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
Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a foremost NLP task to label each atomic elements of a sentence into specific categories like "PERSON", "LOCATION", "ORGANIZATION" and othersBIBREF0  There has been an extensive NER research on English, German, Dutch and Spanish language BIBREF1, BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5, and notable research on low resource South Asian languages like HindiBIBREF6, IndonesianBIBREF7 and other Indian languages (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu)BIBREF8  However, there has been no study on developing neural NER for Nepali language  In this paper, we propose a neural based Nepali NER using latest state-of-the-art architecture based on grapheme-level which doesn't require any hand-crafted features and no data pre-processing 
Recent neural architecture like BIBREF1 is used to relax the need to hand-craft the features and need to use part-of-speech tag to determine the category of the entity  However, this architecture have been studied for languages like English, and German and not been applied to languages like Nepali which is a low resource language i e limited data set to train the model  Traditional methods like Hidden Markov Model (HMM) with rule based approachesBIBREF9,BIBREF10, and Support Vector Machine (SVM) with manual feature-engineeringBIBREF11 have been applied but they perform poor compared to neural  However, there has been no research in Nepali NER using neural network  Therefore, we created the named entity annotated dataset partly with the help of Dataturk to train a neural model  The texts used for this dataset are collected from various daily news sources from Nepal around the year 2015-2016 
Following are our contributions:
We present a novel Named Entity Recognizer (NER) for Nepali language  To best of our knowledge we are the first to propose neural based Nepali NER 
As there are not good quality dataset to train NER we release a dataset to support future research
We perform empirical evaluation of our model with state-of-the-art models with relative improvement of upto 10%
In this paper, we present works similar to ours in Section SECREF2  We describe our approach and dataset statistics in Section SECREF3 and SECREF4, followed by our experiments, evaluation and discussion in Section SECREF5, SECREF6, and SECREF7  We conclude with our observations in Section SECREF8 
To facilitate further research our code and dataset will be made available at github com/link-yet-to-be-updated
Related Work
There has been a handful of research on Nepali NER task based on approaches like Support Vector Machine and gazetteer listBIBREF11 and Hidden Markov Model and gazetteer listBIBREF9,BIBREF10 
BIBREF11 uses SVM along with features like first word, word length, digit features and gazetteer (person, organization, location, middle name, verb, designation and others)  It uses one vs rest classification model to classify each word into different entity classes  However, it does not the take context word into account while training the model  Similarly, BIBREF9 and BIBREF10 uses Hidden Markov Model with n-gram technique for extracting POS-tags  POS-tags with common noun, proper noun or combination of both are combined together, then uses gazetteer list as look-up table to identify the named entities 
Researchers have shown that the neural networks like CNNBIBREF12, RNNBIBREF13, LSTMBIBREF14, GRUBIBREF15 can capture the semantic knowledge of language better with the help of pre-trained embbeddings like word2vecBIBREF16, gloveBIBREF17 or fasttextBIBREF18 
Similar approaches has been applied to many South Asian languages like HindiBIBREF6, IndonesianBIBREF7, BengaliBIBREF19 and In this paper, we present the neural network architecture for NER task in Nepali language, which doesn't require any manual feature engineering nor any data pre-processing during training  First we are comparing BiLSTMBIBREF14, BiLSTM+CNNBIBREF20, BiLSTM+CRFBIBREF1, BiLSTM+CNN+CRFBIBREF2 models with CNN modelBIBREF0 and Stanford CRF modelBIBREF21  Secondly, we show the comparison between models trained on general word embeddings, word embedding + character-level embedding, word embedding + part-of-speech(POS) one-hot encoding and word embedding + grapheme clustered or sub-word embeddingBIBREF22  The experiments were performed on the dataset that we created and on the dataset received from ILPRL lab  Our extensive study shows that augmenting word embedding with character or grapheme-level representation and POS one-hot encoding vector yields better results compared to using general word embedding alone 
Approach
In this section, we describe our approach in building our model  This model is partly inspired from multiple models BIBREF20,BIBREF1, andBIBREF2
Approach ::: Bidirectional LSTM
We used Bi-directional LSTM to capture the word representation in forward as well as reverse direction of a sentence  Generally, LSTMs take inputs from left (past) of the sentence and computes the hidden state  However, it is proven beneficialBIBREF23 to use bi-directional LSTM, where, hidden states are computed based from right (future) of sentence and both of these hidden states are concatenated to produce the final output as $h_t$=[$\overrightarrow{h_t}$;$\overleftarrow{h_t}$], where $\overrightarrow{h_t}$, $\overleftarrow{h_t}$ = hidden state computed in forward and backward direction respectively 
Approach ::: Features ::: Word embeddings
We have used Word2Vec BIBREF16, GloVe BIBREF17 and FastText BIBREF18 word vectors of 300 dimensions  These vectors were trained on the corpus obtained from Nepali National Corpus  This pre-lemmatized corpus consists of 14 million words from books, web-texts and news papers  This corpus was mixed with the texts from the dataset before training CBOW and skip-gram version of word2vec using gensim libraryBIBREF24  This trained model consists of vectors for 72782 unique words 
