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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How many layers does the UTCNN model have?
Context 1: Introduction
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International License  License details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/ Deep neural networks have been widely used in text classification and have achieved promising results BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Most focus on content information and use models such as convolutional neural networks (CNN) BIBREF3 or recursive neural networks BIBREF4   However, for user-generated posts on social media like Facebook or Twitter, there is more information that should not be ignored  On social media platforms, a user can act either as the author of a post or as a reader who expresses his or her comments about the post 
In this paper, we classify posts taking into account post authorship, likes, topics, and comments  In particular, users and their “likes” hold strong potential for text mining  For example, given a set of posts that are related to a specific topic, a user's likes and dislikes provide clues for stance labeling  From a user point of view, users with positive attitudes toward the issue leave positive comments on the posts with praise or even just the post's content; from a post point of view, positive posts attract users who hold positive stances  We also investigate the influence of topics: different topics are associated with different stance labeling tendencies and word usage  For example we discuss women's rights and unwanted babies on the topic of abortion, but we criticize medicine usage or crime when on the topic of marijuana BIBREF5   Even for posts on a specific topic like nuclear power, a variety of arguments are raised: green energy, radiation, air pollution, and so on  As for comments, we treat them as additional text information  The arguments in the comments and the commenters (the users who leave the comments) provide hints on the post's content and further facilitate stance classification 
In this paper, we propose the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN), a deep learning model that utilizes user, topic, and comment information  We attempt to learn user and topic representations which encode user interactions and topic influences to further enhance text classification, and we also incorporate comment information  We evaluate this model on a post stance classification task on forum-style social media platforms  The contributions of this paper are as follows: 1  We propose UTCNN, a neural network for text in modern social media channels as well as legacy social media, forums, and message boards — anywhere that reveals users, their tastes, as well as their replies to posts  2  When classifying social media post stances, we leverage users, including authors and likers  User embeddings can be generated even for users who have never posted anything  3  We incorporate a topic model to automatically assign topics to each post in a single topic dataset  4  We show that overall, the proposed method achieves the highest performance in all instances, and that all of the information extracted, whether users, topics, or comments, still has its contributions 
Extra-Linguistic Features for Stance Classification
In this paper we aim to use text as well as other features to see how they complement each other in a deep learning model  In the stance classification domain, previous work has showed that text features are limited, suggesting that adding extra-linguistic constraints could improve performance BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   For example, Hasan and Ng as well as Thomas et al  require that posts written by the same author have the same stance BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   The addition of this constraint yields accuracy improvements of 1–7% for some models and datasets  Hasan and Ng later added user-interaction constraints and ideology constraints BIBREF7 : the former models the relationship among posts in a sequence of replies and the latter models inter-topic relationships, e g , users who oppose abortion could be conservative and thus are likely to oppose gay rights 
For work focusing on online forum text, since posts are linked through user replies, sequential labeling methods have been used to model relationships between posts  For example, Hasan and Ng use hidden Markov models (HMMs) to model dependent relationships to the preceding post BIBREF9 ; Burfoot et al  use iterative classification to repeatedly generate new estimates based on the current state of knowledge BIBREF11 ; Sridhar et al  use probabilistic soft logic (PSL) to model reply links via collaborative filtering BIBREF12   In the Facebook dataset we study, we use comments instead of reply links  However, as the ultimate goal in this paper is predicting not comment stance but post stance, we treat comments as extra information for use in predicting post stance 
Deep Learning on Extra-Linguistic Features
In recent years neural network models have been applied to document sentiment classification BIBREF13 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF2   Text features can be used in deep networks to capture text semantics or sentiment  For example, Dong et al  use an adaptive layer in a recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment analysis, where targets are topics such as windows 7 or taylor swift BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 ; recursive neural tensor networks (RNTNs) utilize sentence parse trees to capture sentence-level sentiment for movie reviews BIBREF4 ; Le and Mikolov predict sentiment by using paragraph vectors to model each paragraph as a continuous representation BIBREF18   They show that performance can thus be improved by more delicate text models 
