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 metrics are used for evaluation?
Context 1: Introduction
In the kitchen, we increasingly rely on instructions from cooking websites: recipes  A cook with a predilection for Asian cuisine may wish to prepare chicken curry, but may not know all necessary ingredients apart from a few basics  These users with limited knowledge cannot rely on existing recipe generation approaches that focus on creating coherent recipes given all ingredients and a recipe name BIBREF0  Such models do not address issues of personal preference (e g  culinary tastes, garnish choices) and incomplete recipe details  We propose to approach both problems via personalized generation of plausible, user-specific recipes using user preferences extracted from previously consumed recipes 
Our work combines two important tasks from natural language processing and recommender systems: data-to-text generation BIBREF1 and personalized recommendation BIBREF2  Our model takes as user input the name of a specific dish, a few key ingredients, and a calorie level  We pass these loose input specifications to an encoder-decoder framework and attend on user profiles—learned latent representations of recipes previously consumed by a user—to generate a recipe personalized to the user's tastes  We fuse these `user-aware' representations with decoder output in an attention fusion layer to jointly determine text generation  Quantitative (perplexity, user-ranking) and qualitative analysis on user-aware model outputs confirm that personalization indeed assists in generating plausible recipes from incomplete ingredients 
While personalized text generation has seen success in conveying user writing styles in the product review BIBREF3, BIBREF4 and dialogue BIBREF5 spaces, we are the first to consider it for the problem of recipe generation, where output quality is heavily dependent on the content of the instructions—such as ingredients and cooking techniques 
To summarize, our main contributions are as follows:
We explore a new task of generating plausible and personalized recipes from incomplete input specifications by leveraging historical user preferences;
We release a new dataset of 180K+ recipes and 700K+ user reviews for this task;
We introduce new evaluation strategies for generation quality in instructional texts, centering on quantitative measures of coherence  We also show qualitatively and quantitatively that personalized models generate high-quality and specific recipes that align with historical user preferences 
Related Work
Large-scale transformer-based language models have shown surprising expressivity and fluency in creative and conditional long-text generation BIBREF6, BIBREF7  Recent works have proposed hierarchical methods that condition on narrative frameworks to generate internally consistent long texts BIBREF8, BIBREF9, BIBREF10  Here, we generate procedurally structured recipes instead of free-form narratives 
Recipe generation belongs to the field of data-to-text natural language generation BIBREF1, which sees other applications in automated journalism BIBREF11, question-answering BIBREF12, and abstractive summarization BIBREF13, among others  BIBREF14, BIBREF15 model recipes as a structured collection of ingredient entities acted upon by cooking actions  BIBREF0 imposes a `checklist' attention constraint emphasizing hitherto unused ingredients during generation  BIBREF16 attend over explicit ingredient references in the prior recipe step  Similar hierarchical approaches that infer a full ingredient list to constrain generation will not help personalize recipes, and would be infeasible in our setting due to the potentially unconstrained number of ingredients (from a space of 10K+) in a recipe  We instead learn historical preferences to guide full recipe generation 
A recent line of work has explored user- and item-dependent aspect-aware review generation BIBREF3, BIBREF4  This work is related to ours in that it combines contextual language generation with personalization  Here, we attend over historical user preferences from previously consumed recipes to generate recipe content, rather than writing styles 
Approach
Our model's input specification consists of: the recipe name as a sequence of tokens, a partial list of ingredients, and a caloric level (high, medium, low)  It outputs the recipe instructions as a token sequence: $\mathcal {W}_r=\lbrace w_{r,0}, \dots , w_{r,T}\rbrace $ for a recipe $r$ of length $T$  To personalize output, we use historical recipe interactions of a user $u \in \mathcal {U}$ 
Encoder: Our encoder has three embedding layers: vocabulary embedding $\mathcal {V}$, ingredient embedding $\mathcal {I}$, and caloric-level embedding $\mathcal {C}$  Each token in the (length $L_n$) recipe name is embedded via $\mathcal {V}$; the embedded token sequence is passed to a two-layered bidirectional GRU (BiGRU) BIBREF17, which outputs hidden states for names $\lbrace \mathbf {n}_{\text{enc},j} \in \mathbb {R}^{2d_h}\rbrace $, with hidden size $d_h$  Similarly each of the $L_i$ input ingredients is embedded via $\mathcal {I}$, and the embedded ingredient sequence is passed to another two-layered BiGRU to output ingredient hidden states as $\lbrace \mathbf {i}_{\text{enc},j} \in \mathbb {R}^{2d_h}\rbrace $  The caloric level is embedded via $\mathcal {C}$ and passed through a projection layer with weights $W_c$ to generate calorie hidden representation $\mathbf {c}_{\text{enc}} \in \mathbb {R}^{2d_h}$ 
Ingredient Attention: We apply attention BIBREF18 over the encoded ingredients to use encoder outputs at each decoding time step  We define an attention-score function $\alpha $ with key $K$ and query $Q$:
with trainable weights $W_{\alpha }$, bias $\mathbf {b}_{\alpha }$, and normalization term $Z$  At decoding time $t$, we calculate the ingredient context $\mathbf {a}_{t}^{i} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_h}$ as:
Decoder: The decoder is a two-layer GRU with hidden state $h_t$ conditioned on previous hidden state $h_{t-1}$ and input token $w_{r, t}$ from the original recipe text  We project the concatenated encoder outputs as the initial decoder hidden state:
To bias generation toward user preferences, we attend over a user's previously reviewed recipes to jointly determine the final output token distribution  We consider two different schemes to model preferences from user histories: (1) recipe interactions, and (2) techniques seen therein (defined in data)  BIBREF19, BIBREF20, BIBREF21 explore similar schemes for personalized recommendation 
Prior Recipe Attention: We obtain the set of prior recipes for a user $u$: $R^+_u$, where each recipe can be represented by an embedding from a recipe embedding layer $\mathcal {R}$ or an average of the name tokens embedded by $\mathcal {V}$  We attend over the $k$-most recent prior recipes, $R^{k+}_u$, to account for temporal drift of user preferences BIBREF22  These embeddings are used in the `Prior Recipe' and `Prior Name' models, respectively 
Given a recipe representation $\mathbf {r} \in \mathbb {R}^{d_r}$ (where $d_r$ is recipe- or vocabulary-embedding size depending on the recipe representation) the prior recipe attention context $\mathbf {a}_{t}^{r_u}$ is calculated as
Prior Technique Attention: We calculate prior technique preference (used in the `Prior Tech` model) by normalizing co-occurrence between users and techniques seen in $R^+_u$, to obtain a preference vector $\rho _{u}$  Each technique $x$ is embedded via a technique embedding layer $\mathcal {X}$ to $\mathbf {x}\in \mathbb {R}^{d_x}$  Prior technique attention is calculated as
where, inspired by copy mechanisms BIBREF23, BIBREF24, we add $\rho _{u,x}$ for technique $x$ to emphasize the attention by the user's prior technique preference 
Attention Fusion Layer: We fuse all contexts calculated at time $t$, concatenating them with decoder GRU output and previous token embedding:
We then calculate the token probability:
and maximize the log-likelihood of the generated sequence conditioned on input specifications and user preferences  fig:ex shows a case where the Prior Name model attends strongly on previously consumed savory recipes to suggest the usage of an additional ingredient (`cilantro') 
Recipe Dataset: Food com
We collect a novel dataset of 230K+ recipe texts and 1M+ user interactions (reviews) over 18 years (2000-2018) from Food com  Here, we restrict to recipes with at least 3 steps, and at least 4 and no more than 20 ingredients  We discard users with fewer than 4 reviews, giving 180K+ recipes and 700K+ reviews, with splits as in tab:recipeixnstats 
Our model must learn to generate from a diverse recipe space: in our training data, the average recipe length is 117 tokens with a maximum of 256  There are 13K unique ingredients across all recipes  Rare words dominate the vocabulary: 95% of words appear $<$100 times, accounting for only 1 65% of all word usage  As such, we perform Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenization BIBREF25, BIBREF26, giving a training vocabulary of 15K tokens across 19M total mentions  User profiles are similarly diverse: 50% of users have consumed $\le $6 recipes, while 10% of users have consumed $>$45 recipes 
We order reviews by timestamp, keeping the most recent review for each user as the test set, the second most recent for validation, and the remainder for training (sequential leave-one-out evaluation BIBREF27)  We evaluate only on recipes not in the training set 
We manually construct a list of 58 cooking techniques from 384 cooking actions collected by BIBREF15; the most common techniques (bake, combine, pour, boil) account for 36 5% of technique mentions  We approximate technique adherence via string match between the recipe text and technique list 
Experiments and Results
For training and evaluation, we provide our model with the first 3-5 ingredients listed in each recipe  We decode recipe text via top-$k$ sampling BIBREF7, finding $k=3$ to produce satisfactory results  We use a hidden size $d_h=256$ for both the encoder and decoder  Embedding dimensions for vocabulary, ingredient, recipe, techniques, and caloric level are 300, 10, 50, 50, and 5 (respectively)  For prior recipe attention, we set $k=20$, the 80th %-ile for the number of user interactions  We use the Adam optimizer BIBREF28 with a learning rate of $10^{-3}$, annealed with a decay rate of 0 9 BIBREF29  We also use teacher-forcing BIBREF30 in all training epochs 
In this work, we investigate how leveraging historical user preferences can improve generation quality over strong baselines in our setting  We compare our personalized models against two baselines  The first is a name-based Nearest-Neighbor model (NN)  We initially adapted the Neural Checklist Model of BIBREF0 as a baseline; however, we ultimately use a simple Encoder-Decoder baseline with ingredient attention (Enc-Dec), which provides comparable performance and lower complexity  All personalized models outperform baseline in BPE perplexity (tab:metricsontest) with Prior Name performing the best  While our models exhibit comparable performance to baseline in BLEU-1/4 and ROUGE-L, we generate more diverse (Distinct-1/2: percentage of distinct unigrams and bigrams) and acceptable recipes  BLEU and ROUGE are not the most appropriate metrics for generation quality  A `correct' recipe can be written in many ways with the same main entities (ingredients)  As BLEU-1/4 capture structural information via n-gram matching, they are not correlated with subjective recipe quality  This mirrors observations from BIBREF31, BIBREF8 
We observe that personalized models make more diverse recipes than baseline  They thus perform better in BLEU-1 with more key entities (ingredient mentions) present, but worse in BLEU-4, as these recipes are written in a personalized way and deviate from gold on the phrasal level  Similarly, the `Prior Name' model generates more unigram-diverse recipes than other personalized models and obtains a correspondingly lower BLEU-1 score 
Qualitative Analysis: We present sample outputs for a cocktail recipe in tab:samplerecipes, and additional recipes in the appendix  Generation quality progressively improves from generic baseline output to a blended cocktail produced by our best performing model  Models attending over prior recipes explicitly reference ingredients  The Prior Name model further suggests the addition of lemon and mint, which are reasonably associated with previously consumed recipes like coconut mousse and pork skewers 
Personalization: To measure personalization, we evaluate how closely the generated text corresponds to a particular user profile  We compute the likelihood of generated recipes using identical input specifications but conditioned on ten different user profiles—one `gold' user who consumed the original recipe, and nine randomly generated user profiles  Following BIBREF8, we expect the highest likelihood for the recipe conditioned on the gold user  We measure user matching accuracy (UMA)—the proportion where the gold user is ranked highest—and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) BIBREF32 of the gold user  All personalized models beat baselines in both metrics, showing our models personalize generated recipes to the given user profiles  The Prior Name model achieves the best UMA and MRR by a large margin, revealing that prior recipe names are strong signals for personalization  Moreover, the addition of attention mechanisms to capture these signals improves language modeling performance over a strong non-personalized baseline 
Recipe Level Coherence: A plausible recipe should possess a coherent step order, and we evaluate this via a metric for recipe-level coherence  We use the neural scoring model from BIBREF33 to measure recipe-level coherence for each generated recipe  Each recipe step is encoded by BERT BIBREF34  Our scoring model is a GRU network that learns the overall recipe step ordering structure by minimizing the cosine similarity of recipe step hidden representations presented in the correct and reverse orders  Once pretrained, our scorer calculates the similarity of a generated recipe to the forward and backwards ordering of its corresponding gold label, giving a score equal to the difference between the former and latter  A higher score indicates better step ordering (with a maximum score of 2)  tab:coherencemetrics shows that our personalized models achieve average recipe-level coherence scores of 1 78-1 82, surpassing the baseline at 1 77 
Recipe Step Entailment: Local coherence is also crucial to a user following a recipe: it is crucial that subsequent steps are logically consistent with prior ones  We model local coherence as an entailment task: predicting the likelihood that a recipe step follows the preceding  We sample several consecutive (positive) and non-consecutive (negative) pairs of steps from each recipe  We train a BERT BIBREF34 model to predict the entailment score of a pair of steps separated by a [SEP] token, using the final representation of the [CLS] token  The step entailment score is computed as the average of scores for each set of consecutive steps in each recipe, averaged over every generated recipe for a model, as shown in tab:coherencemetrics 
