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 do the authors evidence the claim that many engineers find it a big overhead to choose from multiple frameworks, models and optimization techniques?
Context 1: Introduction
Deep Neural Networks (DNN) have been widely employed in industry for solving various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, such as text classification, sequence labeling, question answering, etc  However, when engineers apply DNN models to address specific NLP tasks, they often face the following challenges 
The above challenges often hinder the productivity of engineers, and result in less optimal solutions to their given tasks  This motivates us to develop an NLP toolkit for DNN models, which facilitates engineers to develop DNN approaches  Before designing this NLP toolkit, we conducted a survey among engineers and identified a spectrum of three typical personas 
To satisfy the requirements of all the above three personas, the NLP toolkit has to be generic enough to cover as many tasks as possible  At the same time, it also needs to be flexible enough to allow alternative network architectures as well as customized modules  Therefore, we analyzed the NLP jobs submitted to a commercial centralized GPU cluster  Table TABREF11 showed that about 87 5% NLP related jobs belong to a few common tasks, including sentence classification, text matching, sequence labeling, MRC, etc  It further suggested that more than 90% of the networks were composed of several common components, such as embedding, CNN/RNN, Transformer and so on 
Based on the above observations, we developed NeuronBlocks, a DNN toolkit for NLP tasks  The basic idea is to provide two layers of support to the engineers  The upper layer targets common NLP tasks  For each task, the toolkit contains several end-to-end network templates, which can be immediately instantiated with simple configuration  The bottom layer consists of a suite of reusable and standard components, which can be adopted as building blocks to construct networks with complex architecture  By following the interface guidelines, users can also contribute to this gallery of components with their own modules 
The technical contributions of NeuronBlocks are summarized into the following three aspects 
Related Work
There are several general-purpose deep learning frameworks, such as TensorFlow, PyTorch and Keras, which have gained popularity in NLP community  These frameworks offer huge flexibility in DNN model design and support various NLP tasks  However, building models under these frameworks requires a large overhead of mastering these framework details  Therefore, higher level abstraction to hide the framework details is favored by many engineers 
There are also several popular deep learning toolkits in NLP, including OpenNMT BIBREF0 , AllenNLP BIBREF1 etc  OpenNMT is an open-source toolkit mainly targeting neural machine translation or other natural language generation tasks  AllenNLP provides several pre-built models for NLP tasks, such as semantic role labeling, machine comprehension, textual entailment, etc  Although these toolkits reduce the development cost, they are limited to certain tasks, and thus not flexible enough to support new network architectures or new components 
Design
The Neuronblocks is built on PyTorch  The overall framework is illustrated in Figure FIGREF16   It consists of two layers: the Block Zoo and the Model Zoo  In Block Zoo, the most commonly used components of deep neural networks are categorized into several groups according to their functions  Within each category, several alternative components are encapsulated into standard and reusable blocks with a consistent interface  These blocks serve as basic and exchangeable units to construct complex network architectures for different NLP tasks  In Model Zoo, the most popular NLP tasks are identified  For each task, several end-to-end network templates are provided in the form of JSON configuration files  Users can simply browse these configurations and choose one or more to instantiate  The whole task can be completed without any coding efforts 
Block Zoo
We recognize the following major functional categories of neural network components  Each category covers as many commonly used modules as possible  The Block Zoo is an open framework, and more modules can be added in the future 
[itemsep= -0 4em,topsep = 0 3em, align=left, labelsep=-0 6em, leftmargin=1 2em]
Embedding Layer: Word/character embedding and extra handcrafted feature embedding such as pos-tagging are supported 