Others have suggested using extra-linguistic features to improve the deep learning model  The user-word composition vector model (UWCVM) BIBREF19 is inspired by the possibility that the strength of sentiment words is user-specific; to capture this they add user embeddings in their model  In UPNN, a later extension, they further add a product-word composition as product embeddings, arguing that products can also show different tendencies of being rated or reviewed BIBREF20   Their addition of user information yielded 2–10% improvements in accuracy as compared to the above-mentioned RNTN and paragraph vector methods  We also seek to inject user information into the neural network model  In comparison to the research of Tang et al  on sentiment classification for product reviews, the difference is two-fold  First, we take into account multiple users (one author and potentially many likers) for one post, whereas only one user (the reviewer) is involved in a review  Second, we add comment information to provide more features for post stance classification  None of these two factors have been considered previously in a deep learning model for text stance classification  Therefore, we propose UTCNN, which generates and utilizes user embeddings for all users — even for those who have not authored any posts — and incorporates comments to further improve performance 
Method
In this section, we first describe CNN-based document composition, which captures user- and topic-dependent document-level semantic representation from word representations  Then we show how to add comment information to construct the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN) 
User- and Topic-dependent Document Composition
As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , we use a general CNN BIBREF3 and two semantic transformations for document composition   We are given a document with an engaged user INLINEFORM0 , a topic INLINEFORM1 , and its composite INLINEFORM2 words, each word INLINEFORM3 of which is associated with a word embedding INLINEFORM4 where INLINEFORM5 is the vector dimension  For each word embedding INLINEFORM6 , we apply two dot operations as shown in Equation EQREF6 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 models the user reading preference for certain semantics, and INLINEFORM1 models the topic semantics; INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 are the dimensions of transformed user and topic embeddings respectively  We use INLINEFORM4 to model semantically what each user prefers to read and/or write, and use INLINEFORM5 to model the semantics of each topic  The dot operation of INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7 transforms the global representation INLINEFORM8 to a user-dependent representation  Likewise, the dot operation of INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 transforms INLINEFORM11 to a topic-dependent representation 
After the two dot operations on INLINEFORM0 , we have user-dependent and topic-dependent word vectors INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 , which are concatenated to form a user- and topic-dependent word vector INLINEFORM3   Then the transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM4 are used as the CNN input  Here we apply three convolutional layers on the concatenated transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM5 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the index of words; INLINEFORM1 is a non-linear activation function (we use INLINEFORM2 ); INLINEFORM5 is the convolutional filter with input length INLINEFORM6 and output length INLINEFORM7 , where INLINEFORM8 is the window size of the convolutional operation; and INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 are the output and bias of the convolution layer INLINEFORM11 , respectively  In our experiments, the three window sizes INLINEFORM12 in the three convolution layers are one, two, and three, encoding unigram, bigram, and trigram semantics accordingly 
After the convolutional layer, we add a maximum pooling layer among convolutional outputs to obtain the unigram, bigram, and trigram n-gram representations  This is succeeded by an average pooling layer for an element-wise average of the three maximized convolution outputs 
UTCNN Model Description
Figure FIGREF10 illustrates the UTCNN model  As more than one user may interact with a given post, we first add a maximum pooling layer after the user matrix embedding layer and user vector embedding layer to form a moderator matrix embedding INLINEFORM0 and a moderator vector embedding INLINEFORM1 for moderator INLINEFORM2 respectively, where INLINEFORM3 is used for the semantic transformation in the document composition process, as mentioned in the previous section  The term moderator here is to denote the pseudo user who provides the overall semantic/sentiment of all the engaged users for one document  The embedding INLINEFORM4 models the moderator stance preference, that is, the pattern of the revealed user stance: whether a user is willing to show his preference, whether a user likes to show impartiality with neutral statements and reasonable arguments, or just wants to show strong support for one stance  Ideally, the latent user stance is modeled by INLINEFORM5 for each user  Likewise, for topic information, a maximum pooling layer is added after the topic matrix embedding layer and topic vector embedding layer to form a joint topic matrix embedding INLINEFORM6 and a joint topic vector embedding INLINEFORM7 for topic INLINEFORM8 respectively, where INLINEFORM9 models the semantic transformation of topic INLINEFORM10 as in users and INLINEFORM11 models the topic stance tendency  The latent topic stance is also modeled by INLINEFORM12 for each topic 
As for comments, we view them as short documents with authors only but without likers nor their own comments  Therefore we apply document composition on comments although here users are commenters (users who comment)  It is noticed that the word embeddings INLINEFORM0 for the same word in the posts and comments are the same, but after being transformed to INLINEFORM1 in the document composition process shown in Figure FIGREF4 , they might become different because of their different engaged users  The output comment representation together with the commenter vector embedding INLINEFORM2 and topic vector embedding INLINEFORM3 are concatenated and a maximum pooling layer is added to select the most important feature for comments  Instead of requiring that the comment stance agree with the post, UTCNN simply extracts the most important features of the comment contents; they could be helpful, whether they show obvious agreement or disagreement  Therefore when combining comment information here, the maximum pooling layer is more appropriate than other pooling or merging layers  Indeed, we believe this is one reason for UTCNN's performance gains 
