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 datasets are used?
Context 1: Introduction
Back to 42 BC, the philosopher Cicero has raised the issue that although there were many Oratory classes, there were none for Conversational skills BIBREF0   He highlighted how important they were not only for politics, but also for educational purpose  Among other conversational norms, he claimed that people should be able to know when to talk in a conversation, what to talk depending on the subject of the conversation, and that they should not talk about themselves 
Norms such as these may become social conventions and are not learnt at home or at school  Social conventions are dynamic and may change according to context, culture and language  In online communication, new commonsense practices are evolved faster and accepted as a norm BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   There is not a discipline for that on elementary or high schools and there are few linguistics researchers doing research on this field 
On the other hand, within the Artificial Intelligence area, some Conversational Systems have been created in the past decades since the test proposed by Alan Turing in 1950  The test consists of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from that of a human BIBREF3   Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine that is designed to generate human-like responses  Since then, many systems have been created to pass the Turing's test  Some of them have won prizes, some not BIBREF4   Although in this paper we do not focus on creating a solution that is able to build conversational systems that pass the Turing's test, we focus on NDS  From BIBREF5 , "NDS are systems that try to improve usability and user satisfaction by imitating human behavior"  We refer to Conversational Systems as NDS, where the dialogues are expressed as natural language texts, either from artificial intelligent agents (a k a  bots) or from humans 
That said, the current popular name to systems that have the ability to make a conversation with humans using natural language is Chatbot  Chatbots are typically used in conversational systems for various practical purposes, including customer service or information acquisition  Chatbots are becoming more widely used by social media software vendors  For example, Facebook recently announced that it would make Facebook Messenger (its 900-million-user messaging app by 2016), into a full-fledged platform that allows businesses to communicate with users via chatbots  Google is also building a new mobile-messaging service that uses artificial intelligence know-how and chatbot technology  In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, there are more than 2 billion users of mobile apps  Still, people can be reluctant to install apps  So it is believed that social messaging can be a platform and chatbots may provide a new conversational interface for interacting with online services, as chatbots are easier to build and deploy than apps BIBREF6  
China seems to be the place where chatbots adoption and use is most advanced today  For example, China's popular WeChat messaging platform can take payments, scan QR codes, and integrate chatbot systems  WeChat integrates e-mail, chat, videocalls and sharing of large multimedia files  Users can book flights or hotels using a mixed, multimedia interaction with active bots  WeChat was first released in 2011 by Tecent, a Chinese online-gaming and social-media firm, and today more than 700 million people use it, being one of the most popular messaging apps in the world (The Economist 2016)  WeChat has a mixture of real-live customer service agents and automated replies (Olson 2016) 
Still, current existing chatbot engines do not properly handle a group chat with many users and many chatbots  This makes the chatbots considerably less social, which is a problem since there is a strong demand of having social chatbots that are able to provide different kinds of services, from traveling packages to finance advisors  This happens because there is a lack of methods and tools to design and engineer the coordination and mediation among chatbots and humans, as we present in Sections 2 and 3  In this paper, we refer to conversational systems that are able to interact with one or more people or chatbots in a multi-party chat as MPCS  Altogether, this paper is not meant to advance the state of the art on the norms for MPCS  Instead, the main contributions of this paper are threefold:
We then present some discussion and future work in the last section 
Challenges on Chattering
There are plenty of challenges in conversation contexts, and even bigger ones when people and machines participate in those contexts  Conversation is a specialized form of interaction, which follows social conventions  Social interaction makes it possible to inform, context, create, ratify, refute, and ascribe, among other things, power, class, gender, ethnicity, and culture BIBREF2   Social structures are the norms that emerge from the contact people have with others BIBREF7 , for example, the communicative norms of a negotiation, taking turns in a group, the cultural identity of a person, or power relationships in a work context 
Conventions, norms and patterns from everyday real conversations are applied when designing those systems to result in adoption and match user's expectations  BIBREF8 describes implicit interactions in a framework of interactions between humans and machines  The framework is based on the theory of implicit interactions which posits that people rely on conventions of interaction to communicate queries, offers, responses, and feedback to one another  Conventions and patterns drive our expectations about interactive behaviors  This framework helps designers and developers create interactions that are more socially appropriate  According to the author, we have interfaces which are based on explicit interaction and implicit ones  The explicit are the interactions or interfaces where people rely on explicit input and output, whereas implicit interactions are the ones that occur without user awareness of the computer behavior 
Social practices and actions are essential for a conversation to take place during the turn-by-turn moments of communication  BIBREF9 highlights that a distinguishing feature of ordinary conversation is "the local, moment-by-moment management of the distribution of turns, of their size, and what gets done in them, those things being accomplished in the course of each current speaker's turn " Management of turns and subject change in each course is a situation that occurs in real life conversations based on circumstances (internal and external) to speakers in a dialogue  Nowadays, machines are not prepared to fully understand context and change the course of conversations as humans  Managing dialogues with machines is challenging, which increases even more when more than one conversational agent is part of the same conversation  Some of those challenges in the dialogue flow were addressed by BIBREF10   According to them, we have system-initiative, user-initiative, and mixed-initiative systems 
In the first case, system-initiative systems restrict user options, asking direct questions, such as (Table TABREF5 ): "What is the initial amount of investment?" Doing so, those types of systems are more successful and easier to answer to  On the other hand, user-initiative systems are the ones where users have freedom to ask what they wish  In this context, users may feel uncertain of the capabilities of the system and starting asking questions or requesting information or services which might be quite far from the system domain and understanding capacity, leading to user frustration  There is also a mixed-initiative approach, that is, a goal-oriented dialogue which users and computers participate interactively using a conversational paradigm  Challenges of this last classification are to understand interruptions, human utterances, and unclear sentences that were not always goal-oriented 
The dialog in Table TABREF5 has the system initiative in a question and answer mode, while the one in Table TABREF7 is a natural dialogue system where both the user and the system take the initiative  If we add another user in the chat, then we face other challenges 
In Table TABREF12 , line 4, the user U1 invites another person to the chat and the system does not reply to this utterance, nor to utterances on lines 6, 7 and 8 which are the ones when only the users (wife and husband) should reply to  On the other hand, when the couple agrees on the period and initial value of the investment (line 9), then the system S1 (at the time the only system in the chat) replies indicating that it will invite more systems (chatbots) that are experts on this kind of pair INLINEFORM0 period, initial value INLINEFORM1   They then join the chat and start interacting with each other  At the end, on line 17, the user U2 interacts with U1 and they agree with the certificate option  Then, the chatbot responsible for that, S3, is the only one that replies indicating how to invest 
Table TABREF12 is one example of interactions on which the chatbots require knowledge of when to reply given the context of the dialog  In general, we acknowledge that exist four dimensions of understanding and replying to an utterance in MPCS which a chatbot that interacts in a multi-party chat group should fulfill:
In the next section we present the state of the art and how they fullfil some of these dimensions 
Conversational Systems
In this section we discuss the state of the art on conversational systems in three perspectives: types of interactions, types of architecture, and types of context reasoning  Then we present a table that consolidates and compares all of them 
ELIZA BIBREF11 was one of the first softwares created to understand natural language processing  Joseph Weizenbaum created it at the MIT in 1966 and it is well known for acting like a psychotherapist and it had only to reflect back onto patient's statements  ELIZA was created to tackle five "fundamental technical problems": the identification of critical words, the discovery of a minimal context, the choice of appropriate transformations, the generation of appropriate responses to the transformation or in the absence of critical words, and the provision of an ending capacity for ELIZA scripts 
Right after ELIZA came PARRY, developed by Kenneth Colby, who is psychiatrist at Stanford University in the early 1970s  The program was written using the MLISP language (meta-lisp) on the WAITS operating system running on a DEC PDP-10 and the code is non-portable  Parts of it were written in PDP-10 assembly code and others in MLISP  There may be other parts that require other language translators  PARRY was the first system to pass the Turing test - the psychiatrists were able to make the correct identification only 48 percent of the time, which is the same as a random guessing 
A L I C E  (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity) BIBREF12 appeared in 1995 but current version utilizes AIML, an XML language designed for creating stimulus-response chat robots BIBREF13   A L I C E  bot has, at present, more than 40,000 categories of knowledge, whereas the original ELIZA had only about 200  The program is unable to pass the Turing test, as even the casual user will often expose its mechanistic aspects in short conversations 
Cleverbot (1997-2014) is a chatbot developed by the British AI scientist Rollo Carpenter  It passed the 2011 Turing Test at the Technique Techno-Management Festival held by the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati  Volunteers participate in four-minute typed conversations with either Cleverbot or humans, with Cleverbot voted 59 3 per cent human, while the humans themselves were rated just 63 3 per cent human BIBREF14  
Types of Interactions
Although most part of the research literature focuses on the dialogue of two persons, the reality of everyday life interactions shows a substantial part of multi-user conversations, such as in meetings, classes, family dinners, chats in bars and restaurants, and in almost every collaborative or competitive environment such as hospitals, schools, offices, sports teams, etc  The ability of human beings to organize, manage, and (mostly) make productive such complex interactive structures which are multi-user conversations is nothing less than remarkable  The advent of social media platforms and messaging systems such as WhatsApp in the first 15 years of the 21st century expanded our ability as a society to have asynchronous conversations in text form, from family and friends chatgroups to whole nations conversing in a highly distributed form in social media BIBREF15  
In this context, many technological advances in the early 2010s in natural language processing (spearheaded by the IBM Watson's victory in Jeopardy BIBREF16 ) spurred the availability in the early 2010s of text-based chatbots in websites and apps (notably in China BIBREF17 ) and spoken speech interfaces such as Siri by Apple, Cortana by Microsoft, Alexa by Amazon, and Allo by Google  However, the absolute majority of those chatbot deployments were in contexts of dyadic dialog, that is, a conversation between a single chatbot with a single user  Most of the first toolkits for chatbot design and development of this initial period implicit assume that an utterance from the user is followed by an utterance of the chatbot, which greatly simplifies the management of the conversation as discussed in more details later  Therefore, from the interaction point of view, there are two types: 1) one in which the chatbot was designed to chat with one person or chatbot, and 2) other in which the chatbot can interact with more than two members in the chat 
Dyadic Chatbot
A Dyadic Chatbot is a chatbot that does know when to talk  If it receives an utterance, it will always handle and try to reply to the received utterance  For this chatbot to behave properly, either there are only two members in the chat, and the chatbot is one of them, or there are more, but the chatbot replies only when its name or nickname is mentioned  This means that a dyadic chatbot does not know how to coordinate with many members in a chat group  It lacks the social ability of knowing when it is more suitable to answer or not  Also, note that we are not considering here the ones that would use this social ability as an advantage in the conversation, because if the chatbot is doing with this intention, it means that the chatbot was designed to be aware of the social issues regarding a chat with multiple members, which is not the case of a dyadic chatbot  Most existing chatbots, from the first system, ELIZA BIBREF11 , until modern state-of-the-art ones fall into this category 
Multiparty Conversations
In multiparty conversations between people and computer systems, natural language becomes the communication protocol exchanged not only by the human users, but also among the bots themselves  When every actor, computer or user, understands human language and is able to engage effectively in a conversation, a new, universal computer protocol of communication is feasible, and one for which people are extremely good at 
There are many differences between dyadic and multiparty conversations, but chiefly among them is turn-taking, that is, how a participant determines when it is appropriate to make an utterance and how that is accomplished  There are many social settings, such as assemblies, debates, one-channel radio communications, and some formal meetings, where there are clear and explicit norms of who, when, and for long a participant can speak 
The state of the art for the creation of chatbots that can participate on multiparty conversations currently is a combination of the research on the creation of chatbots and research on the coordination or governance of multi-agents systems  A definition that mixes both concepts herein present is: A chatbot is an agent that interacts through natural language  Although these areas complement each other, there is a lack of solutions for creating multiparty-aware chatbots or governed chatbots, which can lead to higher degree of system trust 
Multi-Dyadic Chatbots
Turn-taking in generic, multiparty spoken conversation has been studied by, for example, Sacks et al  BIBREF18   In broad terms, it was found that participants in general do not overlap their utterances and that the structure of the language and the norms of conversation create specific moments, called transition-relevance places, where turns can occur  In many cases, the last utterances make clear to the participants who should be the next speaker (selected-next-speaker), and he or she can take that moment to start to talk  Otherwise, any other participant can start speaking, with preference for the first starter to get the turn; or the current speaker can continue BIBREF18  
A key part of the challenge is to determine whether the context of the conversation so far have or have not determined the next speaker  In its simplest form, a vocative such as the name of the next speaker is uttered  Also, there is a strong bias towards the speaker before the current being the most likely candidate to be the next speaker 
In general the detection of transition-relevance places and of the selected-next-speaker is still a challenge for speech-based machine conversational systems  However, in the case of text message chats, transition-relevance places are often determined by the acting of posting a message, so the main problem facing multiparty-enabled textual chatbots is in fact determining whether there is and who is the selected-next-speaker  In other words, chatbots have to know when to shut up  Bohus and Horowitz BIBREF19 have proposed a computational probabilistic model for speech-based systems, but we are not aware of any work dealing with modeling turn-taking in textual chats 
Coordination of Multi-Agent Systems