Neural Network Layers: Block zoo provides common layers like RNN, CNN, QRNN BIBREF2 , Transformer BIBREF3 , Highway network, Encoder Decoder architecture, etc  Furthermore, attention mechanisms are widely used in neural networks  Thus we also support multiple attention layers, such as Linear/Bi-linear Attention, Full Attention BIBREF4 , Bidirectional attention flow BIBREF5 , etc  Meanwhile, regularization layers such as Dropout, Layer Norm, Batch Norm, etc are also supported for improving generalization ability 
Loss Function: Besides of the loss functions built in PyTorch, we offer more options such as Focal Loss BIBREF6  
Metrics: For classification task, AUC, Accuracy, Precision/Recall, F1 metrics are supported  For sequence labeling task, F1/Accuracy are supported  For knowledge distillation task, MSE/RMSE are supported  For MRC task, ExactMatch/F1 are supported 
Model Zoo
In NeuronBlocks, we identify four types of most popular NLP tasks  For each task, we provide various end-to-end network templates 
[itemsep= -0 4em,topsep = 0 3em, align=left, labelsep=-0 6em, leftmargin=1 2em]
Text Classification and Matching  Tasks such as domain/intent classification, question answer matching are supported 
Sequence Labeling  Predict each token in a sequence into predefined types  Common tasks include NER, POS tagging, Slot tagging, etc 
Knowledge Distillation BIBREF7   Teacher-Student based knowledge distillation is one common approach for model compression  NeuronBlocks provides knowledge distillation template to improve the inference speed of heavy DNN models like BERT/GPT 
Extractive Machine Reading Comprehension  Given a pair of question and passage, predict the start and end positions of the answer spans in the passage 
User Interface
NeuronBlocks provides convenient user interface for users to build, train, and test DNN models  The details are described in the following 
[itemsep= -0 4em,topsep = 0 3em, align=left, labelsep=-0 6em, leftmargin=1 2em]
I/O interface  This part defines model input/output, such as training data, pre-trained models/embeddings, model saving path, etc 
Model Architecture interface  This is the key part of the configuration file, which defines the whole model architecture  Figure FIGREF19 shows an example of how to specify a model architecture using the blocks in NeuronBlocks  To be more specific, it consists of a list of layers/blocks to construct the architecture, where the blocks are supplied in the gallery of Block Zoo 
Training Parameters interface  In this part, the model optimizer as well as all other training hyper parameters are indicated 
Workflow
Figure FIGREF34 shows the workflow of building DNN models in NeuronBlocks  Users only need to write a JSON configuration file  They can either instantiate an existing template from Model Zoo, or construct a new architecture based on the blocks from Block Zoo  This configuration file is shared across training, test, and prediction  For model hyper-parameter tuning or architecture modification, users just need to change the JSON configuration file  Advanced users can also contribute novel customized blocks into Block Zoo, as long as they follow the same interface guidelines with the existing blocks  These new blocks can be further shared across all users for model architecture design  Moreover, NeuronBlocks has flexible platform support, such as GPU/CPU, GPU management platforms like PAI 
Experiments
To verify the performance of NeuronBlocks, we conducted extensive experiments for common NLP tasks on public data sets including CoNLL-2003 BIBREF14 , GLUE benchmark BIBREF13 , and WikiQA corpus BIBREF15   The experimental results showed that the models built with NeuronBlocks can achieve reliable and competitive results on various tasks, with productivity greatly improved 
Sequence Labeling
For sequence labeling task, we evaluated NeuronBlocks on CoNLL-2003 BIBREF14 English NER dataset, following most works on the same task  This dataset includes four types of named entities, namely, PERSON, LOCATION, ORGANIZATION, and MISC  We adopted the BIOES tagging scheme instead of IOB, as many previous works indicated meaningful improvement with BIOES scheme BIBREF16 , BIBREF17   Table TABREF28 shows the results on CoNLL-2003 Englist testb dataset, with 12 different combinations of network layers/blocks, such as word/character embedding, CNN/LSTM and CRF  The results suggest that the flexible combination of layers/blocks in NeuronBlocks can easily reproduce the performance of original models, with comparative or slightly better performance 
GLUE Benchmark
The General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark BIBREF13 is a collection of natural language understanding tasks  We experimented on the GLUE benchmark tasks using BiLSTM and Attention based models  As shown in Table TABREF29 , the models built by NeuronBlocks can achieve competitive or even better results on GLUE tasks with minimal coding efforts 
Knowledge Distillation