Light pre-processing was performed on the corpus before training it  For example, invalid characters or characters other than Devanagari were removed but punctuation and numbers were not removed  We set the window context at 10 and the rare words whose count is below 5 are dropped  These word embeddings were not frozen during the training session because fine-tuning word embedding help achieve better performance compared to frozen oneBIBREF20 
We have used fasttext embeddings in particular because of its sub-word representation ability, which is very useful in highly inflectional language as shown in Table TABREF25  We have trained the word embedding in such a way that the sub-word size remains between 1 and 4  We particularly chose this size because in Nepali language a single letter can also be a word, for example e, t, C, r, l, n, u and a single character (grapheme) or sub-word can be formed after mixture of dependent vowel signs with consonant letters for example, C + O + = CO, here three different consonant letters form a single sub-word 
The two-dimensional visualization of an example word npAl is shown in FIGREF14  Principal Component Analysis (PCA) technique was used to generate this visualization which helps use to analyze the nearest neighbor words of a given sample word  84 and 104 nearest neighbors were observed using word2vec and fasttext embedding respectively on the same corpus 
Approach ::: Features ::: Character-level embeddings
BIBREF20 and BIBREF2 successfully presented that the character-level embeddings, extracted using CNN, when combined with word embeddings enhances the NER model performance significantly, as it is able to capture morphological features of a word  Figure FIGREF7 shows the grapheme-level CNN used in our model, where inputs to CNN are graphemes  Character-level CNN is also built in similar fashion, except the inputs are characters  Grapheme or Character -level embeddings are randomly initialized from [0,1] with real values with uniform distribution of dimension 30 
Approach ::: Features ::: Grapheme-level embeddings
Grapheme is atomic meaningful unit in writing system of any languages  Since, Nepali language is highly morphologically inflectional, we compared grapheme-level representation with character-level representation to evaluate its effect  For example, in character-level embedding, each character of a word npAl results into n + + p + A + l has its own embedding  However, in grapheme level, a word npAl is clustered into graphemes, resulting into n + pA + l  Here, each grapheme has its own embedding  This grapheme-level embedding results good scores on par with character-level embedding in highly inflectional languages like Nepali, because graphemes also capture syntactic information similar to characters  We created grapheme clusters using uniseg package which is helpful in unicode text segmentations 
Approach ::: Features ::: Part-of-speech (POS) one hot encoding
We created one-hot encoded vector of POS tags and then concatenated with pre-trained word embeddings before passing it to BiLSTM network  A sample of data is shown in figure FIGREF13 
Dataset Statistics ::: OurNepali dataset
Since, we there was no publicly available standard Nepali NER dataset and did not receive any dataset from the previous researchers, we had to create our own dataset  This dataset contains the sentences collected from daily newspaper of the year 2015-2016  This dataset has three major classes Person (PER), Location (LOC) and Organization (ORG)  Pre-processing was performed on the text before creation of the dataset, for example all punctuations and numbers besides ',', '-', '|' and ' ' were removed  Currently, the dataset is in standard CoNLL-2003 IO formatBIBREF25 
Since, this dataset is not lemmatized originally, we lemmatized only the post-positions like Ek, kO, l, mA, m, my, jF, sg, aEG which are just the few examples among 299 post positions in Nepali language  We obtained these post-positions from sanjaalcorps and added few more to match our dataset  We will be releasing this list in our github repository  We found out that lemmatizing the post-positions boosted the F1 score by almost 10% 
In order to label our dataset with POS-tags, we first created POS annotated dataset of 6946 sentences and 16225 unique words extracted from POS-tagged Nepali National Corpus and trained a BiLSTM model with 95 14% accuracy which was used to create POS-tags for our dataset 
The dataset released in our github repository contains each word in newline with space separated POS-tags and Entity-tags  The sentences are separated by empty newline  A sample sentence from the dataset is presented in table FIGREF13 
Dataset Statistics ::: ILPRL dataset
After much time, we received the dataset from Bal Krishna Bal, ILPRL, KU  This dataset follows standard CoNLL-2003 IOB formatBIBREF25 with POS tags  This dataset is prepared by ILPRL Lab, KU and KEIV Technologies  Few corrections like correcting the NER tags had to be made on the dataset  The statistics of both the dataset is presented in table TABREF23 
Table TABREF24 presents the total entities (PER, LOC, ORG and MISC) from both of the dataset used in our experiments  The dataset is divided into three parts with 64%, 16% and 20% of the total dataset into training set, development set and test set respectively 
Experiments