A multi-agent system (MAS) can be defined as a computational environment in which individual software agents interact with each other, in a cooperative manner, or in a competitive manner, and sometimes autonomously pursuing their individual goals  During this process, they access the environment's resources and services and occasionally produce results for the entities that initiated these software agents  As the agents interact in a concurrent, asynchronous and decentralized manner, this kind of system can be categorized as a complex system BIBREF20  
Research in the coordination of multi-agent systems area does not address coordination using natural dialogue, as usually all messages are structured and formalized so the agents can reason and coordinate themselves  On the other hand, chatbots coordination have some relations with general coordination mechanisms of multi-agent systems in that they specify and control interactions between agents  However, chatbots coordination mechanisms is meant to regulate interactions and actions from a social perspective, whereas general coordination languages and mechanisms focus on means for expressing synchronization and coordination of activities and exchange of information, at a lower computational level 
In open multi-agent systems the development takes place without a centralized control, thus it is necessary to ensure the reliability of these systems in a way that all the interactions between agents will occur according to the specification and that these agents will obey the specified scenario  For this, these applications must be built upon a law-governed architecture 
Minsky published the first ideas about laws in 1987 BIBREF21   Considering that a law is a set of norms that govern the interaction, afterwards, he published a seminal paper with the Law-Governed Interaction (LGI) conceptual model about the role of interaction laws on distributed systems BIBREF22   Since then, he conducted further work and experimentation based on those ideas BIBREF23   Although at the low level a multiparty conversation system is a distributed system and the LGI conceptual model can be used in a variety of application domains, it is composed of abstractions basically related to low level information about communication issues of distributed systems (like the primitives disconnected, reconnected, forward, and sending or receiving of messages), lacking the ability to express high level information of social systems 
Following the same approach, the Electronic Institution (EI) BIBREF24 solution also provides support for interaction norms  An EI has a set of high-level abstractions that allow for the specification of laws using concepts such as agent roles, norms and scenes 
Still at the agent level but more at the social level, the XMLaw description language and the M-Law framework BIBREF25 BIBREF26 were proposed and developed to support law-governed mechanism  They implement a law enforcement approach as an object-oriented framework and it allows normative behavior through the combination between norms and clocks  The M-Law framework BIBREF26 works by intercepting messages exchanged between agents, verifying the compliance of the messages with the laws and subsequently redirecting the message to the real addressee, if the laws allow it  If the message is not compliant, then the mediator blocks the message and applies the consequences specified in the law, if any  They are called laws in the sense that they enforce the norms, which represent what can be done (permissions), what cannot be done (prohibitions) and what must be done (obligations) 
Coordinated Aware Chatbots in a Multiparty Conversation
With regard to chatbot engines, there is a lack of research directed to building coordination laws integrated with natural language  To the best of our knowledge, the architecture proposed in this paper is the first one in the state of the art designed to support the design and development of coordinated aware chatbots in a multiparty conversation 
Types of Architectures
There are mainly three types of architectures when building conversational systems: totally rule-oriented, totally data-oriented, and a mix of rules and data-oriented 
Rule-oriented
A rule-oriented architecture provides a manually coded reply for each recognized utterance  Classical examples of rule-based chatbots include Eliza and Parry  Eliza could also extract some words from sentences and then create another sentence with these words based on their syntatic functions  It was a rule-based solution with no reasoning  Eliza could not "understand" what she was parsing  More sophisticated rule-oriented architectures contain grammars and mappings for converting sentences to appropriate sentences using some sort of knowledge  They can be implemented with propositional logic or first-order logic (FOL)  Propositional logic assumes the world contains facts (which refer to events, phenomena, symptoms or activities)  Usually, a set of facts (statements) is not sufficient to describe a domain in a complete manner  On the other hand, FOL assumes the world contains Objects (e g , people, houses, numbers, etc ), Relations (e g  red, prime, brother of, part of, comes between, etc ), and Functions (e g  father of, best friend, etc ), not only facts as in propositional logic  Moreover, FOL contains predicates, quantifiers and variables, which range over individuals (which are domain of discourse) 
Prolog (from French: Programmation en Logique) was one of the first logic programming languages (created in the 1970s), and it is one of the most important languages for expressing phrases, rules and facts  A Prolog program consists of logical formulas and running a program means proving a theorem  Knowledge bases, which include rules in addition to facts, are the basis for most rule-oriented chatbots created so far 
In general, a rule is presented as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
Prolog made it possible to perform the language of Horn clauses (implications with only one conclusion)  The concept of Prolog is based on predicate logic, and proving theorems involves a resolute system of denials  Prolog can be distinguished from classic programming languages due to its possibility of interpreting the code in both a procedural and declarative way  Although Prolog is a set of specifications in FOL, it adopts the closed-world assumption, i e  all knowledge of the world is present in the database  If a term is not in the database, Prolog assumes it is false 
In case of Prolog, the FOL-based set of specifications (formulas) together with the facts compose the knowledge base to be used by a rule-oriented chatbot  However an Ontology could be used  For instance, OntBot BIBREF27 uses mapping technique to transform ontologies and knowledge into relational database and then use that knowledge to drive its chats  One of the main issues currently facing such a huge amount of ontologies stored in a database is the lack of easy to use interfaces for data retrieval, due to the need to use special query languages or applications 
In rule-oriented chatbots, the degree of intelligent behavior depends on the knowledge base size and quality (which represents the information that the chatbot knows), poor ones lead to weak chatbot responses while good ones do the opposite  However, good knowledge bases may require years to be created, depending on the domain 
Data-oriented
As opposed to rule-oriented architectures, where rules have to be explicitly defined, data-oriented architectures are based on learning models from samples of dialogues, in order to reproduce the behavior of the interaction that are observed in the data  Such kind of learning can be done by means of machine learning approach, or by simply extracting rules from data instead of manually coding them 
Among the different technologies on which these system can be based, we can highlight classical information retrieval algorithms, neural networks BIBREF28 , Hidden Markov Models (HMM) BIBREF29 , and Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) BIBREF30   Examples include Cleverbot and Tay BIBREF31   Tay was a chatbot developed by Microsoft that after one day live learning from interaction with teenagers on Twitter, started replying impolite utterances  Microsoft has developed others similar chatbots in China (Xiaoice) and in Japan (Rinna)  Microsoft has not associated its publications with these chatbots, but they have published a data-oriented approach BIBREF32 that proposes a unified multi-turn multi-task spoken language understanding (SLU) solution capable of handling multiple context sensitive classification (intent determination) and sequence labeling (slot filling) tasks simultaneously  The proposed architecture is based on recurrent convolutional neural networks (RCNN) with shared feature layers and globally normalized sequence modeling components 
A survey of public available corpora for can be found in BIBREF33   A corpus can be classified into different categories, according to: the type of data, whether it is spoken dialogues, transcripts of spoken dialogues, or directly written; the type of interaction, if it is human-human or human-machine; and the domain, whether it is restricted or unconstrained  Two well-known corpora are the Switchboard dataset, which consists of transcripts of spoken, unconstrained, dialogues, and the set of tasks for the Dialog State Tracking Challenge (DSTC), which contain more constrained tasks, for instance the restaurant and travel information sets 
Rule and Data-oriented
The model of learning in current A L I C E  BIBREF13 is incremental or/and interactive learning because a person monitors the robot's conversations and creates new AIML content to make the responses more appropriate, accurate, believable, "human", or whatever he/she intends  There are algorithms for automatic detection of patterns in the dialogue data and this process provides the person with new input patterns that do not have specific replies yet, permitting a process of almost continuous supervised refinement of the bot 
As already mentioned, A L I C E  consists of roughly 41,000 elements called categories which is the basic unit of knowledge in AIML  Each category consists of an input question, an output answer, and an optional context  The question, or stimulus, is called the pattern  The answer, or response, is called the template  The two types of optional context are called that and topic  The keyword that refers to the robot's previous utterance  The AIML pattern language consists only of words, spaces, and the wildcard symbols "_" and "*"  The words may consist only of letters and numerals  The pattern language is case invariant  Words are separated by a single space, and the wildcard characters function like words, similar to the initial pattern matching strategy of the Eliza system  More generally, AIML tags transform the reply into a mini computer program which can save data, activate other programs, give conditional responses, and recursively call the pattern matcher to insert the responses from other categories  Most AIML tags in fact belong to this template side sublanguage BIBREF13  
AIML language allows:
Symbolic reduction: Reduce complex grammatical forms to simpler ones 
Divide and conquer: Split an input into two or more subparts, and combine the responses to each 
Synonyms: Map different ways of saying the same thing to the same reply 
Spelling or grammar corrections: the bot both corrects the client input and acts as a language tutor 
Detecting keywords anywhere in the input that act like triggers for a reply 
Conditionals: Certain forms of branching to produce a reply 
Any combination of (1)-(6) 
When the bot chats with multiple clients, the predicates are stored relative to each client ID  For example, the markup INLINEFORM0 set name INLINEFORM1 "name" INLINEFORM2 Matthew INLINEFORM3 /set INLINEFORM4 stores the string Matthew under the predicate named "name"  Subsequent activations of INLINEFORM5 get name="name" INLINEFORM6 return "Matthew"  In addition, one of the simple tricks that makes ELIZA and A L I C E  so believable is a pronoun swapping substitution  For instance:
U: My husband would like to invest with me 
S: Who else in your family would like to invest with you?
Types of Intentions
According to the types of intentions, conversational systems can be classified into two categories: a) goal-driven or task oriented, and b) non-goal-driven or end-to-end systems 
In a goal-driven system, the main objective is to interact with the user so that back-end tasks, which are application specific, are executed by a supporting system  As an example of application we can cite technical support systems, for instance air ticket booking systems, where the conversation system must interact with the user until all the required information is known, such as origin, destination, departure date and return date, and the supporting system must book the ticket  The most widely used approaches for developing these systems are Partially-observed Decision Processes (POMDP) BIBREF30 , Hidden Markov Models (HMM) BIBREF29 , and more recently, Memory Networks BIBREF28   Given that these approaches are data-oriented, a major issue is to collect a large corpora of annotated task-specific dialogs  For this reason, it is not trivial to transfer the knowledge from one to domain to another  In addition, it might be difficult to scale up to larger sets of tasks 
Non-goal-driven systems (also sometimes called reactive systems), on the other hand, generate utterances in accordance to user input, e g  language learning tools or computer games characters  These systems have become more popular in recent years, mainly owning to the increase of popularity of Neural Networks, which is also a data-oriented approach  The most recent state of the art to develop such systems have employed Recurrent Neural Networs (RNN) BIBREF34 , Dynamic Context-Sensitive Generation BIBREF35 , and Memory Networks BIBREF36 , just to name a few  Nevertheless, probabilistic methods such as Hidden Topic Markov Models (HTMM) BIBREF37 have also been evaluated  Goal-driven approach can create both pro-active and reactive chatbots, while non-goal-driven approach creates reactive chatbots  In addition, they can serve as a tool to goal-driven systems as in BIBREF28   That is, when trained on corpora of a goal-driven system, non-goal-driven systems can be used to simulate user interaction to then train goal-driven models 
Types of Context Reasoning
A dialogue system may support the context reasoning or not  Context reasoning is necessary in many occasions  For instance, when partial information is provided the chatbot needs to be able to interact one or more turns in order to get the complete information in order to be able to properly answer  In BIBREF38 , the authors present a taxonomy of errors in conversational systems  The ones regarding context-level errors are the ones that are perceived as the top-10 confusing and they are mainly divided into the following:
Excess/lack of proposition: the utterance does not provide any new proposition to the discourse context or provides excessive information than required 
Contradiction: the utterance contains propositions that contradict what has been said by the system or by the user 
Non-relevant topic: the topic of the utterance is irrelevant to the current context such as when the system suddenly jumps to some other topic triggered by some particular word in the previous user utterance 
Unclear relation: although the utterance might relate to the previous user utterance, its relation to the current topic is unclear 
Topic switch error: the utterance displays the fact that the system missed the switch in topic by the user, continuing with the previous topic 
Rule-oriented
In the state of the art most of the proposed approaches for context reasoning lies on rules using logics and knowledge bases as described in the Rule-oriented architecture sub-section  Given a set of facts extracted from the dialogue history and encoded in, for instance, FOL statements, a queries can be posed to the inference engine and produce answers  For instance, see the example in Table TABREF37   The sentences were extracted from BIBREF36 (which does not use a rule-oriented approach), and the first five statements are their respective facts  The system then apply context reasoning for the query Q: Where is the apple 
If statements above are received on the order present in Table TABREF37 , if the query Q: Where is the apple is sent, the inference engine will produce the answer A: Bedroom (i e , the statement INLINEFORM0 is found by the model and returned as True) 
Nowadays, the most common way to store knowledge bases is on triple stores, or RDF (Resource Description Framework) stores  A triple store is a knowledge base for the storage and retrieval of triples through semantic queries  A triple is a data entity composed of subject-predicate-object, like "Sam is at the kitchen" or "The apple is with Sam", for instance  A query language is needed for storing and retrieving data from a triple store  While SPARQL is a RDF query language, Rya is an open source scalable RDF triple store built on top of Apache Accumulo  Originally developed by the Laboratory for Telecommunication Sciences and US Naval Academy, Rya is currently being used by a number of american government agencies for storing, inferencing, and querying large amounts of RDF data 
A SPARQL query has a SQL-like syntax for finding triples matching specific patterns  For instance, see the query below  It retrieves all the people that works at IBM and lives in New York:
SELECT ?people
WHERE {
?people <worksAt> <IBM>  
?people <livesIn> <New York> 
}
Since triple stores can become huge, Rya provides three triple table index BIBREF39 to help speeding up queries:
SPO: subject, predicate, object
POS: predicate, object, subject
OSP: object, subject, predicate
While Rya is an example of an optimized triple store, a rule-oriented chatbot can make use of Rya or any triple store and can call the semantic search engine in order to inference and generate proper answers 
Data-oriented
Recent papers have used neural networks to predict the next utterance on non-goal-driven systems considering the context, for instance with Memory Networks BIBREF40   In this work BIBREF36 , for example the authors were able to generate answers for dialogue like below:
Sam walks into the kitchen 
Sam picks up an apple 
Sam walks into the bedroom 
Sam drops the apple 
Q: Where is the apple?
