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 did they use?
Context 1: Introduction
Accurate grapheme-to-phoneme conversion (g2p) is important for any application that depends on the sometimes inconsistent relationship between spoken and written language  Most prominently, this includes text-to-speech and automatic speech recognition  Most work on g2p has focused on a few languages for which extensive pronunciation data is available BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3   Most languages lack these resources  However, a low resource language's writing system is likely to be similar to the writing systems of languages that do have sufficient pronunciation data  Therefore g2p may be possible for low resource languages if this high resource data can be properly utilized 
We attempt to leverage high resource data by treating g2p as a multisource neural machine translation (NMT) problem  The source sequences for our system are words in the standard orthography in any language  The target sequences are the corresponding representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)  Our results show that the parameters learned by the shared encoder–decoder are able to exploit the orthographic and phonemic similarities between the various languages in our data 
Low Resource g2p
Our approach is similar in goal to deri2016grapheme's model for adapting high resource g2p models for low resource languages  They trained weighted finite state transducer (wFST) models on a variety of high resource languages, then transferred those models to low resource languages, using a language distance metric to choose which high resource models to use and a phoneme distance metric to map the high resource language's phonemes to the low resource language's phoneme inventory  These distance metrics are computed based on data from Phoible BIBREF4 and URIEL BIBREF5  
Other low resource g2p systems have used a strategy of combining multiple models  schlippe2014combining trained several data-driven g2p systems on varying quantities of monolingual data and combined their outputs with a phoneme-level voting scheme  This led to improvements over the best-performing single system for small quantities of data in some languages  jyothilow trained recurrent neural networks for small data sets and found that a version of their system that combined the neural network output with the output of the wFST-based Phonetisaurus system BIBREF1 did better than either system alone 
A different approach came from kim2012universal, who used supervised learning with an undirected graphical model to induce the grapheme–phoneme mappings for languages written in the Latin alphabet  Given a short text in a language, the model predicts the language's orthographic rules  To create phonemic context features from the short text, the model naïvely maps graphemes to IPA symbols written with the same character, and uses the features of these symbols to learn an approximation of the phonotactic constraints of the language  In their experiments, these phonotactic features proved to be more valuable than geographical and genetic features drawn from WALS BIBREF6  
Multilingual Neural NLP
In recent years, neural networks have emerged as a common way to use data from several languages in a single system  Google's zero-shot neural machine translation system BIBREF7 shares an encoder and decoder across all language pairs  In order to facilitate this multi-way translation, they prepend an artificial token to the beginning of each source sentence at both training and translation time  The token identifies what language the sentence should be translated to  This approach has three benefits: it is far more efficient than building a separate model for each language pair; it allows for translation between languages that share no parallel data; and it improves results on low-resource languages by allowing them to implicitly share parameters with high-resource languages  Our g2p system is inspired by this approach, although it differs in that there is only one target “language”, IPA, and the artificial tokens identify the language of the source instead of the language of the target 
Other work has also made use of multilingually-trained neural networks  Phoneme-level polyglot language models BIBREF8 train a single model on multiple languages and additionally condition on externally constructed typological data about the language  ostling2017continuous used a similar approach, in which a character-level neural language model is trained on a massively multilingual corpus  A language embedding vector is concatenated to the input at each time step  The language embeddings their system learned correlate closely to the genetic relationships between languages  However, neither of these models was applied to g2p 
Grapheme-to-Phoneme
g2p is the problem of converting the orthographic representation of a word into a phonemic representation  A phoneme is an abstract unit of sound which may have different realizations in different contexts  For example, the English phoneme has two phonetic realizations (or allophones):
English speakers without linguistic training often struggle to perceive any difference between these sounds  Writing systems usually do not distinguish between allophones: and are both written as INLINEFORM0 p INLINEFORM1 in English  The sounds are written differently in languages where they contrast, such as Hindi and Eastern Armenian 
Most writing systems in use today are glottographic, meaning that their symbols encode solely phonological information  But despite being glottographic, in few writing systems do graphemes correspond one-to-one with phonemes  There are cases in which multiple graphemes represent a single phoneme, as in the word the in English:
There are cases in which a single grapheme represents multiple phonemes, such as syllabaries, in which each symbol represents a syllable 
In many languages, there are silent letters, as in the word hora in Spanish:
There are more complicated correspondences, such as the silent e in English that affects the pronunciation of the previous vowel, as seen in the pair of words cape and cap 
It is possible for an orthographic system to have any or all of the above phenomena while remaining unambiguous  However, some orthographic systems contain ambiguities  English is well-known for its spelling ambiguities  Abjads, used for Arabic and Hebrew, do not give full representation to vowels 