Human Evaluation: We presented 310 pairs of recipes for pairwise comparison BIBREF8 (details in appendix) between baseline and each personalized model, with results shown in tab:metricsontest  On average, human evaluators preferred personalized model outputs to baseline 63% of the time, confirming that personalized attention improves the semantic plausibility of generated recipes  We also performed a small-scale human coherence survey over 90 recipes, in which 60% of users found recipes generated by personalized models to be more coherent and preferable to those generated by baseline models 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a novel task: to generate personalized recipes from incomplete input specifications and user histories  On a large novel dataset of 180K recipes and 700K reviews, we show that our personalized generative models can generate plausible, personalized, and coherent recipes preferred by human evaluators for consumption  We also introduce a set of automatic coherence measures for instructional texts as well as personalization metrics to support our claims  Our future work includes generating structured representations of recipes to handle ingredient properties, as well as accounting for references to collections of ingredients (e g  “dry mix") 
Acknowledgements  This work is partly supported by NSF #1750063  We thank all reviewers for their constructive suggestions, as well as Rei M , Sujoy P , Alicia L , Eric H , Tim S , Kathy C , Allen C , and Micah I  for their feedback 
Appendix ::: Food com: Dataset Details
Our raw data consists of 270K recipes and 1 4M user-recipe interactions (reviews) scraped from Food com, covering a period of 18 years (January 2000 to December 2018)  See tab:int-stats for dataset summary statistics, and tab:samplegk for sample information about one user-recipe interaction and the recipe involved 
Appendix ::: Generated Examples
See tab:samplechx for a sample recipe for chicken chili and tab:samplewaffle for a sample recipe for sweet waffles 
Human Evaluation
We prepared a set of 15 pairwise comparisons per evaluation session, and collected 930 pairwise evaluations (310 per personalized model) over 62 sessions  For each pair, users were given a partial recipe specification (name and 3-5 key ingredients), as well as two generated recipes labeled `A' and `B'  One recipe is generated from our baseline encoder-decoder model and one recipe is generated by one of our three personalized models (Prior Tech, Prior Name, Prior Recipe)  The order of recipe presentation (A/B) is randomly selected for each question  A screenshot of the user evaluation interface is given in fig:exeval  We ask the user to indicate which recipe they find more coherent, and which recipe best accomplishes the goal indicated by the recipe name  A screenshot of this survey interface is given in fig:exeval2 
Context 2: Introduction
With the increasing popularity of the Internet, online texts provided by social media platform (e g  Twitter) and news media sites (e g  Google news) have become important sources of real-world events  Therefore, it is crucial to automatically extract events from online texts 
Due to the high variety of events discussed online and the difficulty in obtaining annotated data for training, traditional template-based or supervised learning approaches for event extraction are no longer applicable in dealing with online texts  Nevertheless, newsworthy events are often discussed by many tweets or online news articles  Therefore, the same event could be mentioned by a high volume of redundant tweets or news articles  This property inspires the research community to devise clustering-based models BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 to discover new or previously unidentified events without extracting structured representations 
To extract structured representations of events such as who did what, when, where and why, Bayesian approaches have made some progress  Assuming that each document is assigned to a single event, which is modeled as a joint distribution over the named entities, the date and the location of the event, and the event-related keywords, Zhou et al  zhou2014simple proposed an unsupervised Latent Event Model (LEM) for open-domain event extraction  To address the limitation that LEM requires the number of events to be pre-set, Zhou et al  zhou2017event further proposed the Dirichlet Process Event Mixture Model (DPEMM) in which the number of events can be learned automatically from data  However, both LEM and DPEMM have two limitations: (1) they assume that all words in a document are generated from a single event which can be represented by a quadruple INLINEFORM0 entity, location, keyword, date INLINEFORM1   However, long texts such news articles often describe multiple events which clearly violates this assumption; (2) During the inference process of both approaches, the Gibbs sampler needs to compute the conditional posterior distribution and assigns an event for each document  This is time consuming and takes long time to converge 
To deal with these limitations, in this paper, we propose the Adversarial-neural Event Model (AEM) based on adversarial training for open-domain event extraction  The principle idea is to use a generator network to learn the projection function between the document-event distribution and four event related word distributions (entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution)  Instead of providing an analytic approximation, AEM uses a discriminator network to discriminate between the reconstructed documents from latent events and the original input documents  This essentially helps the generator to construct a more realistic document from a random noise drawn from a Dirichlet distribution  Due to the flexibility of neural networks, the generator is capable of learning complicated nonlinear distributions  And the supervision signal provided by the discriminator will help generator to capture the event-related patterns  Furthermore, the discriminator also provides low-dimensional discriminative features which can be used to visualize documents and events 
The main contributions of the paper are summarized below:
Related Work
Our work is related to two lines of research, event extraction and Generative Adversarial Nets 
Event Extraction
Recently there has been much interest in event extraction from online texts, and approaches could be categorized as domain-specific and open-domain event extraction 
Domain-specific event extraction often focuses on the specific types of events (e g  sports events or city events)  Panem et al  panem2014structured devised a novel algorithm to extract attribute-value pairs and mapped them to manually generated schemes for extracting the natural disaster events  Similarly, to extract the city-traffic related event, Anantharam et al  anantharam2015extracting viewed the task as a sequential tagging problem and proposed an approach based on the conditional random fields  Zhang zhang2018event proposed an event extraction approach based on imitation learning, especially on inverse reinforcement learning 
Open-domain event extraction aims to extract events without limiting the specific types of events  To analyze individual messages and induce a canonical value for each event, Benson et al  benson2011event proposed an approach based on a structured graphical model  By representing an event with a binary tuple which is constituted by a named entity and a date, Ritter et al  ritter2012open employed some statistic to measure the strength of associations between a named entity and a date  The proposed system relies on a supervised labeler trained on annotated data  In BIBREF1 , Abdelhaq et al  developed a real-time event extraction system called EvenTweet, and each event is represented as a triple constituted by time, location and keywords  To extract more information, Wang el al  wang2015seeft developed a system employing the links in tweets and combing tweets with linked articles to identify events  Xia el al  xia2015new combined texts with the location information to detect the events with low spatial and temporal deviations  Zhou et al  zhou2014simple,zhou2017event represented event as a quadruple and proposed two Bayesian models to extract events from tweets 
Generative Adversarial Nets
As a neural-based generative model, Generative Adversarial Nets BIBREF3 have been extensively researched in natural language processing (NLP) community 