A: Bedroom
Sukhbaatar's model represents the sentence as a vector in a way that the order of the words matter, and the model encodes the temporal context enhancing the memory vector with a matrix that contains the temporal information  During the execution phase, Sukhbaatar's model takes a discrete set of inputs INLINEFORM0 that are to be stored in the memory, a query INLINEFORM1 , and outputs an answer INLINEFORM2   Each of the INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 , and INLINEFORM5 contains symbols coming from a dictionary with INLINEFORM6 words  The model writes all INLINEFORM7 to the memory up to a fixed buffer size, and then finds a continuous representation for the INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9   The continuous representation is then processed via multiple computational steps to output INLINEFORM10   This allows back propagation of the error signal through multiple memory accesses back to the input during training  Sukhbaatar's also presents the state of the art of recent efforts that have explored ways to capture dialogue context, treated as long-term structure within sequences, using RNNs or LSTM-based models  The problem of this approach is that it is has not been tested for goal-oriented systems  In addition, it works with a set of sentences but not necessary from multi-party bots 
Platforms
Regarding current platforms to support the development of conversational systems, we can categorize them into three types: platforms for plugging chatbots, for creating chatbots and for creating service chatbots  The platforms for plugging chatbots provide tools for integrating them another system, like Slack  The chatbots need to receive and send messages in a specific way, which depends on the API and there is no support for actually helping on building chatbots behavior with natural language understanding  The platforms for creating chatbots mainly provide tools for adding and training intentions together with dialogue flow specification and some entities extraction, with no reasoning support  Once the models are trained and the dialogue flow specified, the chatbots are able to reply to the received intention  The platforms for creating service chatbots provide the same functionalities as the last one and also provide support for defining actions to be executed by the chatbots when they are answering to an utterance  Table TABREF43 summarizes current platforms on the market accordingly to these categories  There is a lack on platforms that allow to create chatbots that can be coordinated in a multiparty chat with governance or mediation 
A Conceptual Architecture for Multiparty-Aware Chatbots
In this section the conceptual architecture for creating a hybrid rule and machine learning-based MPCS is presented  The MPCS is defined by the the entities and relationships illustrated in Fig  FIGREF44 which represents the chatbot's knowledge  A Chat Group contains several Members that join the group with a Role  The role may constrain the behavior of the member in the group  Chatbot is a type of Role, to differentiate from persons that may also join with different roles  For instance, a person may assume the role of the owner of the group, or someone that was invited by the owner, or a domain role like an expert, teacher or other 
When a Member joins the Chat Group, it/he/she can send Utterances  The Member then classifies each Utterance with an Intent which has a Speech Act  The Intent class, Speech Act class and the Intent Flow trigger the Action class to be executed by the Member that is a Chatbot  The Chatbots associated to the Intention are the only ones that know how to answer to it by executing Actions  The Action, which implements one Speech Act, produces answers which are Utterances, so, for instance, the Get_News action produces an Utterance for which Intention's speech act is Inform_News  The Intent Flow holds the intent's class conversation graph which maps the dialog state as a decision tree  The answer's intention class is mapped in the Intent Flow as a directed graph G defined as following: DISPLAYFORM0
From the graph definitions, INLINEFORM0 is for vertices and INLINEFORM1 is for relations, which are the arrows in the graph  And in Equation EQREF46 :
INLINEFORM0 is the set of intentions pairs,
INLINEFORM0 is the set of paths to navigate through the intentions,
INLINEFORM0 is the arrow's head, and
INLINEFORM0 is the arrow's tail 
This arrow represents a turn from an utterance with INLINEFORM0 intention class which is replying to an utterance with INLINEFORM1 intention class to the state which an utterance with INLINEFORM2 intention's class is sent 
INLINEFORM0 is the intention class of the answer to be provided to the received INLINEFORM1 intention class 
In addition, each intent's class may refer to many Entities which, in turn, may be associated to several Features  For instance, the utterance
"I would like to invest USD10,000 in Savings Account for 2 years"
contains one entity – the Savings Account's investment option – and two features – money (USD10,000) and period of time (2 years)  The Intent Flow may need this information to choose the next node which will give the next answer  Therefore, if the example is changed a little, like
"I would like to invest in Savings Account",
INLINEFORM0 is constrained by the "Savings Account" entity which requires the two aforementioned features  Hence, a possible answer by one Member of the group would be
"Sure, I can simulate for you, what would be the initial amount and the period of time of the investment?"
With these conceptual model's elements, a MPCS system can be built with multiple chatbots  Next subsection further describes the components workflow 
Workflow
Figure FIGREF48 illustrates from the moment that an utterance is sent in a chat group to the moment a reply is generated in the same chat group, if the case  One or more person may be in the chat, while one or more chatbots too  There is a Hub that is responsible for broadcasting the messages to every Member in the group, if the case  The flow starts when a Member sends the utterance which goes to the Hub and, if allowed, is broadcasted  Many or none interactions norms can be enforced at this level depending on the application  Herein, a norm can be a prohibition, obligation or permission to send an utterance in the chat group 
Once the utterance is broadcasted, a chatbot needs to handle the utterance  In order to properly handle it, the chatbot parses the utterance with several parsers in the Parsing phase: a Topic Classifier, the Dependency Parsing, which includes Part-of-Speech tags and semantics tags, and any other that can extract metadata from the utterance useful for the reasoning  All these metadata, together with more criteria, may be used in the Frame parsing which is useful for context reasoning  All knowledge generated in this phase can be stored in the Context  Then, the Intent Classifier tries to detect the intent class of the utterance  If detected, the Speech Act is also retrieved  And an Event Detector can also check if there is any dialog inconsistency during this phase 
After that, the Filtering phase receives the object containing the utterance, the detected intent, and all metadata extracted so far and decides if an action should be performed to reply to the utterance  If yes, it is sent to the Acting phase which performs several steps  First the Action Classifier tries to detect the action to be performed  If detected, the action is executed  At this step, many substeps may be performed, like searching for an information, computing maths, or generating information to create the answer  All of this may require a search in the Context and also may activate the Error Detector component to check if the dialog did not run into a wrong state  After the answer is generated, the Filtering phase is activated again to check if the reply should be really sent  If so, it is sent to the Hub which, again may check if it can be broadcasted before actually doing it 
The topic classifier is domain-dependent and is not mandatory  However, the chatbot can better react when the intent or action is not detected, which means that it does not know how to answer  Many reasons might explain this situation: the set of intents might be incomplete, the action might not have produced the proper behavior, misunderstanding might happen, or the chatbot was not designed to reply to a particular topic  In all cases, it must be able to produce a proper reply, if needed  Because this might happen throughout the workflow, the sooner that information is available, the better the chatbot reacts  Therefore it is one of the first executions of the flow 
Dependency is the notion that linguistic units, e g  words, are connected to each other by directed links  The (finite) verb is taken to be the structural center of clause structure  All other syntactic units (words) are either directly or indirectly connected to the verb in terms of the directed links, which are called dependencies  It is a one-to-one correspondence: for every element (e g  word or morph) in the sentence, there is exactly one node in the structure of that sentence that corresponds to that element  The result of this one-to-one correspondence is that dependency grammars are word (or morph) grammars  All that exist are the elements and the dependencies that connect the elements into a structure  Dependency grammar (DG) is a class of modern syntactic theories that are all based on the dependency relation 
Semantic dependencies are understood in terms of predicates and their arguments  Morphological dependencies obtain between words or parts of words  To facilitate future research in unsupervised induction of syntactic structure and to standardize best-practices, a tagset that consists of twelve universal part-of-speech categories was proposed BIBREF41  
Dependency parsers have to cope with a high degree of ambiguity and nondeterminism which let to different techniques than the ones used for parsing well-defined formal languages  Currently the mainstream approach uses algorithms that derive a potentially very large set of analyses in parallel and when disambiguation is required, this approach can be coupled with a statistical model for parse selection that ranks competing analyses with respect to plausibility BIBREF42  
Below we present an example of a dependency tree for the utterance:
"I want to invest 10 thousands":
[s]""blue[l]:black
"tree": {
"want VERB ROOT": {
"I PRON nsubj": {},
"to ADP mark": {},
"invest VERB nmod": {
"thousands NOUN nmod": {
"10 NUM nummod": {}
}
}
}
The coarse-grained part-of-speech tags, or morphological dependencies (VERB, PRON, ADP, NOUN and NUM) encode basic grammatical categories and the grammatical relationships (nsubjs, nmod, nummod) are defined in the Universal Dependencies project BIBREF41  
In this module, the dependency tree generated is used together with a set of rules to extract information that is saved in the context using the Frame-based approach  This approach fills the slots of the frame with the extracted values from the dialogue  Frames are like forms and slots are like fields  Using the knowledge's conceptual model, the fields are represented by the elements Entities and Features  In the dependency tree example, the entity would be the implicit concept: the investment option, and the feature is the implicit concept: initial amount – 10 thousands  Since the goal is to invest, and there are more entities needed for that (i e , fields to be filled), the next node in the Intention Flow tree would return an utterance which asks the user the time of investment, if he/she has not provided yet 
This module could be implemented using different approaches according to the domain, but tree search algorithms will be necessary for doing the tree parsing 
The Intent Classifier component aims at recognizing not only the Intent but the goal of the utterance sent by a Member, so it can properly react  The development of an intent classifier needs to deal with the following steps:
i) the creation of dataset of intents, to train the classification algorithm;
ii) the design of a classification algorithm that provides a reasonable level of accuracy;
iii) the creation of dataset of trees of intents, the same as defined in i) and which maps the goals;
iv) the design of a plan-graph search algorithm that maps the goal's state to a node in the graph;
There are several approaches to create training sets for dialogues: from an incremental approach to crowdsourcing  In the incremental approach, the Wizard of Oz method can be applied to a set of potential users of the system, and from this study, a set of questions that the users asked posted to the `fake' system can be collected  These questions have to be manually classified into a set of intent classes, and used to train the first version of the system  Next, this set has to be increased both in terms of number of classes and samples per class 
The Speech Act Classifier can be implemented with many speech act classes as needed by the application  The more classes, the more flexible the chatbot is  It can be built based on dictionaries, or a machine learning-based classifier can be trained  In the table below we present the main and more general speech act classes BIBREF43 used in the Chatbots with examples to differentiate one from another:
There are at least as many Action classes as Speech Act classes, since the action is the realization of a speech act  The domain specific classes, like "Inform_News" or "Inform_Factoids", enhance the capabilities of answering of a chatbot 
The Action Classifier can be defined as a multi-class classifier with the tuple DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the intent of the answer defined in ( EQREF46 ), INLINEFORM1 is the speech act of the answer, INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 are the sets of entities and features needed to produce the answer, if needed, respectively 
This component is responsible for implementing the behavior of the Action class  Basic behaviors may exist and be shared among different chatbots, like the ones that implement the greetings, thanks or not understood  Although they can be generic, they can also be personalized to differentiate the bot from one another and also to make it more "real"  Other cases like to inform, to send a query, to send a proposal, they are all domain-dependent and may require specific implementations 
Anyway, figure FIGREF59 shows at the high level the generic workflow  If action class detected is task-oriented, the system will implement the execution of the task, say to guide a car, to move a robot's arm, or to compute the return of investments  The execution might need to access an external service in the Internet in order to complete the task, like getting the inflation rate, or the interest rate, or to get information about the environment, or any external factor  During the execution or after it is finished, the utterance is generated as a reply and, if no more tasks are needed, the action execution is finished 
In the case of coordination of chatbots, one or more chatbots with the role of mediator may exist in the chat group and, at this step, it is able to invite one or more chatbots to the chat group and it is also able to redirect the utterances, if the case 
The proposed architecture addresses the challenges as the following:
What is the message/utterance about? solved by the Parsing phase;
Who should reply to the utterance? solved by the Filtering phase and may be enforced by the Hub;
How the reply should be built/generated? solved by the Acting phase;
When should the reply be sent? may be solved by the Acting phase or the Filtering phase, and may be enforced by the Hub;
And Context and Logging module is used throughout all phases 
Architecture Implementation and Evaluation