Consequently, g2p is harder than simply replacing each grapheme symbol with a corresponding phoneme symbol  It is the problem of replacing a grapheme sequence INLINEFORM0
with a phoneme sequence INLINEFORM0
where the sequences are not necessarily of the same length  Data-driven g2p is therefore the problem of finding the phoneme sequence that maximizes the likelihood of the grapheme sequence: INLINEFORM0
Data-driven approaches are especially useful for problems in which the rules that govern them are complex and difficult to engineer by hand  g2p for languages with ambiguous orthographies is such a problem  Multilingual g2p, in which the various languages have similar but different and possibly contradictory spelling rules, can be seen as an extreme case of that  Therefore, a data-driven sequence-to-sequence model is a natural choice 
Encoder–Decoder Models
In order to find the best phoneme sequence, we use a neural encoder–decoder model with attention BIBREF9   The model consists of two main parts: the encoder compresses each source grapheme sequence INLINEFORM0 into a fixed-length vector  The decoder, conditioned on this fixed-length vector, generates the output phoneme sequence INLINEFORM1  
The encoder and decoder are both implemented as recurrent neural networks, which have the advantage of being able to process sequences of arbitrary length and use long histories efficiently  They are trained jointly to minimize cross-entropy on the training data  We had our best results when using a bidirectional encoder, which consists of two separate encoders which process the input in forward and reverse directions  We used long short-term memory units BIBREF10 for both the encoder and decoder  For the attention mechanism, we used the general global attention architecture described by luong2015effective 
We implemented all models with OpenNMT BIBREF11   Our hyperparameters, which we determined by experimentation, are listed in Table TABREF8  
Training Multilingual Models
Presenting pronunciation data in several languages to the network might create problems because different languages have different pronunciation patterns  For example, the string `real' is pronounced differently in English, German, Spanish, and Portuguese  We solve this problem by prepending each grapheme sequence with an artificial token consisting of the language's ISO 639-3 code enclosed in angle brackets  The English word `real', for example, would be presented to the system as
INLINEFORM0 eng INLINEFORM1 r e a l
The artificial token is treated simply as an element of the grapheme sequence  This is similar to the approach taken by johnson2016google in their zero-shot NMT system  However, their source-side artificial tokens identify the target language, whereas ours identify the source language  An alternative approach, used by ostling2017continuous, would be to concatenate a language embedding to the input at each time step  They do not evaluate their approach on grapheme-to-phoneme conversion 
Data
In order to train a neural g2p system, one needs a large quantity of pronunciation data  A standard dataset for g2p is the Carnegie Mellon Pronouncing Dictionary BIBREF12   However, that is a monolingual English resource, so it is unsuitable for our multilingual task  Instead, we use the multilingual pronunciation corpus collected by deri2016grapheme for all experiments  This corpus consists of spelling–pronunciation pairs extracted from Wiktionary  It is already partitioned into training and test sets  Corpus statistics are presented in Table TABREF10  
In addition to the raw IPA transcriptions extracted from Wiktionary, the corpus provides an automatically cleaned version of transcriptions  Cleaning is a necessary step because web-scraped data is often noisy and may be transcribed at an inconsistent level of detail  The data cleaning used here attempts to make the transcriptions consistent with the phonemic inventories used in Phoible BIBREF4   When a transcription contains a phoneme that is not in its language's inventory in Phoible, that phoneme is replaced by the phoneme with the most similar articulatory features that is in the language's inventory  Sometimes this cleaning algorithm works well: in the German examples in Table TABREF11 , the raw German symbols and are both converted to   This is useful because the in Ansbach and the in Kaninchen are instances of the same phoneme, so their phonemic representations should use the same symbol  However, the cleaning algorithm can also have negative effects on the data quality  For example, the phoneme is not present in the Phoible inventory for German, but it is used in several German transcriptions in the corpus  The cleaning algorithm converts to in all German transcriptions, whereas would be a more reasonable guess  The cleaning algorithm also removes most suprasegmentals, even though these are often an important part of a language's phonology  Developing a more sophisticated procedure for cleaning pronunciation data is a direction for future work, but in this paper we use the corpus's provided cleaned transcriptions in order to ease comparison to previous results 
Experiments
We present experiments with two versions of our sequence-to-sequence model  LangID prepends each training, validation, and test sample with an artificial token identifying the language of the sample  NoLangID omits this token  LangID and NoLangID have identical structure otherwise  To translate the test corpus, we used a beam width of 100  Although this is an unusually wide beam and had negligible performance effects, it was necessary to compute our error metrics 
Evaluation
We use the following three evaluation metrics:
Phoneme Error Rate (PER) is the Levenshtein distance between the predicted phoneme sequences and the gold standard phoneme sequences, divided by the length of the gold standard phoneme sequences 
Word Error Rate (WER) is the percentage of words in which the predicted phoneme sequence does not exactly match the gold standard phoneme sequence 
Word Error Rate 100 (WER 100) is the percentage of words in the test set for which the correct guess is not in the first 100 guesses of the system 
In system evaluations, WER, WER 100, and PER numbers presented for multiple languages are averaged, weighting each language equally BIBREF13  