For text generation, the sequence generative adversarial network (SeqGAN) proposed in BIBREF4 incorporated a policy gradient strategy to optimize the generation process  Based on the policy gradient, Lin et al  lin2017adversarial proposed RankGAN to capture the rich structures of language by ranking and analyzing a collection of human-written and machine-written sentences  To overcome mode collapse when dealing with discrete data, Fedus et al  fedus2018maskgan proposed MaskGAN which used an actor-critic conditional GAN to fill in missing text conditioned on the surrounding context  Along this line, Wang et al  wang2018sentigan proposed SentiGAN to generate texts of different sentiment labels  Besides, Li et al  li2018learning improved the performance of semi-supervised text classification using adversarial training, BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 designed GAN-based models for distance supervision relation extraction 
Although various GAN based approaches have been explored for many applications, none of these approaches tackles open-domain event extraction from online texts  We propose a novel GAN-based event extraction model called AEM  Compared with the previous models, AEM has the following differences: (1) Unlike most GAN-based text generation approaches, a generator network is employed in AEM to learn the projection function between an event distribution and the event-related word distributions (entity, location, keyword, date)  The learned generator captures event-related patterns rather than generating text sequence; (2) Different from LEM and DPEMM, AEM uses a generator network to capture the event-related patterns and is able to mine events from different text sources (short and long)  Moreover, unlike traditional inference procedure, such as Gibbs sampling used in LEM and DPEMM, AEM could extract the events more efficiently due to the CUDA acceleration; (3) The discriminative features learned by the discriminator of AEM provide a straightforward way to visualize the extracted events 
Methodology
We describe Adversarial-neural Event Model (AEM) in this section  An event is represented as a quadruple < INLINEFORM0 >, where INLINEFORM1 stands for non-location named entities, INLINEFORM2 for a location, INLINEFORM3 for event-related keywords, INLINEFORM4 for a date, and each component in the tuple is represented by component-specific representative words 
AEM is constituted by three components: (1) The document representation module, as shown at the top of Figure FIGREF4 , defines a document representation approach which converts an input document from the online text corpus into INLINEFORM0 which captures the key event elements; (2) The generator INLINEFORM1 , as shown in the lower-left part of Figure FIGREF4 , generates a fake document INLINEFORM2 which is constituted by four multinomial distributions using an event distribution INLINEFORM3 drawn from a Dirichlet distribution as input; (3) The discriminator INLINEFORM4 , as shown in the lower-right part of Figure FIGREF4 , distinguishes the real documents from the fake ones and its output is subsequently employed as a learning signal to update the INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6   The details of each component are presented below 
Document Representation
Each document INLINEFORM0 in a given corpus INLINEFORM1 is represented as a concatenation of 4 multinomial distributions which are entity distribution ( INLINEFORM2 ), location distribution ( INLINEFORM3 ), keyword distribution ( INLINEFORM4 ) and date distribution ( INLINEFORM5 ) of the document  As four distributions are calculated in a similar way, we only describe the computation of the entity distribution below as an example 
The entity distribution INLINEFORM0 is represented by a normalized INLINEFORM1 -dimensional vector weighted by TF-IDF, and it is calculated as: INLINEFORM2
where INLINEFORM0 is the pseudo corpus constructed by removing all non-entity words from INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 is the total number of distinct entities in a corpus, INLINEFORM3 denotes the number of INLINEFORM4 -th entity appeared in document INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 represents the number of documents in the corpus, and INLINEFORM7 is the number of documents that contain INLINEFORM8 -th entity, and the obtained INLINEFORM9 denotes the relevance between INLINEFORM10 -th entity and document INLINEFORM11  
Similarly, location distribution INLINEFORM0 , keyword distribution INLINEFORM1 and date distribution INLINEFORM2 of INLINEFORM3 could be calculated in the same way, and the dimensions of these distributions are denoted as INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 , respectively  Finally, each document INLINEFORM7 in the corpus is represented by a INLINEFORM8 -dimensional ( INLINEFORM9 = INLINEFORM10 + INLINEFORM11 + INLINEFORM12 + INLINEFORM13 ) vector INLINEFORM14 by concatenating four computed distributions 
Network Architecture
The generator network INLINEFORM0 is designed to learn the projection function between the document-event distribution INLINEFORM1 and the four document-level word distributions (entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution) 
More concretely, INLINEFORM0 consists of a INLINEFORM1 -dimensional document-event distribution layer, INLINEFORM2 -dimensional hidden layer and INLINEFORM3 -dimensional event-related word distribution layer  Here, INLINEFORM4 denotes the event number, INLINEFORM5 is the number of units in the hidden layer, INLINEFORM6 is the vocabulary size and equals to INLINEFORM7 + INLINEFORM8 + INLINEFORM9 + INLINEFORM10   As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , INLINEFORM11 firstly employs a random document-event distribution INLINEFORM12 as an input  To model the multinomial property of the document-event distribution, INLINEFORM13 is drawn from a Dirichlet distribution parameterized with INLINEFORM14 which is formulated as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the hyper-parameter of the dirichlet distribution, INLINEFORM1 is the number of events which should be set in AEM, INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 represents the proportion of event INLINEFORM4 in the document and INLINEFORM5  
Subsequently, INLINEFORM0 transforms INLINEFORM1 into a INLINEFORM2 -dimensional hidden space using a linear layer followed by layer normalization, and the transformation is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 represents the weight matrix of hidden layer, and INLINEFORM1 denotes the bias term, INLINEFORM2 is the parameter of LeakyReLU activation and is set to 0 1, INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 denote the normalized hidden states and the outputs of the hidden layer, and INLINEFORM5 represents the layer normalization 
Then, to project INLINEFORM0 into four document-level event related word distributions ( INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 shown in Figure FIGREF4 ), four subnets (each contains a linear layer, a batch normalization layer and a softmax layer) are employed in INLINEFORM5   And the exact transformation is based on the formulas below: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 means softmax layer, INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 denote the weight matrices of the linear layers in subnets, INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 , INLINEFORM7 and INLINEFORM8 represent the corresponding bias terms, INLINEFORM9 , INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 and INLINEFORM12 are state vectors  INLINEFORM13 , INLINEFORM14 , INLINEFORM15 and INLINEFORM16 denote the generated entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution, respectively, that correspond to the given event distribution INLINEFORM17   And each dimension represents the relevance between corresponding entity/location/keyword/date term and the input event distribution 
