predicted instances fall into this group  3) Short sentences: we found it was challenging for our model to make correct predictions when the given text is short  Consider the example “Superglue! Tom rejoined," here the word rejoined is the corresponding pun  However, it would be challenging to figure out the pun with such limited contextual information 
Related Work
Most existing systems address pun detection and location separately  BIBREF22 applied word sense knowledge to conduct pun detection  BIBREF24 trained a bidirectional RNN classifier for detecting homographic puns  Next, a knowledge-based approach is adopted to find the exact pun  Such a system is not applicable to heterographic puns  BIBREF28 applied Google n-gram and word2vec to make decisions  The phonetic distance via the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary is computed to detect heterographic puns  BIBREF10 used the hidden Markov model and a cyclic dependency network with rich features to detect and locate puns  BIBREF23 used a supervised approach to pun detection and a weakly supervised approach to pun location based on the position within the context and part of speech features  BIBREF25 proposed a rule-based system for pun location that scores candidate words according to eleven simple heuristics  Two systems are developed to conduct detection and location separately in the system known as UWAV BIBREF3   The pun detector combines predictions from three classifiers  The pun locator considers word2vec similarity between every pair of words in the context and position to pinpoint the pun  The state-of-the-art system for homographic pun location is a neural method BIBREF4 , where the word senses are incorporated into a bidirectional LSTM model  This method only supports the pun location task on homographic puns  Another line of research efforts related to this work is sequence labeling, such as POS tagging, chunking, word segmentation and NER  The neural methods have shown their effectiveness in this task, such as BiLSTM-CNN BIBREF13 , GRNN BIBREF29 , LSTM-CRF BIBREF30 , LSTM-CNN-CRF BIBREF14 , LM-LSTM-CRF BIBREF15  
In this work, we combine pun detection and location tasks as a single sequence labeling problem  Inspired by the work of BIBREF15 , we also adopt a LSTM-CRF with character embeddings to make labeling decisions 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose to perform pun detection and location tasks in a joint manner from a sequence labeling perspective  We observe that each text in our corpora contains a maximum of one pun  Hence, we design a novel tagging scheme to incorporate such a constraint  Such a scheme guarantees that there is a maximum of one word that will be tagged as a pun during the testing phase  We also found the interesting structural property such as the fact that most puns tend to appear at the second half of the sentences can be helpful for such a task, but was not explored in previous works  Furthermore, unlike many previous approaches, our approach, though simple, is generally applicable to both heterographic and homographic puns  Empirical results on the benchmark datasets prove the effectiveness of the proposed approach that the two tasks of pun detection and location can be addressed by a single model from a sequence labeling perspective 
Future research includes the investigations on how to make use of richer semantic and linguistic information for detection and location of puns  Research on puns for other languages such as Chinese is still under-explored, which could also be an interesting direction for our future studies 
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments  This work is supported by Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 2 Project MOE2017-T2-1-156, and is partially supported by SUTD project PIE-SGP-AI-2018-01 

ground_truth: text classification for themes including sentiment, web-page, science, medical and healthcare

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What baselines do they compare with?
Context 4:  We optimize marginal data likelihood directly using Adam BIBREF22   For both tasks in the fully unsupervised setting, we do not tune the hyper-parameters using supervised data 
Unsupervised POS tagging
For unsupervised POS tagging, we use a Markov-structured syntax model in our approach, which is a popular structure for unsupervised tagging tasks BIBREF9 , BIBREF10  
Following existing literature, we train and test on the entire WSJ corpus (49208 sentences, 1M tokens)  We use 45 tag clusters, the number of POS tags that appear in WSJ corpus  We train the discrete HMM and the Gaussian HMM BIBREF9 as baselines  For the Gaussian HMM, mean vectors of Gaussian emissions are initialized with the empirical mean of all word vectors with an additive noise  We assume diagonal covariance matrix for INLINEFORM0 and initialize it with the empirical variance of the word vectors  Following BIBREF9 , the covariance matrix is fixed during training  The multinomial probabilities are initialized as INLINEFORM1 , where INLINEFORM2   For our approach, we initialize the syntax model and Gaussian parameters with the pre-trained Gaussian HMM  The weights of layers in the rectified network are initialized from a uniform distribution with mean zero and a standard deviation of INLINEFORM3 , where INLINEFORM4 is the input dimension  We evaluate the performance of POS tagging with both Many-to-One (M-1) accuracy BIBREF23 and V-Measure (VM) BIBREF24   Given a model we found that the tagging performance is well-correlated with the training data likelihood, thus we use training data likelihood as a unsupervised criterion to select the trained model over 10 random restarts after training 50 epochs  We repeat this process 5 times and report the mean and standard deviation of performance 