Finally, the pooled comment representation, together with user vector embedding INLINEFORM0 , topic vector embedding INLINEFORM1 , and document representation are fed to a fully connected network, and softmax is applied to yield the final stance label prediction for the post 
Experiment
We start with the experimental dataset and then describe the training process as well as the implementation of the baselines  We also implement several variations to reveal the effects of features: authors, likers, comment, and commenters  In the results section we compare our model with related work 
Dataset
We tested the proposed UTCNN on two different datasets: FBFans and CreateDebate  FBFans is a privately-owned, single-topic, Chinese, unbalanced, social media dataset, and CreateDebate is a public, multiple-topic, English, balanced, forum dataset  Results using these two datasets show the applicability and superiority for different topics, languages, data distributions, and platforms 
The FBFans dataset contains data from anti-nuclear-power Chinese Facebook fan groups from September 2013 to August 2014, including posts and their author and liker IDs  There are a total of 2,496 authors, 505,137 likers, 33,686 commenters, and 505,412 unique users  Two annotators were asked to take into account only the post content to label the stance of the posts in the whole dataset as supportive, neutral, or unsupportive (hereafter denoted as Sup, Neu, and Uns)  Sup/Uns posts were those in support of or against anti-reconstruction; Neu posts were those evincing a neutral standpoint on the topic, or were irrelevant  Raw agreement between annotators is 0 91, indicating high agreement  Specifically, Cohen’s Kappa for Neu and not Neu labeling is 0 58 (moderate), and for Sup or Uns labeling is 0 84 (almost perfect)  Posts with inconsistent labels were filtered out, and the development and testing sets were randomly selected from what was left  Posts in the development and testing sets involved at least one user who appeared in the training set  The number of posts for each stance is shown on the left-hand side of Table TABREF12   About twenty percent of the posts were labeled with a stance, and the number of supportive (Sup) posts was much larger than that of the unsupportive (Uns) ones: this is thus highly skewed data, which complicates stance classification  On average, 161 1 users were involved in one post  The maximum was 23,297 and the minimum was one (the author)  For comments, on average there were 3 comments per post  The maximum was 1,092 and the minimum was zero 
To test whether the assumption of this paper – posts attract users who hold the same stance to like them – is reliable, we examine the likes from authors of different stances  Posts in FBFans dataset are used for this analysis  We calculate the like statistics of each distinct author from these 32,595 posts  As the numbers of authors in the Sup, Neu and Uns stances are largely imbalanced, these numbers are normalized by the number of users of each stance  Table TABREF13 shows the results  Posts with stances (i e , not neutral) attract users of the same stance  Neutral posts also attract both supportive and neutral users, like what we observe in supportive posts, but just the neutral posts can attract even more neutral likers  These results do suggest that users prefer posts of the same stance, or at least posts of no obvious stance which might cause annoyance when reading, and hence support the user modeling in our approach 
The CreateDebate dataset was collected from an English online debate forum discussing four topics: abortion (ABO), gay rights (GAY), Obama (OBA), and marijuana (MAR)  The posts are annotated as for (F) and against (A)  Replies to posts in this dataset are also labeled with stance and hence use the same data format as posts  The labeling results are shown in the right-hand side of Table TABREF12   We observe that the dataset is more balanced than the FBFans dataset  In addition, there are 977 unique users in the dataset  To compare with Hasan and Ng's work, we conducted five-fold cross-validation and present the annotation results as the average number of all folds BIBREF9 , BIBREF5  
The FBFans dataset has more integrated functions than the CreateDebate dataset; thus our model can utilize all linguistic and extra-linguistic features  For the CreateDebate dataset, on the other hand, the like and comment features are not available (as there is a stance label for each reply, replies are evaluated as posts as other previous work) but we still implemented our model using the content, author, and topic information 
Settings
In the UTCNN training process, cross-entropy was used as the loss function and AdaGrad as the optimizer  For FBFans dataset, we learned the 50-dimensional word embeddings on the whole dataset using GloVe BIBREF21 to capture the word semantics; for CreateDebate dataset we used the publicly available English 50-dimensional word embeddings, pre-trained also using GloVe  These word embeddings were fixed in the training process  The learning rate was set to 0 03  All user and topic embeddings were randomly initialized in the range of [-0 1 0 1]  Matrix embeddings for users and topics were sized at 250 ( INLINEFORM0 ); vector embeddings for users and topics were set to length 10 
We applied the LDA topic model BIBREF22 on the FBFans dataset to determine the latent topics with which to build topic embeddings, as there is only one general known topic: nuclear power plants  We learned 100 latent topics and assigned the top three topics for each post  For the CreateDebate dataset, which itself constitutes four topics, the topic labels for posts were used directly without additionally applying LDA 
For the FBFans data we report class-based f-scores as well as the macro-average f-score ( INLINEFORM0 ) shown in equation EQREF19   DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are the average precision and recall of the three class  We adopted the macro-average f-score as the evaluation metric for the overall performance because (1) the experimental dataset is severely imbalanced, which is common for contentious issues; and (2) for stance classification, content in minor-class posts is usually more important for further applications  For the CreateDebate dataset, accuracy was adopted as the evaluation metric to compare the results with related work BIBREF7 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF12  