Finally, four generated distributions are concatenated to represent the generated document INLINEFORM0 corresponding to the input INLINEFORM1 : DISPLAYFORM0
The discriminator network INLINEFORM0 is designed as a fully-connected network which contains an input layer, a discriminative feature layer (discriminative features are employed for event visualization) and an output layer  In AEM, INLINEFORM1 uses fake document INLINEFORM2 and real document INLINEFORM3 as input and outputs the signal INLINEFORM4 to indicate the source of the input data (lower value denotes that INLINEFORM5 is prone to predict the input data as a fake document and vice versa) 
As have previously been discussed in BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , lipschitz continuity of INLINEFORM0 network is crucial to the training of the GAN-based approaches  To ensure the lipschitz continuity of INLINEFORM1 , we employ the spectral normalization technique BIBREF9   More concretely, for each linear layer INLINEFORM2 (bias term is omitted for simplicity) in INLINEFORM3 , the weight matrix INLINEFORM4 is normalized by INLINEFORM5   Here, INLINEFORM6 is the spectral norm of the weight matrix INLINEFORM7 with the definition below: DISPLAYFORM0
which is equivalent to the largest singular value of INLINEFORM0 
Context 3: Introduction
Microblogging such as Twitter and Weibo is a popular social networking service, which allows users to post messages up to 140 characters  There are millions of active users on the platform who stay connected with friends  Unfortunately, spammers also use it as a tool to post malicious links, send unsolicited messages to legitimate users, etc  A certain amount of spammers could sway the public opinion and cause distrust of the social platform  Despite the use of rigid anti-spam rules, human-like spammers whose homepages having photos, detailed profiles etc  have emerged  Unlike previous "simple" spammers, whose tweets contain only malicious links, those "smart" spammers are more difficult to distinguish from legitimate users via content-based features alone BIBREF0  
There is a considerable amount of previous work on spammer detection on social platforms  Researcher from Twitter Inc  BIBREF1 collect bot accounts and perform analysis on the user behavior and user profile features  Lee et al  lee2011seven use the so-called social honeypot by alluring social spammers' retweet to build a benchmark dataset, which has been extensively explored in our paper  Some researchers focus on the clustering of urls in tweets and network graph of social spammers BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , showing the power of social relationship features As for content information modeling, BIBREF6 apply improved sparse learning methods  However, few studies have adopted topic-based features  Some researchers BIBREF7 discuss topic characteristics of spamming posts, indicating that spammers are highly likely to dwell on some certain topics such as promotion  But this may not be applicable to the current scenario of smart spammers 
In this paper, we propose an efficient feature extraction method  In this method, two new topic-based features are extracted and used to discriminate human-like spammers from legitimate users  We consider the historical tweets of each user as a document and use the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model to compute the topic distribution for each user  Based on the calculated topic probability, two topic-based features, the Local Outlier Standard Score (LOSS) which captures the user's interests on different topics and the Global Outlier Standard Score (GOSS) which reveals the user's interests on specific topic in comparison with other users', are extracted  The two features contain both local and global information, and the combination of them can distinguish human-like spammers effectively 
To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that features based on topic distributions are used in spammer classification  Experimental results on one public dataset and one self-collected dataset further validate that the two sets of extracted topic-based features get excellent performance on human-like spammer classification problem compared with other state-of-the-art methods  In addition, we build a Weibo dataset, which contains both legitimate users and spammers 
To summarize, our major contributions are two-fold:
In the following sections, we first propose the topic-based features extraction method in Section 2, and then introduce the two datasets in Section 3  Experimental results are discussed in Section 4, and we conclude the paper in Section 5  Future work is presented in Section 6 
Methodology
In this section, we first provide some observations we obtained after carefully exploring the social network, then the LDA model is introduced  Based on the LDA model, the ways to obtain the topic probability vector for each user and the two topic-based features are provided 
Observation
After exploring the homepages of a substantial number of spammers, we have two observations  1) social spammers can be divided into two categories  One is content polluters, and their tweets are all about certain kinds of advertisement and campaign  The other is fake accounts, and their tweets resemble legitimate users' but it seems they are simply random copies of others to avoid being detected by anti-spam rules  2) For legitimate users, content polluters and fake accounts, they show different patterns on topics which interest them 
Legitimate users mainly focus on limited topics which interest him  They seldom post contents unrelated to their concern 
Content polluters concentrate on certain topics 
Fake accounts focus on a wide range of topics due to random copying and retweeting of other users' tweets 
Spammers and legitimate users show different interests on some topics e g  commercial, weather, etc 
To better illustrate our observation, Figure  1 shows the topic distribution of spammers and legitimate users in two employed datasets(the Honeypot dataset and Weibo dataset)  We can see that on both topics (topic-3 and topic-11) there exists obvious difference between the red bars and green bars, representing spammers and legitimate users  On the Honeypot dataset, spammers have a narrower shape of distribution (the outliers on the red bar tail are not counted) than that of legitimate users  This is because there are more content polluters than fake accounts  In other word, spammers in this dataset tend to concentrate on limited topics  While on the Weibo dataset, fake accounts who are interested in different topics take large proportion of spammers  Their distribution is more flat (i e  red bars) than that of the legitimate users  Therefore we can detect spammers by means of the difference of their topic distribution patterns 
LDA model
Blei et al blei2003latent first presented Latent Dirichlet Allocation(LDA) as an example of topic model 
Each document $i$ is deemed as a bag of words $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $ and $M$ is the number of words

ground_truth: Byte-Pair Encoding perplexity  (BPE PPL),
BLEU-1,
BLEU-4,
ROUGE-L,
percentage of distinct unigram (D-1),
percentage of distinct bigrams(D-2),
user matching accuracy(UMA),
Mean Reciprocal Rank(MRR)
Pairwise preference over baseline(PP)

BLEU-1/4 and ROUGE-L, likelihood of generated recipes using identical input specifications but conditioned on ten different user profiles, user matching accuracy (UMA), Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR), neural scoring model from BIBREF33 to measure recipe-level coherence

 Distinct-1/2, UMA = User Matching Accuracy, MRR
= Mean Reciprocal Rank, PP = Pairwise preference over baseline (evaluated for 310 recipe pairs per model)

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. Do they report results only on English data?