We evaluated Knowledge Distillation task in NeuronBlocks on a dataset collected from one commercial search engine  We refer to this dataset as Domain Classification Dataset  Each sample in this dataset consists of two parts, i e , a question and a binary label indicating whether the question belongs to a specific domain  Table TABREF36 shows the results, where Area Under Curve (AUC) metric is used as the performance evaluation criteria and Queries per Second (QPS) is used to measure inference speed  By knowledge distillation training approach, the student model by NeuronBlocks managed to get 23-27 times inference speedup with only small performance regression compared with BERTbase fine-tuned classifier 
WikiQA
The WikiQA corpus BIBREF15 is a publicly available dataset for open-domain question answering  This dataset contains 3,047 questions from Bing query logs, each associated with some candidate answer sentences from Wikipedia  We conducted experiments on WikiQA dataset using CNN, BiLSTM, and Attention based models  The results are shown in Table TABREF41   The models built in NeuronBlocks achieved competitive or even better results with simple model configurations 
Conclusion and Future Work
In this paper, we introduce NeuronBlocks, a DNN toolkit for NLP tasks built on PyTorch  NeuronBlocks targets three types of engineers, and provides a two-layer solution to satisfy the requirements from all three types of users  To be more specific, the Model Zoo consists of various templates for the most common NLP tasks, while the Block Zoo supplies a gallery of alternative layers/modules for the networks  Such design achieves a balance between generality and flexibility  Extensive experiments have verified the effectiveness of this approach  NeuronBlocks has been widely used in a product team of a commercial search engine, and significantly improved the productivity for developing NLP DNN approaches 
As an open-source toolkit, we will further extend it in various directions  The following names a few examples 
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

ground_truth: By conducting a survey among engineers

Unanswerable

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 do they define robustness of a model?
Context 2:  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
Deep neural networks (DNNs), in particular convolutional and recurrent neural networks, with huge architectures have been proven successful in wide range of tasks including audio processing such as speech to text [1 - 4], emotion recognition [5 - 8], speech/non-speech (e g , of non-speech include noise, music, etc ,) classification [9 - 12], etc 
Training these deep architectures require large amount of annotated data, as a result, they cannot be used in low data resource scenarios which is common in speech-based applications [13 - 15]  Apart from collecting large data corpus, annotating the data is also very difficult, and requires manual supervision and efforts  Especially, annotation of speech for tasks like emotion recognition also suffer from lack of agreement among the annotators [16]  Hence, there is a need to build reliable systems that can work in low resource scenario 
In this work, we propose a novel approach to address the task of classification in low data resource scenarios  Our approach involves simultaneously considering more than one sample (in this work, two samples are considered) to train the classifier  We call this approach as simultaneous two sample learning (s2sL)  The proposed approach is also applicable to low resource data suffering with data imbalance  The contributions of this paper are:
Proposed approach
The s2sL approach proposed to address low data resource problem is explained in this Section  In this work, we use MLP (modified to handle our data representation) as the base classifier  Here, we explain the s2sL approach by considering two-class classification task 
Data representation
Consider a two-class classification task with INLINEFORM0 denoting the set of class labels, and let INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 be the number of samples corresponding to INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 , respectively  In general, to train a classifier, the samples in the train set are provided as input-output pairs as follows  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 refers to the INLINEFORM1 -dimensional feature vector representing the INLINEFORM2 sample corresponding to INLINEFORM3 class label, and INLINEFORM4 , refers to output label of INLINEFORM5 class  In the proposed data representation format, called simultaneous two sample (s2s) representation, we will simultaneously consider two samples as follows  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 are the INLINEFORM2 -dimensional feature vectors representing the INLINEFORM3 sample in INLINEFORM4 class and INLINEFORM5 sample in the INLINEFORM6 class, respectively; and INLINEFORM7 , INLINEFORM8 refers to the output labels of INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 class, respectively 