This section presents one implementation of the conceptual architecture presented in last section  After many refactorings, a framework called SABIA (Speech-Act-Based Intelligent Agents Framework) has been developed and CognIA (Cognitive Investment Advisor) application has been developed as an instantiation of SABIA framework  We present then the accuracy and some automated tests of this implementation 
Speech-Act-based Intelligent Agents Framework
SABIA was developed on top of Akka middleware  Akka is a toolkit and runtime that implements the Actor Model on the JVM  Akka's features, like concurrency, distributed computing, resilience, and message-passing were inspired by Erlang's actor model BIBREF44 BIBREF45   The actor model is a mathematical model of concurrent computation that treats "actors" as the universal primitives of concurrent computation  In response to a message that it receives, an actor can: make local decisions, create more actors, send more messages, and determine how to respond to the next received message  Actors may modify private state, but can only affect each other through messages (avoiding the need for any locks)  Akka middleware manages the actors life cycle and actors look up by theirs name, locally or remotely 
We implemented each Member of the Chat Group as an Actor by extending the UntypedActor class of Akka middleware  Yet, we created and implemented the SabiaActorSystem as a singleton (i e , a single instance of it exists in the system) BIBREF46 that has a reference to Akka's ActorSystem  During SabiaActorSystem's initialization, all parsers that consume too much memory during their initialization to load models are instantiated as singletons  In this way, we save time on their calls during the runtime  Moreover, all chat group management, like to join or leave the group, or to broadcast or filter a message at the Hub level is implemented in SABIA through the Chat Group behavior 
This is implemented in SABIA as a singleton that is initialized during the SabiaActorSystem initialization with the URL of the service that implements the dependency parsing and is used on each utterance's arrival through the execution of the tagUtterance method  The service must retrieve a JSON Object with the dependency tree which is then parsed using depth-first search 
SABIA does not support invariants for frame parsing  We are leaving this task to the instantiated application 
There are two intent classifiers that can be loaded with trained models in order to be ready to be used at runtime: the 1-nearest-neighbor (1NN) and the SVM-based classifier 
SABIA implements the Action Classifier assuming that the application uses a relational database with a data schema that implements the conceptual model presented in Figure FIGREF44   Then the invariants parts that use SQL are already present and the application only needs to implement the database connection and follow the required data schema 
SABIA provides partial implemented behavior for the Action through the Template method design pattern BIBREF46 , which implements the invariants parts of the action execution and leaves placeholders for customization 
CognIA: A Cognitive Investment Advisor
We developed CognIA, which is an instantiation of Sabia framework  A conversation is composed of a group chat that can contain multiple users and multiple chatbots  This example, in particular, has a mediator that can help users on financial matters, more specifically on investment options  For example, consider the following dialogue in the table below:
The Table TABREF71 shows an example that uses the mixed-initiative dialogue strategy, and a dialogue mediator to provide coordination control  In this example of an application, there are many types of intentions that should be answered: Q&A (question and answer) about definitions, investment options, and about the current finance indexes, simulation of investments, which is task-oriented and requires computation, and opinions, which can be highly subjective 
In Table SECREF72 , we present the interaction norms that were needed in Cognia  The Trigger column describes the event that triggers the Behavior specified in the third column  The Pre-Conditions column specifies what must happen in order to start the behavior execution  So, for instance, line 2, when the user sends an utterance in the chat group, an event is triggered and, if the utterance's topic is CDB (Certificate of Deposit which is a fixed rate investment) or if it is about the Savings Account investment option and the speech act is not Query_Calculation and the CDB and Savings Account members are not in the chat, then the behavior is activated  The bot members that implement these behaviors are called cdbguru and poupancaguru  Therefore these names are used when there is a mention 
Note that these interactions norms are not explicitly defined as obligations, permissions, and prohibitions  They are implict from the behavior described  During this implementation, we did not worry about explicitly defining the norms, because the goal was to evaluate the overall architecture, not to enhance the state of the art on norms specification for conversational systems  In addition, CognIA has only the presented interaction norms defined in Table SECREF72 , which is a very small set that that does not required model checking or verification of conflicts 
|p2cm|p5 0cm|p5 0cm|Cognia Interaction NormsCognia Interaction Norms
Trigger Pre-Conditions Behavior
On group chat creation Cognia chatbot is available Cognia chatbot joins the chat with the mediator role and user joins the chat with the owner_user role
On utterance sent by user Utterance's topic is CDB (cdbguru) or Savings Account (poupancaguru) and speech act is not Query_Calculation and they are not in the chat Cognia invites experts to the chat and repeats the utterance to them
On utterance sent by user Utterance's topic is CDB (cdbguru) or Savings Account (poupancaguru) and speech act is not Query_Calculation and they are in the chat Cognia waits for while and cdbguru or poupancaguru respectively handles the utterance  If they don't understand, they don't reply
On utterance sent by the experts If Cognia is waiting for them and has received both replies Cognia does not wait anymore
On utterance sent Utterance mentions cdbguru or poupancaguru cdbguru or poupancaguru respectively handles the utterance
On utterance sent Utterance mentions cdbguru or poupancaguru and they don't reply after a while and speech act is Query_Calculation Cognia sends I can only chat about investments   
On utterance sent Utterance mentions cdbguru or poupancaguru and they don't reply after while and speech act is not Query_Calculation Cognia sends I didn't understand
On utterance sent Utterance's speech act is Query_Calculation and period or initial amount of investment were not specified Cognia asks the user the missing information
On utterance sent Utterance's speech act is Query_Calculation and period and initial amount of investment were specified and the experts are not in the chat Cognia invites experts to the chat and repeats the utterance to them
On utterance sent Utterance's speech act is Query_Calculation and period and initial amount of investment were specified and the experts are in the chat Cognia repeats the utterance to experts
On utterance sent Utterance's speech act is Query_Calculation Cognia extracts variables and saves the context
On utterance sent Utterance's speech act is Query_Calculation and the experts are in the chat and the experts are mentioned Experts extract information, save in the context, compute calculation and send information
On utterance sent Utterance's speech act is Inform_Calculation and Cognia received all replies Cognia compares the results and inform comparison
On utterance sent Utterance mentions a chatbot but has no other text The chatbot replies How can I help you?
On utterance sent Utterance is not understood and speech act is Question The chatbot replies I don't know    I can only talk about topic X
On utterance sent Utterance is not understood and speech act is not Question The chatbot replies I didn't understand
On utterance sent Utterance's speech act is one of { Greetings, Thank, Bye } All chatbots reply to utterance
On group chat end All chatbots leave the chat, and the date and time of the end of chat is registered
We instantiated SABIA to develop CognIA as follows: the Mediator, Savings Account, CDB and User Actors are the Members of the Chat Group  The Hub was implemented using two servers: Socket io and Node JS which is a socket client of the Socket io server  The CognIA system has also one Socket Client for receiving the broadcast and forwarding to the Group Chat Manager  The former will actually do the broadcast to every member after enforcing the norms that applies specified in Table SECREF72   Each Member will behave according to this table too  For each user of the chat group, on a mobile or a desktop, there is its corresponding actor represented by the User Actor in the figure  Its main job is to receive Akka's broadcast and forward to the Socket io server, so it can be finally propagated to the users 
All the intents, actions, factual answers, context and logging data are saved in DashDB (a relational Database-as-a-Service system)  When an answer is not retrieved, a service which executes the module Search Finance on Social Media on a separate server is called  This service was implemented with the assumption that finance experts post relevant questions and answers on social media  Further details are explained in the Action execution sub-section 
We built a small dictionary-based topic classifier to identify if an utterance refers to finance or not, and if it refers to the two investment options (CDB or Savings Account) or not 
The dependency parsing is extremely important for computing the return of investment when the user sends an utterance with this intention  Our first implementation used regular expressions which led to a very fragile approach  Then we used a TensorFlow implementation BIBREF47 of a SyntaxNet model for Portuguese and used it to generate the dependency parse trees of the utterances  The SyntaxNet model is a feed-forward neural network that operates on a task-specific transition system and achieves the state-of-the-art on part-of-speech tagging, dependency parsing and sentence compression results BIBREF48   Below we present output of the service for the utterance:
"I want to invest 10 thousands in 40 months":
[s]""blue[l]:black
{ "original": "I would like to invest 10 thousands in 40 months",
"start_pos": [
23,
32],
"end_pos": [
27,
33],
"digits": [
10000,
40],
"converted": "I would like to invest 10000 in 40 months",
"tree": {
"like VERB ROOT": {
"I PRON nsubj": {},
"would MD aux":{
"invest VERB xcomp":{
"to TO aux": {},
"10000 NUM dobj": {},
"in IN prep": {
"months NOUN pobj":{
"40 NUM num": {}}}}}}}
The service returns a JSON Object containing six fields: original, start_pos, end_pos, digits, converted and tree  The original field contains the original utterance sent to the service  The converted field contains the utterance replaced with decimal numbers, if the case (for instance, "10 thousands" was converted to "10000" and replaced in the utterance)  The start_pos and end_pos are arrays that contain the start and end char positions of the numbers in the converted utterance  While the tree contains the dependency parse tree for the converted utterance 
Given the dependency tree, we implemented the frame parsing which first extracts the entities and features from the utterance and saves them in the context  Then, it replaces the extracted entities and features for reserved characters 
extract_period_of_investment (utteranceTree) [1] [t] numbersNodes INLINEFORM0 utteranceTree getNumbersNodes(); [t] foreach(numberNode in numbersNodes) do [t] parentsOfNumbersNode INLINEFORM1 numbersNode getParents() [t] foreach(parent in parentsOfNumbersNodes) do [t] if ( parent name contains { "day", "month", "year"} ) then [t] parentOfParent INLINEFORM2 parent getParent() [t] if ( parentOfParent is not null and
parentOfParent getPosTag==Verb and
parentOfParent name in investmentVerbsSet ) then [t] return numberNode
Therefore an utterance like "I would like to invest 10 thousands in 3 years" becomes "I would like to invest #v in #dt years"  Or "10 in 3 years" becomes "#v in #dt years", and both intents have the same intent class 
For doing that we implemented a few rules using a depth-first search algorithm combined with the rules as described in Algorithm UID79 , Algorithm UID79 and Algorithm UID79   Note that our parser works only for short texts on which the user's utterance mentions only one period of time and/ or initial amount of investment in the same utterance 
extract_initial_amount_of_investment (utteranceTree) [1] [t] numbersNodes INLINEFORM0 utteranceTree getNumbersNodes(); [t] foreach(numberNode in numbersNodes) do [t] parentsOfNumbersNode INLINEFORM1 numbersNode getParents() [t] foreach(parent in parentsOfNumbersNodes) do [t] if ( parent name does not contain { "day", "month", "year"} ) then [t] return numberNode
frame_parsing(utterance, utteranceTree) [1] [t] period INLINEFORM0 extract_period_of_investment (utteranceTree) [t] save_period_of_investment(period) [t] value INLINEFORM1 extract_initial_amount_of_investment (utteranceTree) [t] save_initial_amount_of_investment(value) [t] new_intent INLINEFORM2 replace(new_intent, period, "#dt") [t] new_intent INLINEFORM3 replace(new_intent, value, "#v")
In CognIA we have complemented the speech act classes with the ones related to the execution of specific actions  Therefore, if the chatbot needed to compute the return of investment, then, once it is computed, the speech act of the reply will be Inform_Calculation and the one that represents the query for that is Query_Calculation  In table TABREF81 we list the specific ones 
Given that there is no public dataset available with financial intents in Portuguese, we have employed the incremental approach to create our own training set for the Intent Classifier  First, we applied the Wizard of Oz method and from this study, we have collected a set of 124 questions that the users asked  Next, after these questions have been manually classified into a set of intent classes, and used to train the first version of the system, this set has been increased both in terms of number of classes and samples per class, resulting in a training set with 37 classes of intents, and a total 415 samples, with samples per class ranging from 3 to 37 
We have defined our classification method based on features extracted from word vectors  Word vectors consist of a way to encode the semantic meaning of the words, based on their frequency of co-occurrence  To create domain-specific word vectors, a set of thousand documents are needed related to desired domain  Then each intent from the training set needs to be encoded with its corresponding mean word vector  The mean word vector is then used as feature vector for standard classifiers 
We have created domain-specific word vectors by considering a set 246,945 documents, corresponding to of 184,001 Twitter posts and and 62,949 news articles, all related to finance  
The set of tweets has been crawled from the feeds of blog users who are considered experts in the finance domain  The news article have been extracted from links included in these tweets  This set contained a total of 63,270,124 word occurrences, with a vocabulary of 97,616 distinct words  With the aforementioned word vectors, each intent from the training set has been encoded with its corresponding mean word vector  The mean word vector has been then used as feature vector for standard classifiers 