In this section, we present the details about training our neural network  The neural network architecture are implemented using PyTorch framework BIBREF26  The training is performed on a single Nvidia Tesla P100 SXM2  We first run our experiment on BiLSTM, BiLSTM-CNN, BiLSTM-CRF BiLSTM-CNN-CRF using the hyper-parameters mentioned in Table TABREF30  The training and evaluation was done on sentence-level  The RNN variants are initialized randomly from $(-\sqrt{k},\sqrt{k})$ where $k=\frac{1}{hidden\_size}$ 
First we loaded our dataset and built vocabulary using torchtext library  This eased our process of data loading using its SequenceTaggingDataset class  We trained our model with shuffled training set using Adam optimizer with hyper-parameters mentioned in table TABREF30  All our models were trained on single layer of LSTM network  We found out Adam was giving better performance and faster convergence compared to Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)  We chose those hyper-parameters after many ablation studies  The dropout of 0 5 is applied after LSTM layer 
For CNN, we used 30 different filters of sizes 3, 4 and 5  The embeddings of each character or grapheme involved in a given word, were passed through the pipeline of Convolution, Rectified Linear Unit and Max-Pooling  The resulting vectors were concatenated and applied dropout of 0 5 before passing into linear layer to obtain the embedding size of 30 for the given word  This resulting embedding is concatenated with word embeddings, which is again concatenated with one-hot POS vector 
Experiments ::: Tagging Scheme
Currently, for our experiments we trained our model on IO (Inside, Outside) format for both the dataset, hence the dataset does not contain any B-type annotation unlike in BIO (Beginning, Inside, Outside) scheme 
Experiments ::: Early Stopping
We used simple early stopping technique where if the validation loss does not decrease after 10 epochs, the training was stopped, else the training will run upto 100 epochs  In our experience, training usually stops around 30-50 epochs 
Experiments ::: Hyper-parameters Tuning
We ran our experiment looking for the best hyper-parameters by changing learning rate from (0,1, 0 01, 0 001, 0 0001), weight decay from [$10^{-1}$, $10^{-2}$, $10^{-3}$, $10^{-4}$, $10^{-5}$, $10^{-6}$, $10^{-7}$], batch size from [1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128], hidden size from [8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512 1024]  Table TABREF30 shows all other hyper-parameter used in our experiment for both of the dataset 
Experiments ::: Effect of Dropout
Figure FIGREF31 shows how we end up choosing 0 5 as dropout rate  When the dropout layer was not used, the F1 score are at the lowest  As, we slowly increase the dropout rate, the F1 score also gradually increases, however after dropout rate = 0 5, the F1 score starts falling down  Therefore, we have chosen 0 5 as dropout rate for all other experiments performed 
Evaluation
In this section, we present the details regarding evaluation and comparison of our models with other baselines 
Table TABREF25 shows the study of various embeddings and comparison among each other in OurNepali dataset  Here, raw dataset represents such dataset where post-positions are not lemmatized  We can observe that pre-trained embeddings significantly improves the score compared to randomly initialized embedding  We can deduce that Skip Gram models perform better compared CBOW models for word2vec and fasttext  Here, fastText_Pretrained represents the embedding readily available in fastText website, while other embeddings are trained on the Nepali National Corpus as mentioned in sub-section SECREF11  From this table TABREF25, we can clearly observe that model using fastText_Skip Gram embeddings outperforms all other models 
Table TABREF35 shows the model architecture comparison between all the models experimented  The features used for Stanford CRF classifier are words, letter n-grams of upto length 6, previous word and next word  This model is trained till the current function value is less than $1\mathrm {e}{-2}$  The hyper-parameters of neural network experiments are set as shown in table TABREF30  Since, word embedding of character-level and grapheme-level is random, their scores are near 
All models are evaluated using CoNLL-2003 evaluation scriptBIBREF25 to calculate entity-wise precision, recall and f1 score 
Discussion
In this paper we present that we can exploit the power of neural network to train the model to perform downstream NLP tasks like Named Entity Recognition even in Nepali language  We showed that the word vectors learned through fasttext skip gram model performs better than other word embedding because of its capability to represent sub-word and this is particularly important to capture morphological structure of words and sentences in highly inflectional like Nepali  This concept can come handy in other Devanagari languages as well because the written scripts have similar syntactical structure 
We also found out that stemming post-positions can help a lot in improving model performance because of inflectional characteristics of Nepali language  So when we separate out its inflections or morphemes, we can minimize the variations of same word which gives its root word a stronger word vector representations compared to its inflected versions 
We can clearly imply from tables TABREF23, TABREF24, and TABREF35 that we need more data to get better results because OurNepali dataset volume is almost ten times bigger compared to ILPRL dataset in terms of entities 
Conclusion and Future work
In this paper, we proposed a novel NER for Nepali language and achieved relative improvement of upto 10% and studies different factors effecting the performance of the NER for Nepali language 