Baselines
We pit our model against the following baselines: 1) SVM with unigram, bigram, and trigram features, which is a standard yet rather strong classifier for text features; 2) SVM with average word embedding, where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the embeddings of the composite words; 3) SVM with average transformed word embeddings (the INLINEFORM0 in equation EQREF6 ), where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the transformed embeddings of the composite words; 4) two mature deep learning models on text classification, CNN BIBREF3 and Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks (RCNN) BIBREF0 , where the hyperparameters are based on their work; 5) the above SVM and deep learning models with comment information; 6) UTCNN without user information, representing a pure-text CNN model where we use the same user matrix and user embeddings INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 for each user; 7) UTCNN without the LDA model, representing how UTCNN works with a single-topic dataset; 8) UTCNN without comments, in which the model predicts the stance label given only user and topic information  All these models were trained on the training set, and parameters as well as the SVM kernel selections (linear or RBF) were fine-tuned on the development set  Also, we adopt oversampling on SVMs, CNN and RCNN because the FBFans dataset is highly imbalanced 
Results on FBFans Dataset
In Table TABREF22 we show the results of UTCNN and the baselines on the FBFans dataset  Here Majority yields good performance on Neu since FBFans is highly biased to the neutral class  The SVM models perform well on Sup and Neu but perform poorly for Uns, showing that content information in itself is insufficient to predict stance labels, especially for the minor class  With the transformed word embedding feature, SVM can achieve comparable performance as SVM with n-gram feature  However, the much fewer feature dimension of the transformed word embedding makes SVM with word embeddings a more efficient choice for modeling the large scale social media dataset  For the CNN and RCNN models, they perform slightly better than most of the SVM models but still, the content information is insufficient to achieve a good performance on the Uns posts  As to adding comment information to these models, since the commenters do not always hold the same stance as the author, simply adding comments and post contents together merely adds noise to the model 
Among all UTCNN variations, we find that user information is most important, followed by topic and comment information  UTCNN without user information shows results similar to SVMs — it does well for Sup and Neu but detects no Uns  Its best f-scores on both Sup and Neu among all methods show that with enough training data, content-based models can perform well; at the same time, the lack of user information results in too few clues for minor-class posts to either predict their stance directly or link them to other users and posts for improved performance  The 17 5% improvement when adding user information suggests that user information is especially useful when the dataset is highly imbalanced  All models that consider user information predict the minority class successfully  UCTNN without topic information works well but achieves lower performance than the full UTCNN model  The 4 9% performance gain brought by LDA shows that although it is satisfactory for single topic datasets, adding that latent topics still benefits performance: even when we are discussing the same topic, we use different arguments and supporting evidence  Lastly, we get 4 8% improvement when adding comment information and it achieves comparable performance to UTCNN without topic information, which shows that comments also benefit performance  For platforms where user IDs are pixelated or otherwise hidden, adding comments to a text model still improves performance  In its integration of user, content, and comment information, the full UTCNN produces the highest f-scores on all Sup, Neu, and Uns stances among models that predict the Uns class, and the highest macro-average f-score overall  This shows its ability to balance a biased dataset and supports our claim that UTCNN successfully bridges content and user, topic, and comment information for stance classification on social media text  Another merit of UTCNN is that it does not require a balanced training data  This is supported by its outperforming other models though no oversampling technique is applied to the UTCNN related experiments as shown in this paper  Thus we can conclude that the user information provides strong clues and it is still rich even in the minority class 
We also investigate the semantic difference when a user acts as an author/liker or a commenter  We evaluated a variation in which all embeddings from the same user were forced to be identical (this is the UTCNN shared user embedding setting in Table TABREF22 )  This setting yielded only a 2 5% improvement over the model without comments, which is not statistically significant  However, when separating authors/likers and commenters embeddings (i e , the UTCNN full model), we achieved much greater improvements (4 8%)  We attribute this result to the tendency of users to use different wording for different roles (for instance author vs commenter)  This is observed when the user, acting as an author, attempts to support her argument against nuclear power by using improvements in solar power; when acting as a commenter, though, she interacts with post contents by criticizing past politicians who supported nuclear power or by arguing that the proposed evacuation plan in case of a nuclear accident is ridiculous  Based on this finding, in the final UTCNN setting we train two user matrix embeddings for one user: one for the author/liker role and the other for the commenter role 
Results on CreateDebate Dataset
Table TABREF24 shows the results of UTCNN, baselines as we implemented on the FBFans datset and related work on the CreateDebate dataset  We do not adopt oversampling on these models because the CreateDebate dataset is almost balanced  In previous work, integer linear programming (ILP) or linear-chain conditional random fields (CRFs) were proposed to integrate text features, author, ideology, and user-interaction constraints, where text features are unigram, bigram, and POS-dependencies; the author constraint tends to require that posts from the same author for the same topic hold the same stance; the ideology constraint aims to capture inferences between topics for the same author; the user-interaction constraint models relationships among posts via user interactions such as replies BIBREF7 , BIBREF9  