Hence, in s2s data representation, we will have an input feature vector of length INLINEFORM0 i e , INLINEFORM1 , and output class labels as either INLINEFORM2 or INLINEFORM3   Each sample can be combined with all the samples (i e , with ( INLINEFORM4 ) samples) in the dataset  Therefore, by representing the data in the s2s format, the number of samples in the train set increases to INLINEFORM5 from INLINEFORM6 samples  We hypothesize that the s2s format is expected to help the network not only to learn the characteristics of the two classes separately, but also the difference and similarity in characteristics of the two classes 
Classifier training
MLP, the most commonly used feed forward neural network, is considered as the base classifier to validate our proposed s2s framework  Generally, MLPs are trained using the data format given by eq  INLINEFORM0   But to train the MLP on our s2s based data representation (as in eq  INLINEFORM1 ), the following modifications are made to the MLP architecture (refer to Figure FIGREF4 ) 
We have INLINEFORM0 units (instead of INLINEFORM1 units) in the input layer to accept the two samples i e , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 , simultaneously 
The structure of the hidden layer in this approach is similar to that of a regular MLP  The number of hidden layers and hidden units can be varied depending upon the complexity of the problem  The number of units in the hidden layer is selected empirically by varying the number of hidden units from 2 to twice the length of the input layer (i e , 2 to INLINEFORM0 ) and the unit at which the highest performance is obtained are selected  In this paper, we considered only a single hidden layer  Rectified linear units (ReLU) are used for hidden layer 
The output layer will consist of units equal to twice the considered number of classes in the classification task i e, the output layer will have four units for two-class classification task  The sigmoid activation function (not softmax) is used on the output layer units  Unlike regular MLP, we use sigmoid activation units in the output layer, with binary cross-entropy as the cost function, because the output labels in the proposed s2s based data representation will have more than one unit active at a time (not one-hot encoded output) and this condition cannot be handled using softmax function 
As can be seen from Figure FIGREF4 , the output layer in our proposed method has outputs INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 which corresponds to the outputs associated with the input feature vectors INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 , respectively  For a two-class classification problem, there will be four units in the output layer and the possible output labels are INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 , INLINEFORM7 corresponding to the class labels INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9 , respectively  This architecture is referred to as s2s-MLP  In s2sL, s2s-MLP is trained using the s2s data representation format  Further, the s2s-MLP is trained using adam optimizer 
Classifier testing
Generally, the feature vector corresponding to the test sample is provided as input to the trained MLP in the testing phase and the class label is decided based on the obtained output 
However, in s2sL method, the feature vector corresponding to the test sample should also be converted to the s2s data representation format to test the trained s2s-MLP  We propose a testing approach, where the given test sample is combined with a set of preselected reference samples, whose class label is known a priori, to generate multiple instances of the same test sample as follows  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 refer to the INLINEFORM2 -dimensional feature vector corresponding to the test sample and the INLINEFORM3 reference sample, respectively  INLINEFORM4 refers to the considered number of reference samples  These reference samples can be selected from any of the two classes 
For testing the s2s-MLP (as shown in Figure FIGREF4 ), each test sample INLINEFORM0 (same as ' INLINEFORM1 ' in (3)) is combined with all the INLINEFORM2 reference samples ( INLINEFORM3 ) to form INLINEFORM4 different instances of the same test sample INLINEFORM5   The corresponding outputs ( INLINEFORM6 ) obtained from s2s-MLP for the INLINEFORM7 generated instances of INLINEFORM8 are combined by voting-based decision approach to obtain the final decision INLINEFORM9   The class label that gets maximum votes is considered as the predicted output label 
Experiments