We also present a neural architecture BiLSTM+CNN(grapheme-level) which turns out to be performing on par with BiLSTM+CNN(character-level) under the same configuration  We believe this will not only help Nepali language but also other languages falling under the umbrellas of Devanagari languages  Our model BiLSTM+CNN(grapheme-level) and BiLSTM+CNN(G)+POS outperforms all other model experimented in OurNepali and ILPRL dataset respectively 
Since this is the first named entity recognition research in Nepal language using neural network, there are many rooms for improvement  We believe initializing the grapheme-level embedding with fasttext embeddings might help boosting the performance, rather than randomly initializing it  In future, we plan to apply other latest techniques like BERT, ELMo and FLAIR to study its effect on low-resource language like Nepali  We also plan to improve the model using cross-lingual or multi-lingual parameter sharing techniques by jointly training with other Devanagari languages like Hindi and Bengali 
Finally, we would like to contribute our dataset to Nepali NLP community to move forward the research going on in language understanding domain  We believe there should be special committee to create and maintain such dataset for Nepali NLP and organize various competitions which would elevate the NLP research in Nepal 
Some of the future works are listed below:
Proper initialization of grapheme level embedding from fasttext embeddings 
Apply robust POS-tagger for Nepali dataset
Lemmatize the OurNepali dataset with robust and efficient lemmatizer
Improve Nepali language score with cross-lingual learning techniques
Create more dataset using Wikipedia/Wikidata framework
Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper would like to express sincere thanks to Bal Krishna Bal, Kathmandu University Professor for providing us the POS-tagged Nepali NER data 
Context 3: Introduction
People are increasingly using social networking platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc  to communicate their opinions and share information  Although the interactions among users on these platforms can lead to constructive conversations, they have been increasingly exploited for the propagation of abusive language and the organization of hate-based activities BIBREF0, BIBREF1, especially due to the mobility and anonymous environment of these online platforms  Violence attributed to online hate speech has increased worldwide  For example, in the UK, there has been a significant increase in hate speech towards the immigrant and Muslim communities following the UK's leaving the EU and the Manchester and London attacks  The US also has been a marked increase in hate speech and related crime following the Trump election  Therefore, governments and social network platforms confronting the trend must have tools to detect aggressive behavior in general, and hate speech in particular, as these forms of online aggression not only poison the social climate of the online communities that experience it, but can also provoke physical violence and serious harm BIBREF1 
Recently, the problem of online abusive detection has attracted scientific attention  Proof of this is the creation of the third Workshop on Abusive Language Online or Kaggle’s Toxic Comment Classification Challenge that gathered 4,551 teams in 2018 to detect different types of toxicities (threats, obscenity, etc )  In the scope of this work, we mainly focus on the term hate speech as abusive content in social media, since it can be considered a broad umbrella term for numerous kinds of insulting user-generated content  Hate speech is commonly defined as any communication criticizing a person or a group based on some characteristics such as gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, race, etc  Hate speech detection is not a stable or simple target because misclassification of regular conversation as hate speech can severely affect users’ freedom of expression and reputation, while misclassification of hateful conversations as unproblematic would maintain the status of online communities as unsafe environments BIBREF2 
To detect online hate speech, a large number of scientific studies have been dedicated by using Natural Language Processing (NLP) in combination with Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) methods BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF0  Although supervised machine learning-based approaches have used different text mining-based features such as surface features, sentiment analysis, lexical resources, linguistic features, knowledge-based features or user-based and platform-based metadata BIBREF8, BIBREF9, BIBREF10, they necessitate a well-defined feature extraction approach  The trend now seems to be changing direction, with deep learning models being used for both feature extraction and the training of classifiers  These newer models are applying deep learning approaches such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Long Short-Term Memory Networks (LSTMs), etc BIBREF6, BIBREF0 to enhance the performance of hate speech detection models, however, they still suffer from lack of labelled data or inability to improve generalization property 
Here, we propose a transfer learning approach for hate speech understanding using a combination of the unsupervised pre-trained model BERT BIBREF11 and some new supervised fine-tuning strategies  As far as we know, it is the first time that such exhaustive fine-tuning strategies are proposed along with a generative pre-trained language model to transfer learning to low-resource hate speech languages and improve performance of the task  In summary:
We propose a transfer learning approach using the pre-trained language model BERT learned on English Wikipedia and BookCorpus to enhance hate speech detection on publicly available benchmark datasets  Toward that end, for the first time, we introduce new fine-tuning strategies to examine the effect of different embedding layers of BERT in hate speech detection 
Our experiment results show that using the pre-trained BERT model and fine-tuning it on the downstream task by leveraging syntactical and contextual information of all BERT's transformers outperforms previous works in terms of precision, recall, and F1-score  Furthermore, examining the results shows the ability of our model to detect some biases in the process of collecting or annotating datasets  It can be a valuable clue in using pre-trained BERT model for debiasing hate speech datasets in future studies 
Previous Works
Here, the existing body of knowledge on online hate speech and offensive language and transfer learning is presented 
Online Hate Speech and Offensive Language: Researchers have been studying hate speech on social media platforms such as Twitter BIBREF9, Reddit BIBREF12, BIBREF13, and YouTube BIBREF14 in the past few years  The features used in traditional machine learning approaches are the main aspects distinguishing different methods, and surface-level features such as bag of words, word-level and character-level $n$-grams, etc  have proven to be the most predictive features BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5  Apart from features, different algorithms such as Support Vector Machines BIBREF15, Naive Baye BIBREF1, and Logistic Regression BIBREF5, BIBREF9, etc  have been applied for classification purposes  Waseem et al  BIBREF5 provided a test with a list of criteria based on the work in Gender Studies and Critical Race Theory (CRT) that can annotate a corpus of more than $16k$ tweets as racism, sexism, or neither  To classify tweets, they used a logistic regression model with different sets of features, such as word and character $n$-grams up to 4, gender, length, and location  They found that their best model produces character $n$-gram as the most indicative features, and using location or length is detrimental  Davidson et al  BIBREF9 collected a $24K$ corpus of tweets containing hate speech keywords and labelled the corpus as hate speech, offensive language, or neither by using crowd-sourcing and extracted different features such as $n$-grams, some tweet-level metadata such as the number of hashtags, mentions, retweets, and URLs, Part Of Speech (POS) tagging, etc  Their experiments on different multi-class classifiers showed that the Logistic Regression with L2 regularization performs the best at this task  Malmasi et al  BIBREF15 proposed an ensemble-based system that uses some linear SVM classifiers in parallel to distinguish hate speech from general profanity in social media 
As one of the first attempts in neural network models, Djuric et al  BIBREF16 proposed a two-step method including a continuous bag of words model to extract paragraph2vec embeddings and a binary classifier trained along with the embeddings to distinguish between hate speech and clean content  Badjatiya et al  BIBREF0 investigated three deep learning architectures, FastText, CNN, and LSTM, in which they initialized the word embeddings with either random or GloVe embeddings  Gambäck et al  BIBREF6 proposed a hate speech classifier based on CNN model trained on different feature embeddings such as word embeddings and character $n$-grams  Zhang et al  BIBREF7 used a CNN+GRU (Gated Recurrent Unit network) neural network model initialized with pre-trained word2vec embeddings to capture both word/character combinations (e  g , $n$-grams, phrases) and word/character dependencies (order information)  Waseem et al  BIBREF10 brought a new insight to hate speech and abusive language detection tasks by proposing a multi-task learning framework to deal with datasets across different annotation schemes, labels, or geographic and cultural influences from data sampling  Founta et al  BIBREF17 built a unified classification model that can efficiently handle different types of abusive language such as cyberbullying, hate, sarcasm, etc  using raw text and domain-specific metadata from Twitter  Furthermore, researchers have recently focused on the bias derived from the hate speech training datasets BIBREF18, BIBREF2, BIBREF19  Davidson et al  BIBREF2 showed that there were systematic and substantial racial biases in five benchmark Twitter datasets annotated for offensive language detection  Wiegand et al  BIBREF19 also found that classifiers trained on datasets containing more implicit abuse (tweets with some abusive words) are more affected by biases rather than once trained on datasets with a high proportion of explicit abuse samples (tweets containing sarcasm, jokes, etc ) 
Transfer Learning: Pre-trained vector representations of words, embeddings, extracted from vast amounts of text data have been encountered in almost every language-based tasks with promising results  Two of the most frequently used context-independent neural embeddings are word2vec and Glove extracted from shallow neural networks  The year 2018 has been an inflection point for different NLP tasks thanks to remarkable breakthroughs: Universal Language Model Fine-Tuning (ULMFiT) BIBREF20, Embedding from Language Models (ELMO) BIBREF21, OpenAI’ s Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) BIBREF22, and Google’s BERT model BIBREF11  Howard et al  BIBREF20 proposed ULMFiT which can be applied to any NLP task by pre-training a universal language model on a general-domain corpus and then fine-tuning the model on target task data using discriminative fine-tuning  Peters et al

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. How many different types of entities exist in the dataset?