The SVM with n-gram or average word embedding feature performs just similar to the majority  However, with the transformed word embedding, it achieves superior results  It shows that the learned user and topic embeddings really capture the user and topic semantics  This finding is not so obvious in the FBFans dataset and it might be due to the unfavorable data skewness for SVM  As for CNN and RCNN, they perform slightly better than most SVMs as we found in Table TABREF22 for FBFans 
Compared to the ILP BIBREF7 and CRF BIBREF9 methods, the UTCNN user embeddings encode author and user-interaction constraints, where the ideology constraint is modeled by the topic embeddings and text features are modeled by the CNN  The significant improvement achieved by UTCNN suggests the latent representations are more effective than overt model constraints 
The PSL model BIBREF12 jointly labels both author and post stance using probabilistic soft logic (PSL) BIBREF23 by considering text features and reply links between authors and posts as in Hasan and Ng's work  Table TABREF24 reports the result of their best AD setting, which represents the full joint stance/disagreement collective model on posts and is hence more relevant to UTCNN  In contrast to their model, the UTCNN user embeddings represent relationships between authors, but UTCNN models do not utilize link information between posts  Though the PSL model has the advantage of being able to jointly label the stances of authors and posts, its performance on posts is lower than the that for the ILP or CRF models  UTCNN significantly outperforms these models on posts and has the potential to predict user stances through the generated user embeddings 
For the CreateDebate dataset, we also evaluated performance when not using topic embeddings or user embeddings; as replies in this dataset are viewed as posts, the setting without comment embeddings is not available  Table TABREF24 shows the same findings as Table TABREF22 : the 21% improvement in accuracy demonstrates that user information is the most vital  This finding also supports the results in the related work: user constraints are useful and can yield 11 2% improvement in accuracy BIBREF7   Further considering topic information yields 3 4% improvement, suggesting that knowing the subject of debates provides useful information  In sum, Table TABREF22 together with Table TABREF24 show that UTCNN achieves promising performance regardless of topic, language, data distribution, and platform 
Conclusion
We have proposed UTCNN, a neural network model that incorporates user, topic, content and comment information for stance classification on social media texts  UTCNN learns user embeddings for all users with minimum active degree, i e , one post or one like  Topic information obtained from the topic model or the pre-defined labels further improves the UTCNN model  In addition, comment information provides additional clues for stance classification  We have shown that UTCNN achieves promising and balanced results  In the future we plan to explore the effectiveness of the UTCNN user embeddings for author stance classification 
Acknowledgements
Research of this paper was partially supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under the contract MOST 104-2221-E-001-024-MY2 
Context 3: 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

ground_truth: eight layers

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 existing benchmarks did they compare to?
Context 2: Introduction
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International Licence  Licence details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/
In the spirit of the brevity of social media's messages and reactions, people have got used to express feelings minimally and symbolically, as with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram  On Facebook, people tend to be more wordy, but posts normally receive more simple “likes” than longer comments  Since February 2016, Facebook users can express specific emotions in response to a post thanks to the newly introduced reaction feature (see Section SECREF2 ), so that now a post can be wordlessly marked with an expression of say “joy" or “surprise" rather than a generic “like” 
It has been observed that this new feature helps Facebook to know much more about their users and exploit this information for targeted advertising BIBREF0 , but interest in people's opinions and how they feel isn't limited to commercial reasons, as it invests social monitoring, too, including health care and education BIBREF1   However, emotions and opinions are not always expressed this explicitly, so that there is high interest in developing systems towards their automatic detection  Creating manually annotated datasets large enough to train supervised models is not only costly, but also—especially in the case of opinions and emotions—difficult, due to the intrinsic subjectivity of the task BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   Therefore, research has focused on unsupervised methods enriched with information derived from lexica, which are manually created BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   Since go2009twitter have shown that happy and sad emoticons can be successfully used as signals for sentiment labels, distant supervision, i e  using some reasonably safe signals as proxies for automatically labelling training data BIBREF5 , has been used also for emotion recognition, for example exploiting both emoticons and Twitter hashtags BIBREF6 , but mainly towards creating emotion lexica  mohammad2015using use hashtags, experimenting also with highly fine-grained emotion sets (up to almost 600 emotion labels), to create the large Hashtag Emotion Lexicon  Emoticons are used as proxies also by hallsmarmulti, who use distributed vector representations to find which words are interchangeable with emoticons but also which emoticons are used in a similar context 