Context 2:  The weight matrix INLINEFORM1 is then normalized using: DISPLAYFORM0
Obviously, the normalized weight matrix INLINEFORM0 satisfies that INLINEFORM1 and further ensures the lipschitz continuity of the INLINEFORM2 network BIBREF9   To reduce the high cost of computing spectral norm INLINEFORM3 using singular value decomposition at each iteration, we follow BIBREF10 and employ the power iteration method to estimate INLINEFORM4 instead  With this substitution, the spectral norm can be estimated with very small additional computational time 
Objective and Training Procedure
The real document INLINEFORM0 and fake document INLINEFORM1 shown in Figure FIGREF4 could be viewed as random samples from two distributions INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 , and each of them is a joint distribution constituted by four Dirichlet distributions (corresponding to entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution)  The training objective of AEM is to let the distribution INLINEFORM4 (produced by INLINEFORM5 network) to approximate the real data distribution INLINEFORM6 as much as possible 
To compare the different GAN losses, Kurach kurach2018gan takes a sober view of the current state of GAN and suggests that the Jansen-Shannon divergence used in BIBREF3 performs more stable than variant objectives  Besides, Kurach also advocates that the gradient penalty (GP) regularization devised in BIBREF8 will further improve the stability of the model  Thus, the objective function of the proposed AEM is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the discriminator loss, INLINEFORM1 represents the gradient penalty regularization loss, INLINEFORM2 is the gradient penalty coefficient which trade-off the two components of objective, INLINEFORM3 could be obtained by sampling uniformly along a straight line between INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 denotes the corresponding distribution 
The training procedure of AEM is presented in Algorithm SECREF15 , where INLINEFORM0 is the event number, INLINEFORM1 denotes the number of discriminator iterations per generator iteration, INLINEFORM2 is the batch size, INLINEFORM3 represents the learning rate, INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5 are hyper-parameters of Adam BIBREF11 , INLINEFORM6 denotes INLINEFORM7   In this paper, we set INLINEFORM8 , INLINEFORM9 , INLINEFORM10   Moreover, INLINEFORM11 , INLINEFORM12 and INLINEFORM13 are set as 0 0002, 0 5 and 0 999 
[!h] Training procedure for AEM [1] INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 the trained INLINEFORM7 and INLINEFORM8   Initial INLINEFORM9 parameters INLINEFORM10 and INLINEFORM11 parameter INLINEFORM12 INLINEFORM13 has not converged INLINEFORM14 INLINEFORM15 Sample INLINEFORM16 , Sample a random INLINEFORM17 Sample a random number INLINEFORM18 INLINEFORM19 INLINEFORM20 INLINEFORM21 INLINEFORM22 INLINEFORM23 INLINEFORM24 Sample INLINEFORM25 noise INLINEFORM26 INLINEFORM27
Event Generation
After the model training, the generator INLINEFORM0 learns the mapping function between the document-event distribution and the document-level event-related word distributions (entity, location, keyword and date)  In other words, with an event distribution INLINEFORM1 as input, INLINEFORM2 could generate the corresponding entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution 
In AEM, we employ event seed INLINEFORM0 , an INLINEFORM1 -dimensional vector with one-hot encoding, to generate the event related word distributions  For example, in ten event setting, INLINEFORM2 represents the event seed of the first event  With the event seed INLINEFORM3 as input, the corresponding distributions could be generated by INLINEFORM4 based on the equation below: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 denote the entity distribution, location distribution, keyword distribution and date distribution of the first event respectively 
Experiments
In this section, we firstly describe the datasets and baseline approaches used in our experiments and then present the experimental results 
Experimental Setup
To validate the effectiveness of AEM for extracting events from social media (e g  Twitter) and news media sites (e g  Google news), three datasets (FSD BIBREF12 , Twitter, and Google datasets) are employed  Details are summarized below:
FSD dataset (social media) is the first story detection dataset containing 2,499 tweets  We filter out events mentioned in less than 15 tweets since events mentioned in very few tweets are less likely to be significant  The final dataset contains 2,453 tweets annotated with 20 events 
Twitter dataset (social media) is collected from tweets published in the month of December in 2010 using Twitter streaming API  It contains 1,000 tweets annotated with 20 events 
Google dataset (news article) is a subset of GDELT Event Database INLINEFORM0 , documents are retrieved by event related words  For example, documents which contain `malaysia', `airline', `search' and `plane' are retrieved for event MH370  By combining 30 events related documents, the dataset contains 11,909 news articles 
We choose the following three models as the baselines:
K-means is a well known data clustering algorithm, we implement the algorithm using sklearn toolbox, and represent documents using bag-of-words weighted by TF-IDF 
LEM BIBREF13 is a Bayesian modeling approach for open-domain event extraction  It treats an event as a latent variable and models the generation of an event as a joint distribution of its individual event elements  We implement the algorithm with the default configuration 
DPEMM BIBREF14 is a non-parametric mixture model for event extraction  It addresses the limitation of LEM that the number of events should be known beforehand  We implement the model with the default configuration 
For social media text corpus (FSD and Twitter), a named entity tagger specifically built for Twitter is used to extract named entities including locations from tweets  A Twitter Part-of-Speech (POS) tagger BIBREF15 is used for POS tagging and only words tagged with nouns, verbs and adjectives are retained as keywords  For the Google dataset, we use the Stanford Named Entity Recognizer to identify the named entities (organization, location and person)  Due to the `date' information not being provided in the Google dataset, we further divide the non-location named entities into two categories (`person' and `organization') and employ a quadruple <organization, location, person, keyword> to denote an event in news articles  We also remove common stopwords and only keep the recognized named entities and the tokens which are verbs, nouns or adjectives 
Experimental Results
To evaluate the performance of the proposed approach, we use the evaluation metrics such as precision, recall and F-measure  Precision is defined as the proportion of the correctly identified events out of the model generated events  Recall is defined as the proportion of correctly identified true events  For calculating the precision of the 4-tuple, we use following criteria:
(1) Do the entity/organization, location, date/person and keyword that we have extracted refer to the same event?