We validate the performance of the proposed s2sL by providing the preliminary results obtained on two different tasks namely, Speech/Music discrimination and emotion classification  We considered the GTZAN Music-Speech dataset [17], consisting of 120 audio files (60 speech and 60 music), for task of classifying speech and music  Each audio file (of 2 seconds duration) is represented using a 13-dimensional mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) vector, where each MFCC vector is the average of all the frame level (frame size of 30 msec and an overlap of 10 msec) MFCC vectors  It is to be noted that our main intention for this task is not better feature selection, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, in particular for low data scenarios 
The standard Berlin speech emotion database (EMO-DB) [18] consisting of 535 utterances corresponding to 7 different emotions is considered for the task of emotion classification  Each utterance is represented by a 19-dimensional feature vector obtained by using the feature selection algorithm from WEKA toolkit [19] on the 384-dimensional utterance level feature vector obtained using openSMILE toolkit [20]  For two class classification, we considered the two most confusing emotion pairs i e , (Neutral,Sad) and (Anger, Happy)  Data corresponding to Speech/Music classification (60 speech and 60 music samples) and Neutral/Sad classification (79 neutral and 62 sad utterances) is balanced whereas Anger/Happy classification task has data imbalance, with anger forming the majority class (127 samples) and happy forming the minority class (71 samples)  Therefore, we show the performance of s2sL on both, balanced and imbalanced datasets 
All experimental results are validated using 5-fold cross validation (80% of data for training and 20% for testing in each fold)  Further, to analyze the effectiveness of s2sL in low resource scenarios, different proportions of training data, within each fold, are considered to train the system  For this analysis, we considered 4 different proportions i e , INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 of the training data to train the classifier  For instance, INLINEFORM4 means considering only half of the original training data to train the classifier, and INLINEFORM5 means considering the complete training data  5-fold cross validation is considered for all data proportions  Accuracy (in %) is used as a performance measure for balanced data classification tasks (i e , Speech/Music classification and Neutral/Sad emotion classification), whereas the more preferred INLINEFORM6 measure [21] is used as a measure for imbalanced data classification task (i e , Anger/Happy emotion classification) 
Table TABREF14 show the results obtained for proposed s2sL approach in comparison to that of MLP for the tasks of Speech/Music and Neutral/Sad classification, by considering different proportions of training data  The values in Table TABREF14 are mean accuracies (in %) obtained by 5-fold cross validation  It can be observed from Table TABREF14 that for both tasks, s2sL method outperforms MLP, especially at low resource conditions  s2sL shows an absolute improvement in accuracy of INLINEFORM0 % and INLINEFORM1 % over MLP for Speech/Music and Neutral/Sad classification tasks, respectively, when INLINEFORM2 of the original training data is used in experiments 
Table TABREF14 show the results (in terms of INLINEFORM0 values) obtained for proposed s2sL approach in comparison to that of MLP for Anger/Happy classification (data imbalance problem)  Here, state-of-the-art methods i e , Eusboost [22] and MWMOTE [23] are also considered for comparison  It can be observed from Table TABREF14 that the s2sL method outperforms MLP, and also performs better than Eusboost and MWMOTE techniques on imbalanced data (around 3 % absolute improvement in INLINEFORM1 value for s2sL compared to MWMOTE, when INLINEFORM2 of the training data is considered)  In particular, at lower amounts of training data, s2sL outperforms all the other methods, illustrating its effectiveness even for low resourced data imbalance problems  s2sL method shows an absolute improvement of 6% ( INLINEFORM3 ) in INLINEFORM4 value over the second best ( INLINEFORM5 for MWMOTE), when only INLINEFORM6 of the training data is used 
Conclusions
In this paper, we introduced a novel s2s framework to effectively learn the class discriminative characteristics, even from low data resources  In this framework, more than one sample (here, two samples) are simultaneously considered to train the classifier  Further, this framework allows to generate multiple instances of the same test sample, by considering preselected reference samples, to achieve a more profound decision making  We illustrated the significance of our approach by providing the experimental results for two different tasks namely, speech/music discrimination and emotion classification  Further, we showed that the s2s framework can also handle the low resourced data imbalance problem 