We compare our approach with basic HMM, Gaussian HMM, and several state-of-the-art systems, including sophisticated HMM variants and clustering techniques with hand-engineered features  The results are presented in Table TABREF32   Through the introduced latent embeddings and additional neural projection, our approach improves over the Gaussian HMM by 5 4 points in M-1 and 5 6 points in VM  Neural HMM (NHMM) BIBREF10 is a baseline that also learns word representation jointly  Both their basic model and extended Conv version does not outperform the Gaussian HMM  Their best model incorporates another LSTM to model long distance dependency and breaks the Markov assumption, yet our approach still achieves substantial improvement over it without considering more context information  Moreover, our method outperforms the best published result that benefits from hand-engineered features BIBREF27 by 2 0 points on VM 
We found that most tagging errors happen in noun subcategories  Therefore, we do the one-to-one mapping between gold POS tags and induced clusters and plot the normalized confusion matrix of noun subcategories in Figure FIGREF35   The Gaussian HMM fails to identify “NN” and “NNS” correctly for most cases, and it often recognizes “NNPS” as “NNP”  In contrast, our approach corrects these errors well 
Unsupervised Dependency Parsing without gold POS tags
For the task of unsupervised dependency parse induction, we employ the Dependency Model with Valence (DMV) BIBREF2 as the syntax model in our approach  DMV is a generative model that defines a probability distribution over dependency parse trees and syntactic categories, generating tokens and dependencies in a head-outward fashion  While, traditionally, DMV is trained using gold POS tags as observed syntactic categories, in our approach, we treat each tag as a latent variable, as described in sec:general-neural 
Most existing approaches to this task are not fully unsupervised since they rely on gold POS tags following the original experimental setup for DMV  This is partially because automatically parsing from words is difficult even when using unsupervised syntactic categories BIBREF29   However, inducing dependencies from words alone represents a more realistic experimental condition since gold POS tags are often unavailable in practice  Previous work that has trained from words alone often requires additional linguistic constraints (like sentence internal boundaries) BIBREF29 , BIBREF30 , BIBREF31 , BIBREF32 , acoustic cues BIBREF33 , additional training data BIBREF4 , or annotated data from related languages BIBREF34   Our approach is naturally designed to train on word embeddings directly, thus we attempt to induce dependencies without using gold POS tags or other extra linguistic information 
Like previous work we use sections 02-21 of WSJ corpus as training data and evaluate on section 23, we remove punctuations and train the models on sentences of length INLINEFORM0 , “head-percolation” rules BIBREF39 are applied to obtain gold dependencies for evaluation  We train basic DMV, extended DMV (E-DMV) BIBREF35 and Gaussian DMV (which treats POS tag as unknown latent variables and generates observed word embeddings directly conditioned on them following Gaussian distribution) as baselines  Basic DMV and E-DMV are trained with Viterbi EM BIBREF40 on unsupervised POS tags induced from our Markov-structured model described in sec:pos  Multinomial parameters of the syntax model in both Gaussian DMV and our model are initialized with the pre-trained DMV baseline  Other parameters are initialized in the same way as in the POS tagging experiment  The directed dependency accuracy (DDA) is used for evaluation and we report accuracy on sentences of length INLINEFORM1 and all lengths  We train the parser until training data likelihood converges, and report the mean and standard deviation over 20 random restarts 
Our model directly observes word embeddings and does not require gold POS tags during training  Thus, results from related work trained on gold tags are not directly comparable  However, to measure how these systems might perform without gold tags, we run three recent state-of-the-art systems in our experimental setting: UR-A E-DMV BIBREF36 , Neural E-DMV BIBREF11 , and CRF Autoencoder (CRFAE) BIBREF37   We use unsupervised POS tags (induced from our Markov-structured model) in place of gold tags  We also train basic DMV on gold tags and include several state-of-the-art results on gold tags as reference points 
As shown in Table TABREF39 , our approach is able to improve over the Gaussian DMV by 4 8 points on length INLINEFORM0 and 4 8 points on all lengths, which suggests the additional latent embedding layer and neural projector are helpful  The proposed approach yields, to the best of our knowledge, state-of-the-art performance without gold POS annotation and without sentence-internal boundary information  DMV, UR-A E-DMV, Neural E-DMV, and CRFAE suffer a large decrease in performance when trained on unsupervised tags – an effect also seen in previous work BIBREF29 , BIBREF34   Since our approach induces latent POS tags jointly with dependency trees, it may be able to learn POS clusters that are more amenable to grammar induction than the unsupervised tags  We observe that CRFAE underperforms its gold-tag counterpart substantially  This may largely be a result of the model's reliance on prior linguistic rules that become unavailable when gold POS tag types are unknown  Many extensions to DMV can be considered orthogonal to our approach – they essentially focus on improving the syntax model  It is possible that incorporating these more sophisticated syntax models into our approach may lead to further improvements 