As the base classifier, we have pursued with a two-step approach  In the first step, the main goal was to make use of a classifier that could be easily retrained to include new classes and intents  For this reason, the first implementation of the system considered an 1-nearest-neighbor (1NN) classifier, which is simply a K-nearest-neighbor classifier with K set to 1  With 1NN, the developer of the system could simply add new intents and classes to the classifier, by means of inserting new lines into the database storing the training set  Once we have considered that the training set was stable enough for the system, we moved the focus to an approach that would be able to provide higher accuracy rates than 1NN  For this, we have employed Support Vector Machines (SVM) with a Gaussian kernel, the parameters of which are optimized by means of a grid search 
We manually mapped the intent classes used to train the intent classifier to action classes and the dependent entities and features, when the case  Table TABREF85 summarizes the number of intent classes per action class that we used in CognIA 
For the majority of action classes we used SABIA's default behavior  For instance, Greet and Bye actions classes are implemented using rapport, which means that if the user says "Hi" the chatbot will reply "Hi" 
The Search News, Compute and Ask More classes are the ones that require specific implemention for CognIA as following:
Search News: search finance on social media service BIBREF49 , BIBREF50 receives the utterance as input, searches on previously indexed Twitter data for finance for Portuguese and return to the one which has the highest score, if found 
Ask More: If the user sends an utterance that has the intention class of simulating the return of investment, while not all variables to compute the return of investment are extracted from the dialogue, the mediator keeps asking the user these information before it actually redirects the query to the experts  This action then checks the state of the context given the specified intent flow as described in ( EQREF46 ) and ( EQREF57 ) in section SECREF4 to decide which variables are missing  For CognIA we manually added these dependencies on the database 
Compute: Each expert Chatbot implements this action according to its expertise  The savings account chatbot computes the formula ( EQREF90 ) and the certificate of deposit computes the formula ( EQREF92 )  Both are currently formulas for estimating in Brazil  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the return of investment for the savings account, INLINEFORM1 is the initial value of investment, INLINEFORM2 is the savings account interest rate and INLINEFORM3 is the savings account rate base  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the return of investment for certificate of deposit, INLINEFORM1 is the initial value of investment, INLINEFORM2 is the Interbank Deposit rate (DI in Portuguese), INLINEFORM3 is the ID's percentual payed by the bank (varies from 90% to 120%), INLINEFORM4 is the number of days the money is invested, and finally INLINEFORM5 is the income tax on the earnings 
Intention Classifier Accuracy
In Table TABREF95 we present the comparison of some distinct classification on the first version of the training set, i e  the set used to deploy the first classifier into the system  Roughly speaking, the 1NN classifier has been able to achieve a level of accuracy that is higher than other well-known classifiers, such as Logistic Regression and Naïve Bayes, showing that 1NN is suitable as a development classifier  Nevertheless, a SVM can perform considerable better than 1NN, reaching accuracies of about 12 percentage points higher, which demonstrates that this type of base classifier is a better choice to be deployed once the system is stable enough  It is worth mentioning that these results consider the leave-one-out validation procedure, given the very low number of samples in some classes 
As we mentioned, the use of an 1NN classifier has allowed the developer of the system to easily add new intent classes and samples whenever they judged it necessary, so that the system could present new actions, or the understanding of the intents could be improved  As a consequence, the initial training set grew from 37 to 63 classes, and from 415 to 659 samples, with the number of samples per class varying from 2 to 63  For visualizing the impact on the accuracy of the system, in Table TABREF96 we present the accuracy of the same classifiers used in the previous evaluation, in the new set  In this case, we observe some drop in accuracy for 1NN, showing that this classifier suffers in dealing with scalability  On the other hand, SVM has shown to scale very well to more classes and samples, since its accuracy kept at a very similar level than that with the other set, with a difference of about only 1 percentage point 
Testing SABIA
In this section, we describe the validation framework that we created for integration tests  For this, we developed it as a new component of SABIA's system architecture and it provides a high level language which is able to specify interaction scenarios that simulate users interacting with the deployed chatbots  The system testers provide a set of utterances and their corresponding expected responses, and the framework automatically simulates users interacting with the bots and collect metrics, such as time taken to answer an utterance and other resource consumption metrics (e g , memory, CPU, network bandwidth)  Our goal was to: (i) provide a tool for integration tests, (ii) to validate CognIA's implementation, and (iii) to support the system developers in understanding the behavior of the system and which aspects can be improved  Thus, whenever developers modify the system's source code, the modifications must first pass the automatic test before actual deployment 
The test framework works as follows  The system testers provide a set INLINEFORM0 of dialogues as input  Each dialogue INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2 INLINEFORM3 is an ordered set whose elements are represented by INLINEFORM4 , where INLINEFORM5 is the user utterance and INLINEFORM6 is an ordered set of pairs INLINEFORM7 that lists each response INLINEFORM8 each chatbot INLINEFORM9 should respond when the user says INLINEFORM10   For instance, Table UID98 shows a typical dialogue ( INLINEFORM11 ) between a user and the CognIA system  Note that we are omitting part of the expected answer with "   " just to better visualize the content of the table 
|p3 6cmp0 4cmp4 5cmp3 2cm|Content of dialogue INLINEFORM0 (example of dialogue in CognIA)Content of dialogue INLINEFORM1 (example of dialogue in CognIA
User utterance INLINEFORM0 rId Expected response INLINEFORM1 Chatbot INLINEFORM2
gray!25 hello 1 Hello Mediator
white what is cdb? 2 @CDBExpert what is cdb? Mediator
white 3 CDB is a type of investment that    CDB Expert
gray!25 which is better: cdb or savings account? 4 I found a post in the social media for     Mediator
white i would like to invest R$ 50 in six months 5 @SavingsAccountExpert and @CDBExpert, could you do a simulation    Mediator
white 6 If you invest in Savings Account,     Savings Account Exp 
white 7 If you invest in CDB,    CDB Expert
white 8 Thanks Mediator
white 9 @User, there is no significant difference   Mediator
gray!25 so i want to invest R$ 10000 in 2 years 10 @SavingsAccountExpert and @CDBExpert, could you do a simulation    Mediator
gray!25 11 If you invest in Savings Account,    Savings Account Exp 
gray!25 12 If you invest in CDB,    CDB Expert
gray!25 13 Thanks Mediator
gray!25 14 @User, in that case, it is better    Mediator
white what if i invest R$10,000 in 5 years? 15 @SavingsAccountExpert and @CDBExpert, could you do a simulation    Mediator
white 16 If you invest in Saving Account,    Savings Account Exp 
white 17 If you invest in CDB,    CDB Expert
white 18 Thanks Mediator
white 19 @User, in that case, it is better    Mediator
gray!25 how about 15 years? 20 @SavingsAccountExpert and @CDBExpert, could you do a simulation    Mediator
gray!25 21 If you invest in Savings Account,    Savings Account Exp
gray!25 22 If you invest in CDB,    CDB Expert
gray!25 23 Thanks Mediator
gray!25 24 @User, in that case, it is better    Mediator
white and 50,0000? 25 @SavingsAccountExpert and @CDBExpert, could you do a simulation    Mediator
white 26 If you invest in Savings Account,    Savings Account Exp 
white 27 If you invest in CDB,    CDB Expert
white 28 Thanks Mediator
white 29 @User, in that case, it is better   Mediator
gray!25 I want to invest in 50,000 for 15 years in CDB 30 Sure, follow this link to your bank    Mediator
white thanks 31 You are welcome  Mediator
The testers may also inform the number of simulated users that will concurrently use the platform  Then, for each simulated user, the test framework iterates over the dialogues in INLINEFORM0 and iterates over the elements in each dialogue to check if each utterance INLINEFORM1 was correctly responded with INLINEFORM2 by the chatbot INLINEFORM3   There is a maximum time to wait  If a bot does not respond with the expected response in the maximum time (defined by the system developers), an error is raised and the test is stopped to inform the developers about the error  Otherwise, for each correct bot response, the test framework collects the time taken to respond that specific utterance by the bot for that specific user and continues for the next user utterance  Other consumption resource metrics (memory, CPU, network, disk)  The framework is divided into two parts  One part is responsible to gather resource consumption metrics and it resides inside SABIA  The other part works as clients (users) interacting with the server  It collects information about time taken to answer utterances and checks if the utterances are answered correctly 
By doing this, we not only provide a sanity test for the domain application (CognIA) developed in SABIA framework, but also a performance analysis of the platform  That is, we can: validate if the bots are answering correctly given a pre-defined set of known dialogues, check if they are answering in a reasonable time, and verify the amount of computing resources that were consumed to answer a specific utterance  Given the complexity of CognIA, these tests enable debugging of specific features like: understanding the amount of network bandwidth to use external services, or analyzing CPU and memory consumption when responding a specific utterance  The later may happen when the system is performing more complex calculations to indicate the investment return, for instance 
CognIA was deployed on IBM Bluemix, a platform as a service, on a Liberty for Java Cloud Foundry app with 3 GB RAM memory and 1 GB disk  Each of the modules shown in Figure FIGREF74 are deployed on separate Bluemix servers  Node JS and Socket IO servers are both deployed as Node Cloud Foundry apps, with 256 MB RAM memory and 512 MB disk each  Search Finance on Social Media is on a Go build pack Cloud Foundry app with 128 MB RAM memory and 128 GB disk  For the framework part that simulates clients, we instantiated a virtual machine with 8 cores on IBM's SoftLayer that is able to communicate with Bluemix  Then, the system testers built two dialogues, i e , INLINEFORM0   The example shown in Table UID98 is the dialogue test INLINEFORM1   For the dialogue INLINEFORM2 , although it also has 10 utterances, the testers varied some of them to check if other utterances in the finance domain (different from the ones in dialogue INLINEFORM3 ) are being responded as expected by the bots  Then, two tests are performed and the results are analyzed next  All tests were repeated until the standard deviation of the values was less than 1%  The results presented next are the average of these values within the 1% margin 
Test 1: The first test consists of running both dialogues INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 for only one user for sanity check  We set 30 seconds as the maximum time a simulated user should wait for a bot correct response before raising an error  The result is that all chatbots (Mediator, CDBExpert, and SavingsAccountExpert) responded all expected responses before the maximum time  Additionally, the framework collected how long each chatbot took to respond an expected answer 
In Figure FIGREF101 , we show the results for those time measurements for dialogue INLINEFORM0 , as for the dialogue INLINEFORM1 the results are approximately the same  The x-axis (Response Identifier) corresponds to the second column (Resp  Id) in Table UID98   We can see, for example, that when the bot CDBExpert responds with the message 3 to the user utterance "what is cdb?", it is the only bot that takes time different than zero to answer, which is the expected behavior  We can also see that the Mediator bot is the one that takes the longest, as it is responsible to coordinate the other bots and the entire dialogue with the user  Moreover, when the expert bots (CDBExpert and SavingsAccountExpert) are called by the Mediator to respond to the simulation calculations (this happens in responses 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 27), they take approximately the same to respond  Finally, we see that when the concluding responses to the simulation calculations are given by the Mediator (this happens in responses 9, 14, 19, 24, 29), the response times reaches the greatest values, being 20 seconds the greatest value in response 19  These results support the system developers to understand the behavior of the system when simulated users interact with it and then focus on specific messages that are taking longer 
Test 2: This test consists of running dialogue INLINEFORM0 , but now using eight concurrent simulated users  We set the maximum time to wait to 240 seconds, i e , eight times the maximum set up for the single user in Test 1  The results are illustrated in Figure FIGREF102 , where we show the median time for the eight users  The maximum and minimum values are also presented with horizontal markers  Note that differently than what has been shown in Figure FIGREF101 , where each series represents one specific chatbot, in Figure FIGREF102 , the series represents the median response time for the responses in the order (x-axis) they are responded, regardless the chatbot 
Comparing the results in Figure FIGREF102 with the ones in Figure FIGREF101 , we can see that the bots take longer to respond when eight users are concurrently using the platform than when a single user uses it, as expected  For example, CDBExpert takes approximately 5 times longer to respond response 3 to eight users than to respond to one user  On average, the concluding responses to the simulation questions (i e , responses 9, 14, 19, 24, 29) take approximately 7 3 times more to be responded with eight users than with one user, being the response 9 the one that presented greatest difference (11 4 times longer with eight users than with one)  These results help the system developers to diagnose the scalability of the system architecture and to plan sizing and improvements 
Conclusions and Future Work
In this article, we explored the challenges of engineering MPCS and we have presented a hybrid conceptual architecture and its implementation with a finance advisory system 
We are currently evolving this architecture to be able to support decoupled interaction norms specification, and we are also developing a multi-party governance service that uses that specification to enforce exchange of compliant utterances 
In addition, we are exploring a micro-service implementation of SABIA in order to increase its scalability and performance, so thousands of members can join the system within thousands of conversations 
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Maximilien de Bayser, Ana Paula Appel, Flavio Figueiredo and Marisa Vasconcellos, who contributed with discussions during SABIA and CognIA's implementation 
Context 2: Introduction