References
[1] Hinton, G , Deng, L , Yu, D , Dahl, G  E , Mohamed, A  R , Jaitly, N , Senior, A , Vanhoucke, V , Nguyen, P , Sainath, T  N  & Kingsbury, B  (2012) Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups  IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pp  82–97 
[2] Vinyals, O , Ravuri, S  V  & Povey, D  (2012) Revisiting recurrent neural networks for robust ASR  In Proc  IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp  4085–4088 
[3] Lu, L , Zhang, X , Cho K  & Renals, S  (2015) A study of the recurrent neural network encoder-decoder for large vocabulary speech recognition  In Proc  INTERSPEECH, pp  3249–3253 
[4] Zhang, Y , Pezeshki, M , Brakel, P , Zhang, S , Bengio, C L Y  & Courville, A  (2017) Towards end-to-end speech recognition with deep convolutional neural networks  arXiv preprint, arXiv:1701 02720 
[5] Han, K , Yu, D  & Tashev, I  (2014) Speech emotion recognition using deep neural network and extreme learning machine  In Proc  Interspeech, pp  223–227 
[6] Trigeorgis, G , Ringeval, F , Brueckner, R , Marchi, E , Nicolaou, M  A , Schuller, B , & Zafeiriou, S  (2016) Adieu features? End-to-end speech emotion recognition using a deep convolutional recurrent network  In Proc  ICASSP, pp  5200–5204) 
[7] Huang, Che-Wei, & Shrikanth S  Narayanan  (2016) Attention Assisted Discovery of Sub-Utterance Structure in Speech Emotion Recognition  In Proc  INTERSPEECH, pp  1387–1391 
[8] Zhang, Z , Ringeval, F , Han, J , Deng, J , Marchi, E  & Schuller, B  (2016) Facing realism in spontaneous emotion recognition from speech: Feature enhancement by autoencoder with LSTM neural networks  In Proc  INTERSPEECH, pp  3593–3597 
[9] Scheirer, E  D  & Slaney, M  (2003) Multi-feature speech/music discrimination system  U S  Patent 6,570,991 
[10] Pikrakis, A  & Theodoridis S  (2014) Speech-music discrimination: A deep learning perspective  In Proc  European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), pp  616–620 
[11] Choi, K , Fazekas, G  & Sandler, M  (2016) Automatic tagging using deep convolutional neural networks  arXiv preprint, arXiv:1606 00298 
[12] Zazo Candil, R , Sainath, T N , Simko, G  & Parada, C  (2016) Feature learning with raw-waveform CLDNNs for Voice Activity Detection  In Proc  Interspeech, pp  3668–3672 
[13] Tian, L , Moore, JD  & Lai, C  (2015) Emotion recognition in spontaneous and acted dialogues  In Proc  International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp  698–704 
[14] Dumpala, S H , Chakraborty, R  & Kopparapu, S K  (2017) k-FFNN: A priori knowledge infused feed-forward neural networks  arXiv preprint, arXiv:1704 07055 
[15] Dumpala, S H , Chakraborty, R  & Kopparapu, S K  (2018) Knowledge-driven feed-forward neural network for audio affective content analysis  To appear in AAAI-2018 workshop on Affective Content Analysis 
[16] Deng, J , Zhang, Z , Marchi, E  & Schuller, B  (2013) Sparse autoencoder-based feature transfer learning for speech emotion recognition  In Proc  Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp  511–516 
[17] George Tzanetakis, Gtzan musicspeech  Availabe on-line at http://marsyas info/download/datasets 
[18] Burkhardt, F , Paeschke, A , Rolfes, M , Sendlmeier, W F  & Weiss, B  (2005) A database of german emotional speech  In Proc  Interspeech, pp  1517–1520 
[19] Hall, M , Frank, E , Holmes, G , Pfahringer, B , Reutemann, P  & Witten, I H  (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update  ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter, 11(1), pp  10–18 
[20] Eyben, F , Weninger, F , Gross, F  & Schuller, B  (2013) Recent developments in opensmile, the munich open-source multimedia feature extractor  In Proc  ACM international conference on Multimedia, pp  835–838 
[21] Maratea, A , Petrosino, A  & Manzo, M  (2014) Adjusted f-measure and kernel scaling for imbalanced data learning  Information Sciences 257:331–341 
[22] Galar, M , Fernandez, A , Barrenechea, E  & Herrera, F  (2013) Eusboost: Enhancing ensembles for highly imbalanced data-sets by evolutionary undersampling  Pattern Recognition 46(12):3460–3471 
[23] Barua, S , Islam, M  M , Yao, X  & Murase, K  (2014) Mwmote–majority weighted minority oversampling technique for imbalanced data set learning  IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 26(2):405–425 

ground_truth: ability to accurately classify texts even when the amount of prior knowledge for different classes is unbalanced, and when the class distribution of the dataset is unbalanced

Low sensitivity to bias in prior knowledge

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. Which models/frameworks do they compare to?