(2) If the extracted representation contains keywords, are they informative enough to tell us what happened?
Table TABREF35 shows the event extraction results on the three datasets  The statistics are obtained with the default parameter setting that INLINEFORM0 is set to 5, number of hidden units INLINEFORM1 is set to 200, and INLINEFORM2 contains three fully-connected layers  The event number INLINEFORM3 for three datasets are set to 25, 25 and 35, respectively  The examples of extracted events are shown in Table  TABREF36  
It can be observed that K-means performs the worst over all three datasets  On the social media datasets, AEM outpoerforms both LEM and DPEMM by 6 5% and 1 7% respectively in F-measure on the FSD dataset, and 4 4% and 3 7% in F-measure on the Twitter dataset  We can also observe that apart from K-means, all the approaches perform worse on the Twitter dataset compared to FSD, possibly due to the limited size of the Twitter dataset  Moreover, on the Google dataset, the proposed AEM performs significantly better than LEM and DPEMM  It improves upon LEM by 15 5% and upon DPEMM by more than 30% in F-measure  This is because: (1) the assumption made by LEM and DPEMM that all words in a document are generated from a single event is not suitable for long text such as news articles; (2) DPEMM generates too many irrelevant events which leads to a very low precision score  Overall, we see the superior performance of AEM across all datasets, with more significant improvement on the for Google datasets (long text) 
We next visualize the detected events based on the discriminative features learned by the trained INLINEFORM0 network in AEM  The t-SNE BIBREF16 visualization results on the datasets are shown in Figure FIGREF19   For clarity, each subplot is plotted on a subset of the dataset containing ten randomly selected events  It can be observed that documents describing the same event have been grouped into the same cluster 
To further evaluate if a variation of the parameters INLINEFORM0 (the number of discriminator iterations per generator iteration), INLINEFORM1 (the number of units in hidden layer) and the structure of generator INLINEFORM2 will impact the extraction performance, additional experiments have been conducted on the Google dataset, with INLINEFORM3 set to 5, 7 and 10, INLINEFORM4 set to 100, 150 and 200, and three INLINEFORM5 structures (3, 4 and 5 layers)  The comparison results on precision, recall and F-measure are shown in Figure FIGREF20   From the results, it could be observed that AEM with the 5-layer generator performs the best and achieves 96 7% in F-measure, and the worst F-measure obtained by AEM is 85 7%  Overall, the AEM outperforms all compared approaches acorss various parameter settings, showing relatively stable performance 
Finally, we compare in Figure FIGREF37 the training time required for each model, excluding the constant time required by each model to load the data  We could observe that K-means runs fastest among all four approaches  Both LEM and DPEMM need to sample the event allocation for each document and update the relevant counts during Gibbs sampling which are time consuming  AEM only requires a fraction of the training time compared to LEM and DPEMM  Moreover, on a larger dataset such as the Google dataset, AEM appears to be far more efficient compared to LEM and DPEMM 
Conclusions and Future Work
In this paper, we have proposed a novel approach based on adversarial training to extract the structured representation of events from online text  The experimental comparison with the state-of-the-art methods shows that AEM achieves improved extraction performance, especially on long text corpora with an improvement of 15% observed in F-measure  AEM only requires a fraction of training time compared to existing Bayesian graphical modeling approaches  In future work, we will explore incorporating external knowledge (e g  word relatedness contained in word embeddings) into the learning framework for event extraction  Besides, exploring nonparametric neural event extraction approaches and detecting the evolution of events over time from news articles are other promising future directions 
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions  This work was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC1306704), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61772132), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (BK20161430) 
Context 3:  Each word is attributable to one of the document's topics $Z=\left\lbrace  z_{i1},z_{i2},   ,z_{iK}\right\rbrace $ and $K$ is the number of topics  $\psi _{k}$ is a multinomial distribution over words for topic $k$   $\theta _i$ is another multinomial distribution over topics for document $i$   The smoothed generative model is illustrated in Figure  2   $\alpha $ and $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $0 are hyper parameter that affect scarcity of the document-topic and topic-word distributions  In this paper, $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $1 , $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $2 and $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $3 are empirically set to 0 3, 0 01 and 15  The entire content of each Twitter user is regarded as one document  We adopt Gibbs Sampling BIBREF8 to speed up the inference of LDA  Based on LDA, we can get the topic probabilities for all users in the employed dataset as: $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $4 , where $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $5 is the number of users  Each element $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $6 is a topic probability vector for the $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $7 document  $W=\left\lbrace  w_{i1},w_{i2},   ,w_{iM}\right\rbrace $8 is the raw topic probability vector and our features are developed on top of it 
Topic-based Features
Using the LDA model, each person in the dataset is with a topic probability vector $X_i$   Assume $x_{ik}\in X_{i}$ denotes the likelihood that the $\emph {i}^{th}$ tweet account favors $\emph {k}^{th}$ topic in the dataset  Our topic based features can be calculated as below 
Global Outlier Standard Score measures the degree that a user's tweet content is related to a certain topic compared to the other users  Specifically, the "GOSS" score of user $i$ on topic $k$ can be calculated as Eq ( 12 ):
$$\centering \begin{array}{ll} \mu \left(x_{k}\right)=\frac{\sum _{i=1}^{n} x_{ik}}{n},\\ GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)=\frac{x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_k\right)}{\sqrt{\underset{i}{\sum }\left(x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_{k}\right)\right)^{2}}}  \end{array}$$   (Eq  12)
The value of $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ indicates the interesting degree of this person to the $\emph {k}^{th}$ topic  Specifically, if $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ > $GOSS\left(x_{jk}\right)$ , it means that the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person has more interest in topic $k$ than the $\emph {j}^{th}$ person  If the value $GOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)$ is extremely high or low, the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person showing extreme interest or no interest on topic $k$ which will probably be a distinctive pattern in the fowllowing classfication  Therefore, the topics interested or disliked by the $\emph {k}^{th}$0 person can be manifested by $\emph {k}^{th}$1 , from which the pattern of the interested topics with regarding to this person is found  Denote $\emph {k}^{th}$2 our first topic-based feature, and it hopefully can get good performance on spammer detection 
Local Outlier Standard Score measures the degree of interest someone shows to a certain topic by considering his own homepage content only  For instance, the "LOSS" score of account $i$ on topic $k$ can be calculated as Eq ( 13 ):
$$\centering \begin{array}{ll} \mu \left(x_{i}\right)=\frac{\sum _{k=1}^{K} x_{ik}}{K},\\ LOSS\left(x_{ik}\right)=\frac{x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_i\right)}{\sqrt{\underset{k}{\sum }\left(x_{ik}-\mu \left(x_{i}\right)\right)^{2}}}

ground_truth: Unanswerable

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. LDA is an unsupervised method; is this paper introducing an unsupervised approach to spam detection?