Data annotation is a major bottleneck for the application of supervised learning approaches to many problems  As a result, unsupervised methods that learn directly from unlabeled data are increasingly important  For tasks related to unsupervised syntactic analysis, discrete generative models have dominated in recent years – for example, for both part-of-speech (POS) induction BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 and unsupervised dependency parsing BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   While similar models have had success on a range of unsupervised tasks, they have mostly ignored the apparent utility of continuous word representations evident from supervised NLP applications BIBREF5 , BIBREF6   In this work, we focus on leveraging and explicitly representing continuous word embeddings within unsupervised models of syntactic structure 
Pre-trained word embeddings from massive unlabeled corpora offer a compact way of injecting a prior notion of word similarity into models that would otherwise treat words as discrete, isolated categories  However, the specific properties of language captured by any particular embedding scheme can be difficult to control, and, further, may not be ideally suited to the task at hand  For example, pre-trained skip-gram embeddings BIBREF7 with small context window size are found to capture the syntactic properties of language well BIBREF8 , BIBREF9   However, if our goal is to separate syntactic categories, this embedding space is not ideal – POS categories correspond to overlapping interspersed regions in the embedding space, evident in Figure SECREF4  
In our approach, we propose to learn a new latent embedding space as a projection of pre-trained embeddings (depicted in Figure SECREF5 ), while jointly learning latent syntactic structure – for example, POS categories or syntactic dependencies  To this end, we introduce a new generative model (shown in Figure FIGREF6 ) that first generates a latent syntactic representation (e g  a dependency parse) from a discrete structured prior (which we also call the “syntax model”), then, conditioned on this representation, generates a sequence of latent embedding random variables corresponding to each word, and finally produces the observed (pre-trained) word embeddings by projecting these latent vectors through a parameterized non-linear function  The latent embeddings can be jointly learned with the structured syntax model in a completely unsupervised fashion 
By choosing an invertible neural network as our non-linear projector, and then parameterizing our model in terms of the projection's inverse, we are able to derive tractable exact inference and marginal likelihood computation procedures so long as inference is tractable in the underlying syntax model  In sec:learn-with-inv we show that this derivation corresponds to an alternate view of our approach whereby we jointly learn a mapping of observed word embeddings to a new embedding space that is more suitable for the syntax model, but include an additional Jacobian regularization term to prevent information loss 
Recent work has sought to take advantage of word embeddings in unsupervised generative models with alternate approaches BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF12   BIBREF9 build an HMM with Gaussian emissions on observed word embeddings, but they do not attempt to learn new embeddings  BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , and BIBREF12 extend HMM or dependency model with valence (DMV) BIBREF2 with multinomials that use word (or tag) embeddings in their parameterization  However, they do not represent the embeddings as latent variables 
In experiments, we instantiate our approach using both a Markov-structured syntax model and a tree-structured syntax model – specifically, the DMV  We evaluate on two tasks: part-of-speech (POS) induction and unsupervised dependency parsing without gold POS tags  Experimental results on the Penn Treebank BIBREF13 demonstrate that our approach improves the basic HMM and DMV by a large margin, leading to the state-of-the-art results on POS induction, and state-of-the-art results on unsupervised dependency parsing in the difficult training scenario where neither gold POS annotation nor punctuation-based constraints are available 
Model
As an illustrative example, we first present a baseline model for Markov syntactic structure (POS induction) that treats a sequence of pre-trained word embeddings as observations  Then, we propose our novel approach, again using Markov structure, that introduces latent word embedding variables and a neural projector  Lastly, we extend our approach to more general syntactic structures 
Example: Gaussian HMM
We start by describing the Gaussian hidden Markov model introduced by BIBREF9 , which is a locally normalized model with multinomial transitions and Gaussian emissions  Given a sentence of length INLINEFORM0 , we denote the latent POS tags as INLINEFORM1 , observed (pre-trained) word embeddings as INLINEFORM2 , transition parameters as INLINEFORM3 , and Gaussian emission parameters as INLINEFORM4   The joint distribution of data and latent variables factors as:
DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the multinomial transition probability and INLINEFORM1 is the multivariate Gaussian emission probability 
While the observed word embeddings do inform this model with a notion of word similarity – lacking in the basic multinomial HMM – the Gaussian emissions may not be sufficiently flexible to separate some syntactic categories in the complex pre-trained embedding space – for example the skip-gram embedding space as visualized in Figure SECREF4 where different POS categories overlap  Next we introduce a new approach that adds flexibility to the emission distribution by incorporating new latent embedding variables 
Markov Structure with Neural Projector
To flexibly model observed embeddings and yield a new representation space that is more suitable for the syntax model, we propose to cascade a neural network as a projection function, deterministically transforming the simple space defined by the Gaussian HMM to the observed embedding space  We denote the latent embedding of the INLINEFORM0 word in a sentence as INLINEFORM1 , and the neural projection function as INLINEFORM2 , parameterized by INLINEFORM3   In the case of sequential Markov structure, our new model corresponds to the following generative process:
For each time step INLINEFORM0 ,
[noitemsep, leftmargin=*]
Draw the latent state INLINEFORM0
Draw the latent embedding INLINEFORM0
Deterministically produce embedding
INLINEFORM0
The graphical model is depicted in Figure FIGREF6   The deterministic projection can also be viewed as sampling each observation from a point mass at INLINEFORM0   The joint distribution of our model is: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is a conditional Gaussian distribution, and INLINEFORM1 is the Dirac delta function centered at INLINEFORM2 : DISPLAYFORM0
General Structure with Neural Projector
Our approach can be applied to a broad family of structured syntax models  We denote latent embedding variables as INLINEFORM0 , discrete latent variables in the syntax model as INLINEFORM1 ( INLINEFORM2 ), where INLINEFORM3 are conditioned to generate INLINEFORM4   The joint probability of our model factors as:
DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 represents the probability of the syntax model, and can encode any syntactic structure – though, its factorization structure will determine whether inference is tractable in our full model  As shown in Figure FIGREF6 , we focus on two syntax models for syntactic analysis in this paper  The first is Markov-structured, which we use for POS induction, and the second is DMV-structured, which we use to learn dependency parses without supervision 
The marginal data likelihood of our model is: DISPLAYFORM0
While the discrete variables INLINEFORM0 can be marginalized out with dynamic program in many cases, it is generally intractable to marginalize out the latent continuous variables, INLINEFORM1 , for an arbitrary projection INLINEFORM2 in Eq  ( EQREF17 ), which means inference and learning may be difficult  In sec:opt, we address this issue by constraining INLINEFORM3 to be invertible, and show that this constraint enables tractable exact inference and marginal likelihood computation 
Learning & Inference
In this section, we introduce an invertibility condition for our neural projector to tackle the optimization challenge  Specifically, we constrain our neural projector with two requirements: (1) INLINEFORM0 and (2) INLINEFORM1 exists  Invertible transformations have been explored before in independent components analysis BIBREF14 , gaussianization BIBREF15 , and deep density models BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , for unstructured data  Here, we generalize this style of approach to structured learning, and augment it with discrete latent variables ( INLINEFORM2 )  Under the invertibility condition, we derive a learning algorithm and give another view of our approach revealed by the objective function  Then, we present the architecture of a neural projector we use in experiments: a volume-preserving invertible neural network proposed by BIBREF16 for independent components estimation 
Learning with Invertibility
For ease of exposition, we explain the learning algorithm in terms of Markov structure without loss of generality  As shown in Eq  ( EQREF17 ), the optimization challenge in our approach comes from the intractability of the marginalized emission factor INLINEFORM0   If we can marginalize out INLINEFORM1 and compute INLINEFORM2 , then the posterior and marginal likelihood of our Markov-structured model can be computed with the forward-backward algorithm  We can apply Eq  ( EQREF14 ) and obtain : INLINEFORM3
By using the change of variable rule to the integration, which allows the integration variable INLINEFORM0 to be replaced by INLINEFORM1 , the marginal emission factor can be computed in closed-form when the invertibility condition is satisfied: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is a conditional Gaussian distribution, INLINEFORM1 is the Jacobian matrix of function INLINEFORM2 at INLINEFORM3 , and INLINEFORM4 represents the absolute value of its determinant  This Jacobian term is nonzero and differentiable if and only if INLINEFORM5 exists 
Eq  ( EQREF19 ) shows that we can directly calculate the marginal emission distribution INLINEFORM0   Denote the marginal data likelihood of Gaussian HMM as INLINEFORM1 , then the log marginal data likelihood of our model can be directly written as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 represents the new sequence of embeddings after applying INLINEFORM1 to each INLINEFORM2   Eq  ( EQREF20 ) shows that the training objective of our model is simply the Gaussian HMM log likelihood with an additional Jacobian regularization term  From this view, our approach can be seen as equivalent to reversely projecting the data through INLINEFORM3 to another manifold INLINEFORM4 that is directly modeled by the Gaussian HMM, with a regularization term  Intuitively, we optimize the reverse projection INLINEFORM5 to modify the INLINEFORM6 space, making it more appropriate for the syntax model  The Jacobian regularization term accounts for the volume expansion or contraction behavior of the projection  Maximizing it can be thought of as preventing information loss  In the extreme case, the Jacobian determinant is equal to zero, which means the projection is non-invertible and thus information is being lost through the projection  Such “information preserving” regularization is crucial during optimization, otherwise the trivial solution of always projecting data to the same single point to maximize likelihood is viable 
More generally, for an arbitrary syntax model the data likelihood of our approach is: DISPLAYFORM0
If the syntax model itself allows for tractable inference and marginal likelihood computation, the same dynamic program can be used to marginalize out INLINEFORM0   Therefore, our joint model inherits the tractability of the underlying syntax model 
Invertible Volume-Preserving Neural Net
For the projection we can use an arbitrary invertible function, and given the representational power of neural networks they seem a natural choice  However, calculating the inverse and Jacobian of an arbitrary neural network can be difficult, as it requires that all component functions be invertible and also requires storage of large Jacobian matrices, which is memory intensive  To address this issue, several recent papers propose specially designed invertible networks that are easily trainable yet still powerful BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF19   Inspired by these works, we use the invertible transformation proposed by BIBREF16 , which consists of a series of “coupling layers”  This architecture is specially designed to guarantee a unit Jacobian determinant (and thus the invertibility property) 
From Eq  ( EQREF22 ) we know that only INLINEFORM0 is required for accomplishing learning and inference; we never need to explicitly construct INLINEFORM1   Thus, we directly define the architecture of INLINEFORM2   As shown in Figure FIGREF24 , the nonlinear transformation from the observed embedding INLINEFORM3 to INLINEFORM4 represents the first coupling layer  The input in this layer is partitioned into left and right halves of dimensions, INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 , respectively  A single coupling layer is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the coupling function and can be any nonlinear form  This transformation satisfies INLINEFORM1 , and BIBREF16 show that its Jacobian matrix is triangular with all ones on the main diagonal  Thus the Jacobian determinant is always equal to one (i e  volume-preserving) and the invertibility condition is naturally satisfied 
To be sufficiently expressive, we compose multiple coupling layers as suggested in BIBREF16   Specifically, we exchange the role of left and right half vectors at each layer as shown in Figure FIGREF24   For instance, from INLINEFORM0 to INLINEFORM1 the left subset INLINEFORM2 is unchanged, while from INLINEFORM3 to INLINEFORM4 the right subset INLINEFORM5 remains the same  Also note that composing multiple coupling layers does not change the volume-preserving and invertibility properties  Such a sequence of invertible transformations from the data space INLINEFORM6 to INLINEFORM7 is also called normalizing flow BIBREF20  
Experiments
In this section, we first describe our datasets and experimental setup  We then instantiate our approach with Markov and DMV-structured syntax models, and report results on POS tagging and dependency grammar induction respectively  Lastly, we analyze the learned latent embeddings 
Data
For both POS tagging and dependency parsing, we run experiments on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) portion of the Penn Treebank  To create the observed data embeddings, we train skip-gram word embeddings BIBREF7 that are found to capture syntactic properties well when trained with small context window BIBREF8 , BIBREF9   Following BIBREF9 , the dimensionality INLINEFORM0 is set to 100, and the training context window size is set to 1 to encode more syntactic information  The skip-gram embeddings are trained on the one billion word language modeling benchmark dataset BIBREF21 in addition to the WSJ corpus 
General Experimental Setup
For the neural projector, we employ rectified networks as coupling function INLINEFORM0 following BIBREF16   We use a rectified network with an input layer, one hidden layer, and linear output units, the number of hidden units is set to the same as the number of input units  The number of coupling layers are varied as 4, 8, 16 for both tasks

ground_truth: Custom dataset with user questions; set of documents, twitter posts and news articles, all related to finance.

a self-collected financial intents dataset in Portuguese

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 is the invertibility condition?