Context 4: 
The training dataset consists of the original CBT NE and CN data extended with new NE and CN examples  The new BookTest dataset hence contains INLINEFORM0 training examples and INLINEFORM1 tokens 
The validation dataset consists of INLINEFORM0 NE and INLINEFORM1 CN questions  We have one test set for NE and one for CN, each containing INLINEFORM2 examples  The training, validation and test sets were generated from non-overlapping sets of books 
When generating the dataset we removed all editions of books used to create CBT validation and test sets from our training dataset  Therefore the models trained on the BookTest corpus can be evaluated on the original CBT data and they can be compared with recent text-comprehension models utilizing this dataset BIBREF2 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11  
Baselines
We will now use our psr model to evaluate the performance gain from increasing the dataset size 
AS Reader
In BIBREF4 we introduced the psr , which at the time of publication significantly outperformed all other architectures on the CNN, DM and CBT datasets  This model is built to leverage the fact that the answer is a single word from the context document  Similarly to many other models it uses attention over the document – intuitively a measure of how relevant each word is to answering the question  However while most previous models used this attention as weights to calculate a blended representation of the answer word, we simply sum the attention across all occurrences of each unique words and then simply select the word with the highest sum as the final answer  While simple, this trick seems both to improve accuracy and to speed-up training  It was adopted by many subsequent models BIBREF8 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF24  
Let us now describe the model in more detail  Figure FIGREF21 may help you in understanding the following paragraphs 
The words from the document and the question are first converted into vector embeddings using a look-up matrix INLINEFORM0   The document is then read by a bidirectional GRU network BIBREF29   A concatenation of the hidden states of the forward and backward GRUs at each word is then used as a contextual embedding of this word, intuitively representing the context in which the word is appearing  We can also understand it as representing the set of questions to which this word may be an answer 
Similarly the question is read by a bidirectional GRU but in this case only the final hidden states are concatenated to form the question embedding 
The attention over each word in the context is then calculated as the dot product of its contextual embedding with the question embedding  This attention is then normalized by the softmax function and summed across all occurrences of each answer candidate  The candidate with most accumulated attention is selected as the final answer 
For a more detailed description of the model including equations check BIBREF4   More details about the training setup and model hyperparameters can be found in the Appendix 
During our past experiments on the CNN, DM and CBT datasets BIBREF4 each unique word from the training, validation and test datasets had its row in the look-up matrix INLINEFORM0   However as we radically increased the dataset size, this would result in an extremely large number of model parameters so we decided to limit the vocabulary size to INLINEFORM1 most frequent words  For each example, each unique out-of-vocabulary word is now mapped on one of 1000 anonymous tokens which are randomly initialized and untrained  Fixing the embeddings of these anonymous tags proved to significantly improve the performance 
While mostly using the original AS Reader model, we have also tried introducing a minor tweak in some instances of the model  We tried initializing the context encoder GRU's hidden state by letting the encoder read the question first before proceeding to read the context document  Intuitively this allows the encoder to know in advance what to look for when reading over the context document 
Including models of this kind in the ensemble helped to improve the performance 
Results
Table TABREF25 shows the accuracy of the psr and other architectures on the CBT validation and test data  The last two rows show the performance of the psr trained on the BookTest dataset; all the other models have been trained on the original CBT training data 
If we take the best psr ensemble trained on CBT as a baseline, improving the model architecture as in BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , continuing to use the original CBT training data, lead to improvements of INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 absolute on named entities and common nouns respectively  By contrast, inflating the training dataset provided a boost of INLINEFORM2 while using the same model  The ensemble of our models even exceeded the human baseline provided by Facebook BIBREF2 on the Common Noun dataset 
Our model takes approximately two weeks to converge when trained on the BookTest dataset on a single Nvidia Tesla K40 GPU 
Discussion
Embracing the abundance of data may mean focusing on other aspects of system design than with smaller data  Here are some of the challenges that we need to face in this situation 
Firstly, since the amount of data is practically unlimited – we could even generate them on the fly resulting in continuous learning similar to the Never-Ending Language Learning by Carnegie Mellon University BIBREF30 – it is now the speed of training that determines how much data the model is able to see  Since more training data significantly help the model performance, focusing on speeding up the algorithm may be more important than ever before  This may for instance influence the decision whether to use regularization such as dropout which does seem to somewhat improve the model performance, however usually at a cost of slowing down training 
Thanks to its simplicity, the psr seems to be training fast - for example around seven times faster than the models proposed by Chen et al  BIBREF5   Hence the psr may be particularly suitable for training on large datasets 
The second challenge is how to generalize the performance gains from large data to a specific target domain  While there are huge amounts of natural language data in general, it may not be the case in the domain where we may want to ultimately apply our model 
Hence we are usually not facing a scenario of simply using a larger amount of the same training data, but rather extending training to a related domain of data, hoping that some of what the model learns on the new data will still help it on the original task 
This is highlighted by our observations from applying a model trained on the BookTest to Children's Book Test test data  If we move model training from joint CBT NE+CN training data to a subset of the BookTest of the same size (230k examples), we see a drop in accuracy of around 10% on the CBT test datasets 
Hence even though the Children's Book Test and BookTest datasets are almost as close as two disjoint datasets can get, the transfer is still very imperfect   Rightly choosing data to augment the in-domain training data is certainly a problem worth exploring in future work 
Our results show that given enough data the AS Reader was able to exceed the human performance on CBT CN reported by Facebook  However we hypothesized that the system is still not achieving its full potential so we decided to examine the room for improvement in our own small human study 
Human Study
After adding more data we have the performance on the CBT validation and test datasets soaring  However is there still potential for much further growth beyond the results we have observed?