Sensitivity Analysis
In the above experiments we initialize the structured syntax components with the pre-trained Gaussian or discrete baseline, which is shown as a useful technique to help train our deep models  We further study the results with fully random initialization  In the POS tagging experiment, we report the results in Table TABREF48   While the performance with 4 layers is comparable to the pre-trained Gaussian initialization, deeper projections (8 or 16 layers) result in a dramatic drop in performance  This suggests that the structured syntax model with very deep projections is difficult to train from scratch, and a simpler projection might be a good compromise in the random initialization setting 
Different from the Markov prior in POS tagging experiments, our parsing model seems to be quite sensitive to the initialization  For example, directed accuracy of our approach on sentences of length INLINEFORM0 is below 40 0 with random initialization  This is consistent with previous work that has noted the importance of careful initialization for DMV-based models such as the commonly used harmonic initializer BIBREF2   However, it is not straightforward to apply the harmonic initializer for DMV directly in our model without using some kind of pre-training since we do not observe gold POS 
We investigate the effect of the choice of pre-trained embedding on performance while using our approach  To this end, we additionally include results using fastText embeddings BIBREF41 – which, in contrast with skip-gram embeddings, include character-level information  We set the context windows size to 1 and the dimension size to 100 as in the skip-gram training, while keeping other parameters set to their defaults  These results are summarized in Table TABREF50 and Table TABREF51   While fastText embeddings lead to reduced performance with our model, our approach still yields an improvement over the Gaussian baseline with the new observed embeddings space 
Qualitative Analysis of Embeddings
We perform qualitative analysis to understand how the latent embeddings help induce syntactic structures  First we filter out low-frequency words and punctuations in WSJ, and visualize the rest words (10k) with t-SNE BIBREF42 under different embeddings  We assign each word with its most likely gold POS tags in WSJ and color them according to the gold POS tags 
For our Markov-structured model, we have displayed the embedding space in Figure SECREF5 , where the gold POS clusters are well-formed  Further, we present five example target words and their five nearest neighbors in terms of cosine similarity  As shown in Table TABREF53 , the skip-gram embedding captures both semantic and syntactic aspects to some degree, yet our embeddings are able to focus especially on the syntactic aspects of words, in an unsupervised fashion without using any extra morphological information 
In Figure FIGREF54 we depict the learned latent embeddings with the DMV-structured syntax model  Unlike the Markov structure, the DMV structure maps a large subset of singular and plural nouns to the same overlapping region  However, two clusters of singular and plural nouns are actually separated  We inspect the two clusters and the overlapping region in Figure FIGREF54 , it turns out that the nouns in the separated clusters are words that can appear as subjects and, therefore, for which verb agreement is important to model  In contrast, the nouns in the overlapping region are typically objects  This demonstrates that the latent embeddings are focusing on aspects of language that are specifically important for modeling dependency without ever having seen examples of dependency parses  Some previous work has deliberately created embeddings to capture different notions of similarity BIBREF43 , BIBREF44 , while they use extra morphology or dependency annotations to guide the embedding learning, our approach provides a potential alternative to create new embeddings that are guided by structured syntax model, only using unlabeled text corpora 
Related Work
Our approach is related to flow-based generative models, which are first described in NICE BIBREF16 and have recently received more attention BIBREF17 , BIBREF19 , BIBREF18   This relevant work mostly adopts simple (e g  Gaussian) and fixed priors and does not attempt to learn interpretable latent structures  Another related generative model class is variational auto-encoders (VAEs) BIBREF45 that optimize a lower bound on the marginal data likelihood, and can be extended to learn latent structures BIBREF46 , BIBREF47   Against the flow-based models, VAEs remove the invertibility constraint but sacrifice the merits of exact inference and exact log likelihood computation, which potentially results in optimization challenges BIBREF48   Our approach can also be viewed in connection with generative adversarial networks (GANs) BIBREF49 that is a likelihood-free framework to learn implicit generative models  However, it is non-trivial for a gradient-based method like GANs to propagate gradients through discrete structures 
Conclusion
In this work, we define a novel generative approach to leverage continuous word representations for unsupervised learning of syntactic structure  Experiments on both POS induction and unsupervised dependency parsing tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach  Future work might explore more sophisticated invertible projections, or recurrent projections that jointly transform the entire input sequence 

ground_truth: They compare with the following models: by Pedersen (2017), by Pramanick and Das (2017), by Mikhalkova and Karyakin (2017),  by Vadehra (2017), Indurthi and Oota (2017), by Vechtomova (2017), by (Cai et al., 2018), and CRF.