Context 3:  BIBREF21 used a bi-directional LSTM trained on a specific task to present context-sensitive representations of words in word embeddings by looking at the entire sentence  Radford et al  BIBREF22 and Devlin et al  BIBREF11 generated two transformer-based language models, OpenAI GPT and BERT respectively  OpenAI GPT BIBREF22 is an unidirectional language model while BERT BIBREF11 is the first deeply bidirectional, unsupervised language representation, pre-trained using only a plain text corpus  BERT has two novel prediction tasks: Masked LM and Next Sentence Prediction  The pre-trained BERT model significantly outperformed ELMo and OpenAI GPT in a series of downstream tasks in NLP BIBREF11  Identifying hate speech and offensive language is a complicated task due to the lack of undisputed labelled data BIBREF15 and the inability of surface features to capture the subtle semantics in text  To address this issue, we use the pre-trained language model BERT for hate speech classification and try to fine-tune specific task by leveraging information from different transformer encoders 
Methodology
Here, we analyze the BERT transformer model on the hate speech detection task  BERT is a multi-layer bidirectional transformer encoder trained on the English Wikipedia and the Book Corpus containing 2,500M and 800M tokens, respectively, and has two models named BERTbase and BERTlarge  BERTbase contains an encoder with 12 layers (transformer blocks), 12 self-attention heads, and 110 million parameters whereas BERTlarge has 24 layers, 16 attention heads, and 340 million parameters  Extracted embeddings from BERTbase have 768 hidden dimensions BIBREF11  As the BERT model is pre-trained on general corpora, and for our hate speech detection task we are dealing with social media content, therefore as a crucial step, we have to analyze the contextual information extracted from BERT' s pre-trained layers and then fine-tune it using annotated datasets  By fine-tuning we update weights using a labelled dataset that is new to an already trained model  As an input and output, BERT takes a sequence of tokens in maximum length 512 and produces a representation of the sequence in a 768-dimensional vector  BERT inserts at most two segments to each input sequence, [CLS] and [SEP]  [CLS] embedding is the first token of the input sequence and contains the special classification embedding which we take the first token [CLS] in the final hidden layer as the representation of the whole sequence in hate speech classification task  The [SEP] separates segments and we will not use it in our classification task  To perform the hate speech detection task, we use BERTbase model to classify each tweet as Racism, Sexism, Neither or Hate, Offensive, Neither in our datasets  In order to do that, we focus on fine-tuning the pre-trained BERTbase parameters  By fine-tuning, we mean training a classifier with different layers of 768 dimensions on top of the pre-trained BERTbase transformer to minimize task-specific parameters 
Methodology ::: Fine-Tuning Strategies
Different layers of a neural network can capture different levels of syntactic and semantic information  The lower layer of the BERT model may contain more general information whereas the higher layers contain task-specific information BIBREF11, and we can fine-tune them with different learning rates  Here, four different fine-tuning approaches are implemented that exploit pre-trained BERTbase transformer encoders for our classification task  More information about these transformer encoders' architectures are presented in BIBREF11  In the fine-tuning phase, the model is initialized with the pre-trained parameters and then are fine-tuned using the labelled datasets  Different fine-tuning approaches on the hate speech detection task are depicted in Figure FIGREF8, in which $X_{i}$ is the vector representation of token $i$ in a tweet sample, and are explained in more detail as follows:
1  BERT based fine-tuning: In the first approach, which is shown in Figure FIGREF8, very few changes are applied to the BERTbase  In this architecture, only the [CLS] token output provided by BERT is used  The [CLS] output, which is equivalent to the [CLS] token output of the 12th transformer encoder, a vector of size 768, is given as input to a fully connected network without hidden layer  The softmax activation function is applied to the hidden layer to classify 
2  Insert nonlinear layers: Here, the first architecture is upgraded and an architecture with a more robust classifier is provided in which instead of using a fully connected network without hidden layer, a fully connected network with two hidden layers in size 768 is used  The first two layers use the Leaky Relu activation function with negative slope = 0 01, but the final layer, as the first architecture, uses softmax activation function as shown in Figure FIGREF8 
3  Insert Bi-LSTM layer: Unlike previous architectures that only use [CLS] as the input for the classifier, in this architecture all outputs of the latest transformer encoder are used in such a way that they are given as inputs to a bidirectional recurrent neural network (Bi-LSTM) as shown in Figure FIGREF8  After processing the input, the network sends the final hidden state to a fully connected network that performs classification using the softmax activation function 
4  Insert CNN layer: In this architecture shown in Figure FIGREF8, the outputs of all transformer encoders are used instead of using the output of the latest transformer encoder  So that the output vectors of each transformer encoder are concatenated, and a matrix is produced  The convolutional operation is performed with a window of size (3, hidden size of BERT which is 768 in BERTbase model) and the maximum value is generated for each transformer encoder by applying max pooling on the convolution output  By concatenating these values, a vector is generated which is given as input to a fully connected network  By applying softmax on the input, the classification operation is performed 