We take advantage of distant supervision by using Facebook reactions as proxies for emotion labels, which to the best of our knowledge hasn't been done yet, and we train a set of Support Vector Machine models for emotion recognition  Our models, differently from existing ones, exploit information which is acquired entirely automatically, and achieve competitive or even state-of-the-art results for some of the emotion labels on existing, standard evaluation datasets  For explanatory purposes, related work is discussed further and more in detail when we describe the benchmarks for evaluation (Section SECREF3 ) and when we compare our models to existing ones (Section SECREF5 )  We also explore and discuss how choosing different sets of Facebook pages as training data provides an intrinsic domain-adaptation method 
Facebook reactions as labels
For years, on Facebook people could leave comments to posts, and also “like” them, by using a thumbs-up feature to explicitly express a generic, rather underspecified, approval  A “like” could thus mean “I like what you said", but also “I like that you bring up such topic (though I find the content of the article you linked annoying)" 
In February 2016, after a short trial, Facebook made a more explicit reaction feature available world-wide  Rather than allowing for the underspecified “like” as the only wordless response to a post, a set of six more specific reactions was introduced, as shown in Figure FIGREF1 : Like, Love, Haha, Wow, Sad and Angry  We use such reactions as proxies for emotion labels associated to posts 
We collected Facebook posts and their corresponding reactions from public pages using the Facebook API, which we accessed via the Facebook-sdk python library  We chose different pages (and therefore domains and stances), aiming at a balanced and varied dataset, but we did so mainly based on intuition (see Section SECREF4 ) and with an eye to the nature of the datasets available for evaluation (see Section SECREF5 )  The choice of which pages to select posts from is far from trivial, and we believe this is actually an interesting aspect of our approach, as by using different Facebook pages one can intrinsically tackle the domain-adaptation problem (See Section SECREF6 for further discussion on this)  The final collection of Facebook pages for the experiments described in this paper is as follows: FoxNews, CNN, ESPN, New York Times, Time magazine, Huffington Post Weird News, The Guardian, Cartoon Network, Cooking Light, Home Cooking Adventure, Justin Bieber, Nickelodeon, Spongebob, Disney 
Note that thankful was only available during specific time spans related to certain events, as Mother's Day in May 2016 
For each page, we downloaded the latest 1000 posts, or the maximum available if there are fewer, from February 2016, retrieving the counts of reactions for each post  The output is a JSON file containing a list of dictionaries with a timestamp, the post and a reaction vector with frequency values, which indicate how many users used that reaction in response to the post (Figure FIGREF3 )  The resulting emotion vectors must then be turned into an emotion label 
In the context of this experiment, we made the simple decision of associating to each post the emotion with the highest count, ignoring like as it is the default and most generic reaction people tend to use  Therefore, for example, to the first post in Figure FIGREF3 , we would associate the label sad, as it has the highest score (284) among the meaningful emotions we consider, though it also has non-zero scores for other emotions  At this stage, we didn't perform any other entropy-based selection of posts, to be investigated in future work 
Emotion datasets
Three datasets annotated with emotions are commonly used for the development and evaluation of emotion detection systems, namely the Affective Text dataset, the Fairy Tales dataset, and the ISEAR dataset  In order to compare our performance to state-of-the-art results, we have used them as well  In this Section, in addition to a description of each dataset, we provide an overview of the emotions used, their distribution, and how we mapped them to those we obtained from Facebook posts in Section SECREF7   A summary is provided in Table TABREF8 , which also shows, in the bottom row, what role each dataset has in our experiments: apart from the development portion of the Affective Text, which we used to develop our models (Section SECREF4 ), all three have been used as benchmarks for our evaluation 
Affective Text dataset
Task 14 at SemEval 2007 BIBREF7 was concerned with the classification of emotions and valence in news headlines  The headlines where collected from several news websites including Google news, The New York Times, BBC News and CNN  The used emotion labels were Anger, Disgust, Fear, Joy, Sadness, Surprise, in line with the six basic emotions of Ekman's standard model BIBREF8   Valence was to be determined as positive or negative  Classification of emotion and valence were treated as separate tasks  Emotion labels were not considered as mututally exclusive, and each emotion was assigned a score from 0 to 100  Training/developing data amounted to 250 annotated headlines (Affective development), while systems were evaluated on another 1000 (Affective test)  Evaluation was done using two different methods: a fine-grained evaluation using Pearson's r to measure the correlation between the system scores and the gold standard; and a coarse-grained method where each emotion score was converted to a binary label, and precision, recall, and f-score were computed to assess performance  As it is done in most works that use this dataset BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF9 , we also treat this as a classification problem (coarse-grained)  This dataset has been extensively used for the evaluation of various unsupervised methods BIBREF2 , but also for testing different supervised learning techniques and feature portability BIBREF10  
Fairy Tales dataset
This is a dataset collected by alm2008affect, where about 1,000 sentences from fairy tales (by B  Potter, H C  Andersen and Grimm) were annotated with the same six emotions of the Affective Text dataset, though with different names: Angry, Disgusted, Fearful, Happy, Sad, and Surprised  In most works that use this dataset BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF9 , only sentences where all annotators agreed are used, and the labels angry and disgusted are merged  We adopt the same choices 
ISEAR