We decided to explore the remaining space for improvement on the CBT by testing humans on a random subset of 50 named entity and 50 common noun validation questions that the psr ensemble could not answer correctly  These questions were answered by 10 non-native English speakers from our research laboratory, each on a disjoint subset of questions   Participants had unlimited time to answer the questions and were told that these questions were not correctly answered by a machine, providing additional motivation to prove they are better than computers  The results of the human study are summarized in Table TABREF28   They show that a majority of questions that our system could not answer so far are in fact answerable  This suggests that 1) the original human baselines might have been underestimated, however, it might also be the case that there are some examples that can be answered by machines and not by humans; 2) there is still space for improvement 
A system that would answer correctly every time when either our ensemble or human answered correctly would achieve accuracy over 92% percent on both validation and test NE datasets and over 96% on both CN datasets  Hence it still makes sense to use CBT dataset to study further improvements of text-comprehension systems 
Conclusion
Few ways of improving model performance are as solidly established as using more training data  Yet we believe this principle has been somewhat neglected by recent research in text comprehension  While there is a practically unlimited amount of data available in this field, most research was performed on unnecessarily small datasets 
As a gentle reminder to the community we have shown that simply infusing a model with more data can yield performance improvements of up to INLINEFORM0 where several attempts to improve the model architecture on the same training data have given gains of at most INLINEFORM1 compared to our best ensemble result  Yes, experiments on small datasets certainly can bring useful insights  However we believe that the community should also embrace the real-world scenario of data abundance 
The BookTest dataset we are proposing gives the reading-comprehension community an opportunity to make a step in that direction 
Training Details
The training details are similar to those in BIBREF4 however we are including them here for completeness 
To train the model we used stochastic gradient descent with the ADAM update rule BIBREF32 and learning rates of INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2   The best learning rate in our experiments was INLINEFORM3   We minimized negative log-likelihood as the training objective 
The initial weights in the word-embedding matrix were drawn randomly uniformly from the interval INLINEFORM0   Weights in the GRU networks were initialized by random orthogonal matrices BIBREF34 and biases were initialized to zero  We also used a gradient clipping BIBREF33 threshold of 10 and batches of sizes between 32 or 256  Increasing the batch from 32 to 128 seems to significantly improve performance on the large dataset - something we did not observe on the original CBT data  Increasing the batch size much above 128 is currently difficult due to memory constraints of the GPU 
During training we randomly shuffled all examples at the beginning of each epoch  To speed up training, we always pre-fetched 10 batches worth of examples and sorted them according to document length  Hence each batch contained documents of roughly the same length 
We also did not use pre-trained word embeddings 
We did not perform any text pre-processing since the datasets were already tokenized 
During training we evaluated the model performance every 12 hours and at the end of each epoch and stopped training when the error on the 20k BookTest validation set started increasing  We explored the hyperparameter space by training 67 different models The region of the parameter space that we explored together with the parameters of the model with best validation accuracy are summarized in Table TABREF29  
Our model was implemented using Theano BIBREF31 and Blocks BIBREF35  
The ensembles were formed by simply averaging the predictions from the constituent single models  These single models were selected using the following algorithm 
We started with the best performing model according to validation performance  Then in each step we tried adding the best performing model that had not been previously tried  We kept it in the ensemble if it did improve its validation performance and discarded it otherwise  This way we gradually tried each model once  We call the resulting model a greedy ensemble  We used the INLINEFORM0 BookTest validation dataset for this procedure 
The algorithm was offered 10 models and selected 5 of them for the final ensemble 

ground_truth: MLP

Eusboost, MWMOTE