Experiments and Results
We first introduce datasets used in our study and then investigate the different fine-tuning strategies for hate speech detection task  We also include the details of our implementation and error analysis in the respective subsections 
Experiments and Results ::: Dataset Description
We evaluate our method on two widely-studied datasets provided by Waseem and Hovey BIBREF5 and Davidson et al  BIBREF9  Waseem and Hovy BIBREF5 collected $16k$ of tweets based on an initial ad-hoc approach that searched common slurs and terms related to religious, sexual, gender, and ethnic minorities  They annotated their dataset manually as racism, sexism, or neither  To extend this dataset, Waseem BIBREF23 also provided another dataset containing $6 9k$ of tweets annotated with both expert and crowdsourcing users as racism, sexism, neither, or both  Since both datasets are overlapped partially and they used the same strategy in definition of hateful content, we merged these two datasets following Waseem et al  BIBREF10 to make our imbalance data a bit larger  Davidson et al  BIBREF9 used the Twitter API to accumulate 84 4 million tweets from 33,458 twitter users containing particular terms from a pre-defined lexicon of hate speech words and phrases, called Hatebased org  To annotate collected tweets as Hate, Offensive, or Neither, they randomly sampled $25k$ tweets and asked users of CrowdFlower crowdsourcing platform to label them  In detail, the distribution of different classes in both datasets will be provided in Subsection SECREF15 
Experiments and Results ::: Pre-Processing
We find mentions of users, numbers, hashtags, URLs and common emoticons and replace them with the tokens <user>,<number>,<hashtag>,<url>,<emoticon>  We also find elongated words and convert them into short and standard format; for example, converting yeeeessss to yes  With hashtags that include some tokens without any with space between them, we replace them by their textual counterparts; for example, we convert hashtag “#notsexist" to “not sexist"  All punctuation marks, unknown uni-codes and extra delimiting characters are removed, but we keep all stop words because our model trains the sequence of words in a text directly  We also convert all tweets to lower case 
Experiments and Results ::: Implementation and Results Analysis
For the implementation of our neural network, we used pytorch-pretrained-bert library containing the pre-trained BERT model, text tokenizer, and pre-trained WordPiece

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

three

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What evidence do the authors present that the model can capture some biases in data annotation and collection?
Context 3:  As the implementation environment, we use Google Colaboratory tool which is a free research tool with a Tesla K80 GPU and 12G RAM  Based on our experiments, we trained our classifier with a batch size of 32 for 3 epochs  The dropout probability is set to 0 1 for all layers  Adam optimizer is used with a learning rate of 2e-5  As an input, we tokenized each tweet with the BERT tokenizer  It contains invalid characters removal, punctuation splitting, and lowercasing the words  Based on the original BERT BIBREF11, we split words to subword units using WordPiece tokenization  As tweets are short texts, we set the maximum sequence length to 64 and in any shorter or longer length case it will be padded with zero values or truncated to the maximum length 
We consider 80% of each dataset as training data to update the weights in the fine-tuning phase, 10% as validation data to measure the out-of-sample performance of the model during training, and 10% as test data to measure the out-of-sample performance after training  To prevent overfitting, we use stratified sampling to select 0 8, 0 1, and 0 1 portions of tweets from each class (racism/sexism/neither or hate/offensive/neither) for train, validation, and test  Classes' distribution of train, validation, and test datasets are shown in Table TABREF16 
As it is understandable from Tables TABREF16(classdistributionwaseem) and TABREF16(classdistributiondavidson), we are dealing with imbalance datasets with various classes’ distribution  Since hate speech and offensive languages are real phenomena, we did not perform oversampling or undersampling techniques to adjust the classes’ distribution and tried to supply the datasets as realistic as possible  We evaluate the effect of different fine-tuning strategies on the performance of our model  Table TABREF17 summarized the obtained results for fine-tuning strategies along with the official baselines  We use Waseem and Hovy BIBREF5, Davidson et al  BIBREF9, and Waseem et al  BIBREF10 as baselines and compare the results with our different fine-tuning strategies using pre-trained BERTbase model  The evaluation results are reported on the test dataset and on three different metrics: precision, recall, and weighted-average F1-score  We consider weighted-average F1-score as the most robust metric versus class imbalance, which gives insight into the performance of our proposed models  According to Table TABREF17, F1-scores of all BERT based fine-tuning strategies except BERT + nonlinear classifier on top of BERT are higher than the baselines  Using the pre-trained BERT model as initial embeddings and fine-tuning the model with a fully connected linear classifier (BERTbase) outperforms previous baselines yielding F1-score of 81% and 91% for datasets of Waseem and Davidson respectively  Inserting a CNN to pre-trained BERT model for fine-tuning on downstream task provides the best results as F1- score of 88% and 92% for datasets of Waseem and Davidson and it clearly exceeds the baselines  Intuitively, this makes sense that combining all pre-trained BERT layers with a CNN yields better results in which our model uses all the information included in different layers of pre-trained BERT during the fine-tuning phase  This information contains both syntactical and contextual features coming from lower layers to higher layers of BERT 