The ISEAR (International Survey on Emotion Antecedents and Reactions BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 ) is a dataset created in the context of a psychology project of the 1990s, by collecting questionnaires answered by people with different cultural backgrounds  The main aim of this project was to gather insights in cross-cultural aspects of emotional reactions  Student respondents, both psychologists and non-psychologists, were asked to report situations in which they had experienced all of seven major emotions (joy, fear, anger, sadness, disgust, shame and guilt)  In each case, the questions covered the way they had appraised a given situation and how they reacted  The final dataset contains reports by approximately 3000 respondents from all over the world, for a total of 7665 sentences labelled with an emotion, making this the largest dataset out of the three we use 
Overview of datasets and emotions
We summarise datasets and emotion distribution from two viewpoints  First, because there are different sets of emotions labels in the datasets and Facebook data, we need to provide a mapping and derive a subset of emotions that we are going to use for the experiments  This is shown in Table TABREF8 , where in the “Mapped” column we report the final emotions we use in this paper: anger, joy, sadness, surprise  All labels in each dataset are mapped to these final emotions, which are therefore the labels we use for training and testing our models 
Second, the distribution of the emotions for each dataset is different, as can be seen in Figure FIGREF9  
In Figure FIGREF9 we also provide the distribution of the emotions anger, joy, sadness, surprise per Facebook page, in terms of number of posts (recall that we assign to a post the label corresponding to the majority emotion associated to it, see Section SECREF2 )  We can observe that for example pages about news tend to have more sadness and anger posts, while pages about cooking and tv-shows have a high percentage of joy posts  We will use this information to find the best set of pages for a given target domain (see Section SECREF5 ) 
Model
There are two main decisions to be taken in developing our model: (i) which Facebook pages to select as training data, and (ii) which features to use to train the model, which we discuss below  Specifically, we first set on a subset of pages and then experiment with features  Further exploration of the interaction between choice of pages and choice of features is left to future work, and partly discussed in Section SECREF6   For development, we use a small portion of the Affective data set described in Section SECREF4 , that is the portion that had been released as development set for SemEval's 2007 Task 14 BIBREF7 , which contains 250 annotated sentences (Affective development, Section SECREF4 )  All results reported in this section are on this dataset  The test set of Task 14 as well as the other two datasets described in Section SECREF3 will be used to evaluate the final models (Section SECREF4 ) 
Selecting Facebook pages
Although page selection is a crucial ingredient of this approach, which we believe calls for further and deeper, dedicated investigation, for the experiments described here we took a rather simple approach  First, we selected the pages that would provide training data based on intuition and availability, then chose different combinations according to results of a basic model run on development data, and eventually tested feature combinations, still on the development set 
For the sake of simplicity and transparency, we first trained an SVM with a simple bag-of-words model and default parameters as per the Scikit-learn implementation BIBREF13 on different combinations of pages  Based on results of the attempted combinations as well as on the distribution of emotions in the development dataset (Figure FIGREF9 ), we selected a best model (B-M), namely the combined set of Time, The Guardian and Disney, which yields the highest results on development data  Time and The Guardian perform well on most emotions but Disney helps to boost the performance for the Joy class 
Features
In selecting appropriate features, we mainly relied on previous work and intuition  We experimented with different combinations, and all tests were still done on Affective development, using the pages for the best model (B-M) described above as training data  Results are in Table TABREF20   Future work will further explore the simultaneous selection of features and page combinations 
We use a set of basic text-based features to capture the emotion class  These include a tf-idf bag-of-words feature, word (2-3) and character (2-5) ngrams, and features related to the presence of negation words, and to the usage of punctuation 
This feature is used in all unsupervised models as a source of information, and we mainly include it to assess its contribution, but eventually do not use it in our final model 
We used the NRC10 Lexicon because it performed best in the experiments by BIBREF10 , which is built around the emotions anger, anticipation, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise, and the valence values positive and negative  For each word in the lexicon, a boolean value indicating presence or absence is associated to each emotion  For a whole sentence, a global score per emotion can be obtained by summing the vectors for all content words of that sentence included in the lexicon, and used as feature 
As additional feature, we also included Word Embeddings, namely distributed representations of words in a vector space, which have been exceptionally successful in boosting performance in a plethora of NLP tasks  We use three different embeddings:
Google embeddings: pre-trained embeddings trained on Google News and obtained with the skip-gram architecture described in BIBREF14   This model contains 300-dimensional vectors for 3 million words and phrases 
Facebook embeddings: embeddings that we trained on our scraped Facebook pages for a total of 20,000 sentences  Using the gensim library BIBREF15 , we trained the embeddings with the following parameters: window size of 5, learning rate of 0 01 and dimensionality of 100  We filtered out words with frequency lower than 2 occurrences 