Context 3:  \end{array}$$   (Eq  13)
$\mu (x_i)$ represents the averaged interesting degree for all topics with regarding to $\emph {i}^{th}$ user and his tweet content  Similarly to $GOSS$ , the topics interested or disliked by the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person via considering his single post information can be manifested by $f_{LOSS}^{i}=[LOSS(x_{i1})\cdots LOSS(x_{iK})]$ , and $LOSS$ becomes our second topic-based features for the $\emph {i}^{th}$ person 
Dataset
We use one public dataset Social Honeypot dataset and one self-collected dataset Weibo dataset to validate the effectiveness of our proposed features 
Social Honeypot Dataset: Lee et al  lee2010devils created and deployed 60 seed social accounts on Twitter to attract spammers by reporting back what accounts interact with them  They collected 19,276 legitimate users and 22,223 spammers in their datasets along with their tweet content in 7 months  This is our first test dataset 
Our Weibo Dataset: Sina Weibo is one of the most famous social platforms in China  It has implemented many features from Twitter  The 2197 legitimate user accounts in this dataset are provided by the Tianchi Competition held by Sina Weibo  The spammers are all purchased commercially from multiple vendors on the Internet  We checked them manually and collected 802 suitable "smart" spammers accounts 
Preprocessing: Before directly performing the experiments on the employed datasets, we first delete some accounts with few posts in the two employed since the number of tweets is highly indicative of spammers  For the English Honeypot dataset, we remove stopwords, punctuations, non-ASCII words and apply stemming  For the Chinese Weibo dataset, we perform segmentation with "Jieba", a Chinese text segmentation tool  After preprocessing steps, the Weibo dataset contains 2197 legitimate users and 802 spammers, and the honeypot dataset contains 2218 legitimate users and 2947 spammers  It is worth mentioning that the Honeypot dataset has been slashed because most of the Twitter accounts only have limited number of posts, which are not enough to show their interest inclination 
Evaluation Metrics
The evaluating indicators in our model are show in 2   We calculate precision, recall and F1-score (i e  F1 score) as in Eq  ( 19 )  Precision is the ratio of selected accounts that are spammers  Recall is the ratio of spammers that are detected so  F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall 
$$precision =\frac{TP}{TP+FP}, recall =\frac{TP}{TP+FN}\nonumber \\ F1-score = \frac{2\times precision \times recall}{precision + recall}$$   (Eq  19)
Performance Comparisons with Baseline
Three baseline classification methods: Support Vector Machines (SVM), Adaboost, and Random Forests are adopted to evaluate our extracted features  We test each classification algorithm with scikit-learn BIBREF9 and run a 10-fold cross validation  On each dataset, the employed classifiers are trained with individual feature first, and then with the combination of the two features  From 1 , we can see that GOSS+LOSS achieves the best performance on F1-score among all others  Besides, the classification by combination of LOSS and GOSS can increase accuracy by more than 3% compared with raw topic distribution probability 
Comparison with Other Features
To compare our extracted features with previously used features for spammer detection, we use three most discriminative feature sets according to Lee et al  lee2011seven( 4 )  Two classifiers (Adaboost and SVM) are selected to conduct feature performance comparisons  Using Adaboost, our LOSS+GOSS features outperform all other features except for UFN which is 2% higher than ours with regard to precision on the Honeypot dataset  It is caused by the incorrectly classified spammers who are mostly news source after our manual check  They keep posting all kinds of news pieces covering diverse topics, which is similar to the behavior of fake accounts  However, UFN based on friendship networks is more useful for public accounts who possess large number of followers  The best recall value of our LOSS+GOSS features using SVM is up to 6% higher than the results by other feature groups  Regarding F1-score, our features outperform all other features  To further show the advantages of our proposed features, we compare our combined LOSS+GOSS with the combination of all the features from Lee et al  lee2011seven (UFN+UC+UH)  It's obvious that LOSS+GOSS have a great advantage over UFN+UC+UH in terms of recall and F1-score  Moreover, by combining our LOSS+GOSS features and UFN+UC+UH features together, we obtained another 7 1% and 2 3% performance gain with regard to precision and F1-score by Adaboost  Though there is a slight decline in terms of recall  By SVM, we get comparative results on recall and F1-score but about 3 5% improvement on precision 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a novel feature extraction method to effectively detect "smart" spammers who post seemingly legitimate tweets and are thus difficult to identify by existing spammer classification methods  Using the LDA model, we obtain the topic probability for each Twitter user  By utilizing the topic probability result, we extract our two topic-based features: GOSS and LOSS which represent the account with global and local information  Experimental results on a public dataset and a self-built Chinese microblog dataset validate the effectiveness of the proposed features 
Future Work
In future work, the combination method of local and global information can be further improved to maximize their individual strengths  We will also apply decision theory to enhancing the performance of our proposed features  Moreover, we are also building larger datasets on both Twitter and Weibo to validate our method  Moreover, larger datasets on both Twitter and Weibo will be built to further validate our method 

ground_truth: No

No