Experiments and Results ::: Error Analysis
Although we have very interesting results in term of recall, the precision of the model shows the portion of false detection we have  To understand better this phenomenon, in this section we perform a deep analysis on the error of the model  We investigate the test datasets and their confusion matrices resulted from the BERTbase + CNN model as the best fine-tuning approach; depicted in Figures FIGREF19 and FIGREF19  According to Figure FIGREF19 for Waseem-dataset, it is obvious that the model can separate sexism from racism content properly  Only two samples belonging to racism class are misclassified as sexism and none of the sexism samples are misclassified as racism  A large majority of the errors come from misclassifying hateful categories (racism and sexism) as hatless (neither) and vice versa  0 9% and 18 5% of all racism samples are misclassified as sexism and neither respectively whereas it is 0% and 12 7% for sexism samples  Almost 12% of neither samples are misclassified as racism or sexism  As Figure FIGREF19 makes clear for Davidson-dataset, the majority of errors are related to hate class where the model misclassified hate content as offensive in 63% of the cases  However, 2 6% and 7 9% of offensive and neither samples are misclassified respectively 
To understand better the mislabeled items by our model, we did a manual inspection on a subset of the data and record some of them in Tables TABREF20 and TABREF21  Considering the words such as “daughters", “women", and “burka" in tweets with IDs 1 and 2 in Table TABREF20, it can be understood that our BERT based classifier is confused with the contextual semantic between these words in the samples and misclassified them as sexism because they are mainly associated to femininity  In some cases containing implicit abuse (like subtle insults) such as tweets with IDs 5 and 7, our model cannot capture the hateful/offensive content and therefore misclassifies  It should be noticed that even for a human it is difficult to discriminate against this kind of implicit abuses 
By examining more samples and with respect to recently studies BIBREF2, BIBREF24, BIBREF19, it is clear that many errors are due to biases from data collection BIBREF19 and rules of annotation BIBREF24 and not the classifier itself  Since Waseem et al BIBREF5 created a small ad-hoc set of keywords and Davidson et al BIBREF9 used a large crowdsourced dictionary of keywords (Hatebase lexicon) to sample tweets for training, they included some biases in the collected data  Especially for Davidson-dataset, some tweets with specific language (written within the African American Vernacular English) and geographic restriction (United States of America) are oversampled such as tweets containing disparage words “nigga", “faggot", “coon", or “queer", result in high rates of misclassification  However, these misclassifications do not confirm the low performance of our classifier because annotators tended to annotate many samples containing disrespectful words as hate or offensive without any presumption about the social context of tweeters such as the speaker’s identity or dialect, whereas they were just offensive or even neither tweets  Tweets IDs 6, 8, and 10 are some samples containing offensive words and slurs which arenot hate or offensive in all cases and writers of them used this type of language in their daily communications  Given these pieces of evidence, by considering the content of tweets, we can see in tweets IDs 3, 4, and 9 that our BERT-based classifier can discriminate tweets in which neither and implicit hatred content exist  One explanation of this observation may be the pre-trained general knowledge that exists in our model  Since the pre-trained BERT model is trained on general corpora, it has learned general knowledge from normal textual data without any purposely hateful or offensive language  Therefore, despite the bias in the data, our model can differentiate hate and offensive samples accurately by leveraging knowledge-aware language understanding that it has and it can be the main reason for high misclassifications of hate samples as offensive (in reality they are more similar to offensive rather than hate by considering social context, geolocation, and dialect of tweeters) 
Conclusion
Conflating hatred content with offensive or harmless language causes online automatic hate speech detection tools to flag user-generated content incorrectly  Not addressing this problem may bring about severe negative consequences for both platforms and users such as decreasement of platforms' reputation or users abandonment  Here, we propose a transfer learning approach advantaging the pre-trained language model BERT to enhance the performance of a hate speech detection system and to generalize it to new datasets  To that end, we introduce new fine-tuning strategies to examine the effect of different layers of BERT in hate speech detection task  The evaluation results indicate that our model outperforms previous works by profiting the syntactical and contextual information embedded in different transformer encoder layers of the BERT model using a CNN-based fine-tuning strategy  Furthermore, examining the results shows the ability of our model to detect some biases in the process of collecting or annotating datasets  It can be a valuable clue in using the pre-trained BERT model to alleviate bias in hate speech datasets in future studies, by investigating a mixture of contextual information embedded in the BERT’s layers and a set of features associated to the different type of biases in data 

ground_truth: The authors showed few tweets where neither and implicit hatred content exist but the model was able to discriminate