Retrofitted embeddings: Retrofitting BIBREF16 has been shown as a simple but efficient way of informing trained embeddings with additional information derived from some lexical resource, rather than including it directly at the training stage, as it's done for example to create sense-aware BIBREF17 or sentiment-aware BIBREF18 embeddings  In this work, we retrofit general embeddings to include information about emotions, so that emotion-similar words can get closer in space  Both the Google as well as our Facebook embeddings were retrofitted with lexical information obtained from the NRC10 Lexicon mentioned above, which provides emotion-similarity for each token  Note that differently from the previous two types of embeddings, the retrofitted ones do rely on handcrafted information in the form of a lexical resource 
Results on development set
We report precision, recall, and f-score on the development set  The average f-score is reported as micro-average, to better account for the skewed distribution of the classes as well as in accordance to what is usually reported for this task BIBREF19  
From Table TABREF20 we draw three main observations  First, a simple tf-idf bag-of-word mode works already very well, to the point that the other textual and lexicon-based features don't seem to contribute to the overall f-score (0 368), although there is a rather substantial variation of scores per class  Second, Google embeddings perform a lot better than Facebook embeddings, and this is likely due to the size of the corpus used for training  Retrofitting doesn't seem to help at all for the Google embeddings, but it does boost the Facebook embeddings, leading to think that with little data, more accurate task-related information is helping, but corpus size matters most  Third, in combination with embeddings, all features work better than just using tf-idf, but removing the Lexicon feature, which is the only one based on hand-crafted resources, yields even better results  Then our best model (B-M) on development data relies entirely on automatically obtained information, both in terms of training data as well as features 
Results
In Table TABREF26 we report the results of our model on the three datasets standardly used for the evaluation of emotion classification, which we have described in Section SECREF3  
Our B-M model relies on subsets of Facebook pages for training, which were chosen according to their performance on the development set as well as on the observation of emotions distribution on different pages and in the different datasets, as described in Section SECREF4   The feature set we use is our best on the development set, namely all the features plus Google-based embeddings, but excluding the lexicon  This makes our approach completely independent of any manual annotation or handcrafted resource  Our model's performance is compared to the following systems, for which results are reported in the referred literature  Please note that no other existing model was re-implemented, and results are those reported in the respective papers 
Discussion, conclusions and future work
We have explored the potential of using Facebook reactions in a distant supervised setting to perform emotion classification  The evaluation on standard benchmarks shows that models trained as such, especially when enhanced with continuous vector representations, can achieve competitive results without relying on any handcrafted resource  An interesting aspect of our approach is the view to domain adaptation via the selection of Facebook pages to be used as training data 
We believe that this approach has a lot of potential, and we see the following directions for improvement  Feature-wise, we want to train emotion-aware embeddings, in the vein of work by tang:14, and iacobacci2015sensembed  Retrofitting FB-embeddings trained on a larger corpus might also be successful, but would rely on an external lexicon 
The largest room for yielding not only better results but also interesting insights on extensions of this approach lies in the choice of training instances, both in terms of Facebook pages to get posts from, as well as in which posts to select from the given pages  For the latter, one could for example only select posts that have a certain length, ignore posts that are only quotes or captions to images, or expand posts by including content from linked html pages, which might provide larger and better contexts BIBREF23   Additionally, and most importantly, one could use an entropy-based measure to select only posts that have a strong emotion rather than just considering the majority emotion as training label  For the former, namely the choice of Facebook pages, which we believe deserves the most investigation, one could explore several avenues, especially in relation to stance-based issues BIBREF24   In our dataset, for example, a post about Chile beating Colombia in a football match during the Copa America had very contradictory reactions, depending on which side readers would cheer for  Similarly, the very same political event, for example, would get very different reactions from readers if it was posted on Fox News or The Late Night Show, as the target audience is likely to feel very differently about the same issue  This also brings up theoretical issues related more generally to the definition of the emotion detection task, as it's strongly dependent on personal traits of the audience  Also, in this work, pages initially selected on availability and intuition were further grouped into sets to make training data according to performance on development data, and label distribution  Another criterion to be exploited would be vocabulary overlap between the pages and the datasets 
Lastly, we could develop single models for each emotion, treating the problem as a multi-label task  This would even better reflect the ambiguity and subjectivity intrinsic to assigning emotions to text, where content could be at same time joyful or sad, depending on the reader 
Acknowledgements
In addition to the anonymous reviewers, we want to thank Lucia Passaro and Barbara Plank for insightful discussions, and for providing comments on draft versions of this paper 
Context 3:  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   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

ground_truth: Affective Text, Fairy Tales, ISEAR

 Affective Text dataset, Fairy Tales dataset, ISEAR dataset

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 3:  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) 

ground_truth: Unanswerable

Unanswerable