Context 2:  We optimize marginal data likelihood directly using Adam BIBREF22   For both tasks in the fully unsupervised setting, we do not tune the hyper-parameters using supervised data 
Unsupervised POS tagging
For unsupervised POS tagging, we use a Markov-structured syntax model in our approach, which is a popular structure for unsupervised tagging tasks BIBREF9 , BIBREF10  
Following existing literature, we train and test on the entire WSJ corpus (49208 sentences, 1M tokens)  We use 45 tag clusters, the number of POS tags that appear in WSJ corpus  We train the discrete HMM and the Gaussian HMM BIBREF9 as baselines  For the Gaussian HMM, mean vectors of Gaussian emissions are initialized with the empirical mean of all word vectors with an additive noise  We assume diagonal covariance matrix for INLINEFORM0 and initialize it with the empirical variance of the word vectors  Following BIBREF9 , the covariance matrix is fixed during training  The multinomial probabilities are initialized as INLINEFORM1 , where INLINEFORM2   For our approach, we initialize the syntax model and Gaussian parameters with the pre-trained Gaussian HMM  The weights of layers in the rectified network are initialized from a uniform distribution with mean zero and a standard deviation of INLINEFORM3 , where INLINEFORM4 is the input dimension  We evaluate the performance of POS tagging with both Many-to-One (M-1) accuracy BIBREF23 and V-Measure (VM) BIBREF24   Given a model we found that the tagging performance is well-correlated with the training data likelihood, thus we use training data likelihood as a unsupervised criterion to select the trained model over 10 random restarts after training 50 epochs  We repeat this process 5 times and report the mean and standard deviation of performance 
We compare our approach with basic HMM, Gaussian HMM, and several state-of-the-art systems, including sophisticated HMM variants and clustering techniques with hand-engineered features  The results are presented in Table TABREF32   Through the introduced latent embeddings and additional neural projection, our approach improves over the Gaussian HMM by 5 4 points in M-1 and 5 6 points in VM  Neural HMM (NHMM) BIBREF10 is a baseline that also learns word representation jointly  Both their basic model and extended Conv version does not outperform the Gaussian HMM  Their best model incorporates another LSTM to model long distance dependency and breaks the Markov assumption, yet our approach still achieves substantial improvement over it without considering more context information  Moreover, our method outperforms the best published result that benefits from hand-engineered features BIBREF27 by 2 0 points on VM 
We found that most tagging errors happen in noun subcategories  Therefore, we do the one-to-one mapping between gold POS tags and induced clusters and plot the normalized confusion matrix of noun subcategories in Figure FIGREF35   The Gaussian HMM fails to identify “NN” and “NNS” correctly for most cases, and it often recognizes “NNPS” as “NNP”  In contrast, our approach corrects these errors well 
Unsupervised Dependency Parsing without gold POS tags
For the task of unsupervised dependency parse induction, we employ the Dependency Model with Valence (DMV) BIBREF2 as the syntax model in our approach  DMV is a generative model that defines a probability distribution over dependency parse trees and syntactic categories, generating tokens and dependencies in a head-outward fashion  While, traditionally, DMV is trained using gold POS tags as observed syntactic categories, in our approach, we treat each tag as a latent variable, as described in sec:general-neural 
Most existing approaches to this task are not fully unsupervised since they rely on gold POS tags following the original experimental setup for DMV  This is partially because automatically parsing from words is difficult even when using unsupervised syntactic categories BIBREF29   However, inducing dependencies from words alone represents a more realistic experimental condition since gold POS tags are often unavailable in practice  Previous work that has trained from words alone often requires additional linguistic constraints (like sentence internal boundaries) BIBREF29 , BIBREF30 , BIBREF31 , BIBREF32 , acoustic cues BIBREF33 , additional training data BIBREF4 , or annotated data from related languages BIBREF34   Our approach is naturally designed to train on word embeddings directly, thus we attempt to induce dependencies without using gold POS tags or other extra linguistic information 
Like previous work we use sections 02-21 of WSJ corpus as training data and evaluate on section 23, we remove punctuations and train the models on sentences of length INLINEFORM0 , “head-percolation” rules BIBREF39 are applied to obtain gold dependencies for evaluation  We train basic DMV, extended DMV (E-DMV) BIBREF35 and Gaussian DMV (which treats POS tag as unknown latent variables and generates observed word embeddings directly conditioned on them following Gaussian distribution) as baselines  Basic DMV and E-DMV are trained with Viterbi EM BIBREF40 on unsupervised POS tags induced from our Markov-structured model described in sec:pos  Multinomial parameters of the syntax model in both Gaussian DMV and our model are initialized with the pre-trained DMV baseline  Other parameters are initialized in the same way as in the POS tagging experiment  The directed dependency accuracy (DDA) is used for evaluation and we report accuracy on sentences of length INLINEFORM1 and all lengths  We train the parser until training data likelihood converges, and report the mean and standard deviation over 20 random restarts 
Our model directly observes word embeddings and does not require gold POS tags during training  Thus, results from related work trained on gold tags are not directly comparable  However, to measure how these systems might perform without gold tags, we run three recent state-of-the-art systems in our experimental setting: UR-A E-DMV BIBREF36 , Neural E-DMV BIBREF11 , and CRF Autoencoder (CRFAE) BIBREF37   We use unsupervised POS tags (induced from our Markov-structured model) in place of gold tags  We also train basic DMV on gold tags and include several state-of-the-art results on gold tags as reference points 
As shown in Table TABREF39 , our approach is able to improve over the Gaussian DMV by 4 8 points on length INLINEFORM0 and 4 8 points on all lengths, which suggests the additional latent embedding layer and neural projector are helpful  The proposed approach yields, to the best of our knowledge, state-of-the-art performance without gold POS annotation and without sentence-internal boundary information  DMV, UR-A E-DMV, Neural E-DMV, and CRFAE suffer a large decrease in performance when trained on unsupervised tags – an effect also seen in previous work BIBREF29 , BIBREF34   Since our approach induces latent POS tags jointly with dependency trees, it may be able to learn POS clusters that are more amenable to grammar induction than the unsupervised tags  We observe that CRFAE underperforms its gold-tag counterpart substantially  This may largely be a result of the model's reliance on prior linguistic rules that become unavailable when gold POS tag types are unknown  Many extensions to DMV can be considered orthogonal to our approach – they essentially focus on improving the syntax model  It is possible that incorporating these more sophisticated syntax models into our approach may lead to further improvements 
Sensitivity Analysis
In the above experiments we initialize the structured syntax components with the pre-trained Gaussian or discrete baseline, which is shown as a useful technique to help train our deep models  We further study the results with fully random initialization  In the POS tagging experiment, we report the results in Table TABREF48   While the performance with 4 layers is comparable to the pre-trained Gaussian initialization, deeper projections (8 or 16 layers) result in a dramatic drop in performance  This suggests that the structured syntax model with very deep projections is difficult to train from scratch, and a simpler projection might be a good compromise in the random initialization setting 
Different from the Markov prior in POS tagging experiments, our parsing model seems to be quite sensitive to the initialization  For example, directed accuracy of our approach on sentences of length INLINEFORM0 is below 40 0 with random initialization  This is consistent with previous work that has noted the importance of careful initialization for DMV-based models such as the commonly used harmonic initializer BIBREF2   However, it is not straightforward to apply the harmonic initializer for DMV directly in our model without using some kind of pre-training since we do not observe gold POS 
We investigate the effect of the choice of pre-trained embedding on performance while using our approach  To this end, we additionally include results using fastText embeddings BIBREF41 – which, in contrast with skip-gram embeddings, include character-level information  We set the context windows size to 1 and the dimension size to 100 as in the skip-gram training, while keeping other parameters set to their defaults  These results are summarized in Table TABREF50 and Table TABREF51   While fastText embeddings lead to reduced performance with our model, our approach still yields an improvement over the Gaussian baseline with the new observed embeddings space 
Qualitative Analysis of Embeddings
We perform qualitative analysis to understand how the latent embeddings help induce syntactic structures  First we filter out low-frequency words and punctuations in WSJ, and visualize the rest words (10k) with t-SNE BIBREF42 under different embeddings  We assign each word with its most likely gold POS tags in WSJ and color them according to the gold POS tags 
For our Markov-structured model, we have displayed the embedding space in Figure SECREF5 , where the gold POS clusters are well-formed  Further, we present five example target words and their five nearest neighbors in terms of cosine similarity  As shown in Table TABREF53 , the skip-gram embedding captures both semantic and syntactic aspects to some degree, yet our embeddings are able to focus especially on the syntactic aspects of words, in an unsupervised fashion without using any extra morphological information 
In Figure FIGREF54 we depict the learned latent embeddings with the DMV-structured syntax model  Unlike the Markov structure, the DMV structure maps a large subset of singular and plural nouns to the same overlapping region  However, two clusters of singular and plural nouns are actually separated  We inspect the two clusters and the overlapping region in Figure FIGREF54 , it turns out that the nouns in the separated clusters are words that can appear as subjects and, therefore, for which verb agreement is important to model  In contrast, the nouns in the overlapping region are typically objects  This demonstrates that the latent embeddings are focusing on aspects of language that are specifically important for modeling dependency without ever having seen examples of dependency parses  Some previous work has deliberately created embeddings to capture different notions of similarity BIBREF43 , BIBREF44 , while they use extra morphology or dependency annotations to guide the embedding learning, our approach provides a potential alternative to create new embeddings that are guided by structured syntax model, only using unlabeled text corpora 
Related Work
Our approach is related to flow-based generative models, which are first described in NICE BIBREF16 and have recently received more attention BIBREF17 , BIBREF19 , BIBREF18   This relevant work mostly adopts simple (e g  Gaussian) and fixed priors and does not attempt to learn interpretable latent structures  Another related generative model class is variational auto-encoders (VAEs) BIBREF45 that optimize a lower bound on the marginal data likelihood, and can be extended to learn latent structures BIBREF46 , BIBREF47   Against the flow-based models, VAEs remove the invertibility constraint but sacrifice the merits of exact inference and exact log likelihood computation, which potentially results in optimization challenges BIBREF48   Our approach can also be viewed in connection with generative adversarial networks (GANs) BIBREF49 that is a likelihood-free framework to learn implicit generative models  However, it is non-trivial for a gradient-based method like GANs to propagate gradients through discrete structures 
Conclusion
In this work, we define a novel generative approach to leverage continuous word representations for unsupervised learning of syntactic structure  Experiments on both POS induction and unsupervised dependency parsing tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach  Future work might explore more sophisticated invertible projections, or recurrent projections that jointly transform the entire input sequence 
Context 3: Introduction
Text simplification aims to reduce the lexical and structural complexity of a text, while still retaining the semantic meaning, which can help children, non-native speakers, and people with cognitive disabilities, to understand text better  One of the methods of automatic text simplification can be generally divided into three categories: lexical simplification (LS) BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , rule-based BIBREF2 , and machine translation (MT) BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   LS is mainly used to simplify text by substituting infrequent and difficult words with frequent and easier words  However, there are several challenges for the LS approach: a great number of transformation rules are required for reasonable coverage and should be applied based on the specific context; third, the syntax and semantic meaning of the sentence is hard to retain  Rule-based approaches use hand-crafted rules for lexical and syntactic simplification, for example, substituting difficult words in a predefined vocabulary  However, such approaches need a lot of human-involvement to manually define these rules, and it is impossible to give all possible simplification rules  MT-based approach has attracted great attention in the last several years, which addresses text simplification as a monolingual machine translation problem translating from 'ordinary' and 'simplified' sentences 
In recent years, neural Machine Translation (NMT) is a newly-proposed deep learning approach and achieves very impressive results BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7   Unlike the traditional phrased-based machine translation system which operates on small components separately, NMT system is being trained end-to-end, without the need to have external decoders, language models or phrase tables  Therefore, the existing architectures in NMT are used for text simplification BIBREF8 , BIBREF4   However, most recent work using NMT is limited to the training data that are scarce and expensive to build  Language models trained on simplified corpora have played a central role in statistical text simplification BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   One main reason is the amount of available simplified corpora typically far exceeds the amount of parallel data  The performance of models can be typically improved when trained on more data  Therefore, we expect simplified corpora to be especially helpful for NMT models 
In contrast to previous work, which uses the existing NMT models, we explore strategy to include simplified training corpora in the training process without changing the neural network architecture  We first propose to pair simplified training sentences with synthetic ordinary sentences during training, and treat this synthetic data as additional training data  We obtain synthetic ordinary sentences through back-translation, i e  an automatic translation of the simplified sentence into the ordinary sentence BIBREF11   Then, we mix the synthetic data into the original (simplified-ordinary) data to train NMT model  Experimental results on two publicly available datasets show that we can improve the text simplification quality of NMT models by mixing simplified sentences into the training set over NMT model only using the original training data 
Related Work
Automatic TS is a complicated natural language processing (NLP) task, which consists of lexical and syntactic simplification levels BIBREF12   It has attracted much attention recently as it could make texts more accessible to wider audiences, and used as a pre-processing step, improve performances of various NLP tasks and systems BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15   Usually, hand-crafted, supervised, and unsupervised methods based on resources like English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia (EW-SEW) BIBREF10 are utilized for extracting simplification rules  It is very easy to mix up the automatic TS task and the automatic summarization task BIBREF3 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF6   TS is different from text summarization as the focus of text summarization is to reduce the length and redundant content 
At the lexical level, lexical simplification systems often substitute difficult words using more common words, which only require a large corpus of regular text to obtain word embeddings to get words similar to the complex word BIBREF1 , BIBREF9   Biran et al  BIBREF0 adopted an unsupervised method for learning pairs of complex and simpler synonyms from a corpus consisting of Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia  At the sentence level, a sentence simplification model was proposed by tree transformation based on statistical machine translation (SMT) BIBREF3   Woodsend and Lapata BIBREF17 presented a data-driven model based on a quasi-synchronous grammar, a formalism that can naturally capture structural mismatches and complex rewrite operations  Wubben et al  BIBREF18 proposed a phrase-based machine translation (PBMT) model that is trained on ordinary-simplified sentence pairs  Xu et al  BIBREF19 proposed a syntax-based machine translation model using simplification-specific objective functions and features to encourage simpler output 
Compared with SMT, neural machine translation (NMT) has shown to produce state-of-the-art results BIBREF5 , BIBREF7   The central approach of NMT is an encoder-decoder architecture implemented by recurrent neural networks, which can represent the input sequence as a vector, and then decode that vector into an output sequence  Therefore, NMT models were used for text simplification task, and achieved good results BIBREF8 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF20   The main limitation of the aforementioned NMT models for text simplification depended on the parallel ordinary-simplified sentence pairs  Because ordinary-simplified sentence pairs are expensive and time-consuming to build, the available largest data is EW-SEW that only have 296,402 sentence pairs  The dataset is insufficiency for NMT model if we want to NMT model can obtain the best parameters  Considering simplified data plays an important role in boosting fluency for phrase-based text simplification, and we investigate the use of simplified data for text simplification  We are the first to show that we can effectively adapt neural translation models for text simplifiation with simplified corpora 
Simplified Corpora
We collected a simplified dataset from Simple English Wikipedia that are freely available, which has been previously used for many text simplification methods BIBREF0 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF3   The simple English Wikipedia is pretty easy to understand than normal English Wikipedia  We downloaded all articles from Simple English Wikipedia  For these articles, we removed stubs, navigation pages and any article that consisted of a single sentence  We then split them into sentences with the Stanford CorNLP BIBREF21 , and deleted these sentences whose number of words are smaller than 10 or large than 40  After removing repeated sentences, we chose 600K sentences as the simplified data with 11 6M words, and the size of vocabulary is 82K 
Text Simplification using Neural Machine Translation
Our work is built on attention-based NMT BIBREF5 as an encoder-decoder network with recurrent neural networks (RNN), which simultaneously conducts dynamic alignment and generation of the target simplified sentence 
The encoder uses a bidirectional RNN that consists of forward and backward RNN  Given a source sentence INLINEFORM0 , the forward RNN and backward RNN calculate forward hidden states INLINEFORM1 and backward hidden states INLINEFORM2 , respectively  The annotation vector INLINEFORM3 is obtained by concatenating INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5  
The decoder is a RNN that predicts a target simplificated sentence with Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) BIBREF22   Given the previously generated target (simplified) sentence INLINEFORM0 , the probability of next target word INLINEFORM1 is DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is a non-linear function, INLINEFORM1 is the embedding of INLINEFORM2 , and INLINEFORM3 is a decoding state for time step INLINEFORM4  
State INLINEFORM0 is calculated by DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the activation function GRU 
The INLINEFORM0 is the context vector computed as a weighted annotation INLINEFORM1 , computed by DISPLAYFORM0
where the weight INLINEFORM0 is computed by DISPLAYFORM0 DISPLAYFORM1
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 are weight matrices  The training objective is to maximize the likelihood of the training data  Beam search is employed for decoding 
Synthetic Simplified Sentences
We train an auxiliary system using NMT model from the simplified sentence to the ordinary sentence, which is first trained on the available parallel data  For leveraging simplified sentences to improve the quality of NMT model for text simplification, we propose to adapt the back-translation approach proposed by Sennrich et al  BIBREF11 to our scenario  More concretely, Given one sentence in simplified sentences, we use the simplified-ordinary system in translate mode with greedy decoding to translate it to the ordinary sentences, which is denoted as back-translation  This way, we obtain a synthetic parallel simplified-ordinary sentences  Both the synthetic sentences and the available parallel data are used as training data for the original NMT system 
Evaluation
We evaluate the performance of text simplification using neural machine translation on available parallel sentences and additional simplified sentences 
Dataset  We use two simplification datasets (WikiSmall and WikiLarge)  WikiSmall consists of ordinary and simplified sentences from the ordinary and simple English Wikipedias, which has been used as benchmark for evaluating text simplification BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF8   The training set has 89,042 sentence pairs, and the test set has 100 pairs  WikiLarge is also from Wikipedia corpus whose training set contains 296,402 sentence pairs BIBREF19 , BIBREF20   WikiLarge includes 8 (reference) simplifications for 2,359 sentences split into 2,000 for development and 359 for testing 
Metrics  Three metrics in text simplification are chosen in this paper  BLEU BIBREF5 is one traditional machine translation metric to assess the degree to which translated simplifications differed from reference simplifications  FKGL measures the readability of the output BIBREF23   A small FKGL represents simpler output  SARI is a recent text-simplification metric by comparing the output against the source and reference simplifications BIBREF20  
We evaluate the output of all systems using human evaluation  The metric is denoted as Simplicity BIBREF8   The three non-native fluent English speakers are shown reference sentences and output sentences  They are asked whether the output sentence is much simpler (+2), somewhat simpler (+1), equally (0), somewhat more difficult (-1), and much more difficult (-2) than the reference sentence 
Methods  We use OpenNMT BIBREF24 as the implementation of the NMT system for all experiments BIBREF5   We generally follow the default settings and training procedure described by Klein et al (2017)  We replace out-of-vocabulary words with a special UNK symbol  At prediction time, we replace UNK words with the highest probability score from the attention layer  OpenNMT system used on parallel data is the baseline system  To obtain a synthetic parallel training set, we back-translate a random sample of 100K sentences from the collected simplified corpora  OpenNMT used on parallel data and synthetic data is our model  The benchmarks are run on a Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU@3 50GHz, 32GB Mem, trained on 1 GPU GeForce GTX 1080 (Pascal) with CUDA v  8 0 
We choose three statistical text simplification systems  PBMT-R is a phrase-based method with a reranking post-processing step BIBREF18   Hybrid performs sentence splitting and deletion operations based on discourse representation structures, and then simplifies sentences with PBMT-R BIBREF25   SBMT-SARI BIBREF19 is syntax-based translation model using PPDB paraphrase database BIBREF26 and modifies tuning function (using SARI)  We choose two neural text simplification systems  NMT is a basic attention-based encoder-decoder model which uses OpenNMT framework to train with two LSTM layers, hidden states of size 500 and 500 hidden units, SGD optimizer, and a dropout rate of 0 3 BIBREF8   Dress is an encoder-decoder model coupled with a deep reinforcement learning framework, and the parameters are chosen according to the original paper BIBREF20   For the experiments with synthetic parallel data, we back-translate a random sample of 60 000 sentences from the collected simplified sentences into ordinary sentences  Our model is trained on synthetic data and the available parallel data, denoted as NMT+synthetic 
Results  Table 1 shows the results of all models on WikiLarge dataset  We can see that our method (NMT+synthetic) can obtain higher BLEU, lower FKGL and high SARI compared with other models, except Dress on FKGL and SBMT-SARI on SARI  It verified that including synthetic data during training is very effective, and yields an improvement over our baseline NMF by 2 11 BLEU, 1 7 FKGL and 1 07 SARI  We also substantially outperform Dress, who previously reported SOTA result  The results of our human evaluation using Simplicity are also presented in Table 1  NMT on synthetic data is significantly better than PBMT-R, Dress, and SBMT-SARI on Simplicity  It indicates that our method with simplified data is effective at creating simpler output 
Results on WikiSmall dataset are shown in Table 2  We see substantial improvements (6 37 BLEU) than NMT from adding simplified training data with synthetic ordinary sentences  Compared with statistical machine translation models (PBMT-R, Hybrid, SBMT-SARI), our method (NMT+synthetic) still have better results, but slightly worse FKGL and SARI  Similar to the results in WikiLarge, the results of our human evaluation using Simplicity outperforms the other models  In conclusion, Our method produces better results comparing with the baselines, which demonstrates the effectiveness of adding simplified training data 
Conclusion
In this paper, we propose one simple method to use simplified corpora during training of NMT systems, with no changes to the network architecture  In the experiments on two datasets, we achieve substantial gains in all tasks, and new SOTA results, via back-translation of simplified sentences into the ordinary sentences, and treating this synthetic data as additional training data  Because we do not change the neural network architecture to integrate simplified corpora, our method can be easily applied to other Neural Text Simplification (NTS) systems  We expect that the effectiveness of our method not only varies with the quality of the NTS system used for back-translation, but also depends on the amount of available parallel and simplified corpora  In the paper, we have only utilized data from Wikipedia for simplified sentences  In the future, many other text sources are available and the impact of not only size, but also of domain should be investigated 

ground_truth: The neural projector must be invertible.

we constrain our neural projector with two requirements: (1) INLINEFORM0 and (2) INLINEFORM1 exists

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 are the sizes of both datasets?
Context 4: 
We also generate two maps that delineate the gender distribution in the dataset  Overall, the blogging world seems to be dominated by females: out of 153,209 users who self-reported their gender, only 52,725 are men and 100,484 are women  Figures FIGREF1 and FIGREF1 show the percentage of male and female bloggers in each of the 50 states  As seen in this figure, there are more than the average number of male bloggers in states such as California and New York, whereas Utah and Idaho have a higher percentage of women bloggers 
Another profile element that can lead to interesting maps is the Industry field BIBREF6   Using this field, we created different maps that plot the geographical distribution of industries across the country  As an example, Figure FIGREF2 shows the percentage of the users in each state working in the automotive and tourism industries respectively 
Linguistic Maps
Another use of the information found in our dataset is to build linguistic maps, which reflect the geographic lexical variation across the 50 states BIBREF7   We generate maps that represent the relative frequency by which a word occurs in the different states  Figure FIGREF3 shows sample maps created for two different words  The figure shows the map generated for one location specific word, Maui, which unsurprisingly is found predominantly in Hawaii, and a map for a more common word, lake, which has a high occurrence rate in Minnesota (Land of 10,000 Lakes) and Utah (home of the Great Salt Lake)  Our demo described in Section SECREF4 , can also be used to generate maps for function words, which can be very telling regarding people's personality BIBREF8  
Psycholinguistic and Semantic Maps
LIWC  In addition to individual words, we can also create maps for word categories that reflect a certain psycholinguistic or semantic property  Several lexical resources, such as Roget or Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count BIBREF9 , group words into categories  Examples of such categories are Money, which includes words such as remuneration, dollar, and payment; or Positive feelings with words such as happy, cheerful, and celebration  Using the distribution of the individual words in a category, we can compile distributions for the entire category, and therefore generate maps for these word categories  For instance, figure FIGREF8 shows the maps created for two categories: Positive Feelings and Money  The maps are not surprising, and interestingly they also reflect an inverse correlation between Money and Positive Feelings  
Values  We also measure the usage of words related to people's core values as reported by Boyd et al  boyd2015  The sets of words, or themes, were excavated using the Meaning Extraction Method (MEM) BIBREF10   MEM is a topic modeling approach applied to a corpus of texts created by hundreds of survey respondents from the U S  who were asked to freely write about their personal values  To illustrate, Figure FIGREF9 shows the geographical distributions of two of these value themes: Religion and Hard Work  Southeastern states often considered as the nation's “Bible Belt” BIBREF11 were found to have generally higher usage of Religion words such as God, bible, and church  Another broad trend was that western-central states (e g , Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa) commonly blogged about Hard Work, using words such as hard, work, and job more often than bloggers in other regions 
Web Demonstration
A prototype, interactive charting demo is available at http://lit eecs umich edu/~geoliwc/  In addition to drawing maps of the geographical distributions on the different LIWC categories, the tool can report the three most and least correlated LIWC categories in the U S  and compare the distributions of any two categories 
Conclusions
In this paper, we showed how we can effectively leverage a prodigious blog dataset  Not only does the dataset bring out the extensive linguistic content reflected in the blog posts, but also includes location information and rich metadata  These data allow for the generation of maps that reflect the demographics of the population, variations in language use, and differences in psycholinguistic and semantic categories  These mappings can be valuable to both psychologists and linguists, as well as lexicographers  A prototype demo has been made available together with the code used to collect our dataset 
Acknowledgments
This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (#1344257) and by the John Templeton Foundation (#48503)  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the John Templeton Foundation  We would like to thank our colleagues Hengjing Wang, Jiatao Fan, Xinghai Zhang, and Po-Jung Huang who provided technical help with the implementation of the demo 

ground_truth: training set has 89,042 sentence pairs, and the test set has 100 pairs, training set contains 296,402, 2,000 for development and 359 for testing

WikiSmall  89 142 sentence pair and  WikiLarge 298 761 sentence pairs.