It would be interesting to compute error metrics that incorporate phoneme similarity, such as those proposed by hixon2011phonemic  PER weights all phoneme errors the same, even though some errors are more harmful than others: and are usually contrastive, whereas and almost never are  Such statistics would be especially interesting for evaluating a multilingual system, because different languages often map the same grapheme to phonemes that are only subtly different from each other  However, these statistics have not been widely reported for other g2p systems, so we omit them here 
Baseline
Results on LangID and NoLangID are compared to the system presented by deri2016grapheme, which is identified in our results as wFST  Their results can be divided into two parts:
High resource results, computed with wFSTs trained on a combination of Wiktionary pronunciation data and g2p rules extracted from Wikipedia IPA Help pages  They report high resource results for 85 languages 
Adapted results, where they apply various mapping strategies in order to adapt high resource models to other languages  The final adapted results they reported include most of the 85 languages with high resource results, as well as the various languages they were able to adapt them for, for a total of 229 languages  This test set omits 23 of the high resource languages that are written in unique scripts or for which language distance metrics could not be computed 
Training
We train the LangID and NoLangID versions of our model each on three subsets of the Wiktionary data:
LangID-High and NoLangID-High: Trained on data from the 85 languages for which BIBREF13 used non-adapted wFST models 
LangID-Adapted and NoLangID-Adapted: Trained on data from any of the 229 languages for which they built adapted models  Because many of these languages had no training data at all, the model is actually only trained on data in 157 languages  As is noted above, the Adapted set omits 23 languages which are in the High test set 
LangID-All and NoLangID-All: Trained on data in all 311 languages in the Wiktionary training corpus 
In order to ease comparison to Deri and Knight's system, we limited our use of the training corpus to 10,000 words per language  We set aside 10 percent of the data in each language for validation, so the maximum number of training words for any language is 9000 for our systems 
Adapted Results
On the 229 languages for which deri2016grapheme presented their final results, the LangID version of our system outperforms the baseline by a wide margin  The best performance came with the version of our model that was trained on data in all available languages, not just the languages it was tested on  Using a language ID token improves results considerably, but even NoLangID beats the baseline in WER and WER 100  Full results are presented in Table TABREF24  
High Resource Results
Having shown that our model exceeds the performance of the wFST-adaptation approach, we next compare it to the baseline models for just high resource languages  The wFST models here are purely monolingual – they do not use data adaptation because there is sufficient training data for each of them  Full results are presented in Table TABREF26   We omit models trained on the Adapted languages because they were not trained on high resource languages with unique writing systems, such as Georgian and Greek, and consequently performed very poorly on them 
In contrast to the larger-scale Adapted results, in the High Resource experiments none of the sequence-to-sequence approaches equal the performance of the wFST model in WER and PER, although LangID-High does come close  The LangID models do beat wFST in WER 100  A possible explanation is that a monolingual wFST model will never generate phonemes that are not part of the language's inventory  A multilingual model, on the other hand, could potentially generate phonemes from the inventories of any language it has been trained on 
Even if LangID-High does not present a more accurate result, it does present a more compact one: LangID-High is 15 4 MB, while the combined wFST high resource models are 197 5 MB 
Results on Unseen Languages
Finally, we report our models' results on unseen languages in Table TABREF28   The unseen languages are any that are present in the test corpus but absent from the training data  Deri and Knight did not report results specifically on these languages  Although the NoLangID models sometimes do better on WER 100, even here the LangID models have a slight advantage in WER and PER  This is somewhat surprising because the LangID models have not learned embeddings for the language ID tokens of unseen languages  Perhaps negative associations are also being learned, driving the model towards predicting more common pronunciations for unseen languages 
Language ID Tokens
Adding a language ID token always improves results in cases where an embedding has been learned for that token  The power of these embeddings is demonstrated by what happens when one feeds the same input word to the model with different language tokens, as is seen in Table TABREF30   Impressively, this even works when the source sequence is in the wrong script for the language, as is seen in the entry for Arabic 
Language Embeddings
Because these language ID tokens are so useful, it would be good if they could be effectively estimated for unseen languages  ostling2017continuous found that the language vectors their models learned correlated well to genetic relationships, so it would be interesting to see if the embeddings our source encoder learned for the language ID tokens showed anything similar  In a few cases they do (the languages closest to German in the vector space are Luxembourgish, Bavarian, and Yiddish, all close relatives)  However, for the most part the structure of these vectors is not interpretable  Therefore, it would be difficult to estimate the embedding for an unseen language, or to “borrow” the language ID token of a similar language  A more promising way forward is to find a model that uses an externally constructed typological representation of the language 
Phoneme Embeddings
In contrast to the language embeddings, the phoneme embeddings appear to show many regularities (see Table TABREF33 )  This is a sign that our multilingual model learns similar embeddings for phonemes that are written with the same grapheme in different languages  These phonemes tend to be phonetically similar to each other 
Perhaps the structure of the phoneme embedding space is what leads to our models' very good performance on WER 100  Even when the model's first predicted pronunciation is not correct, it tends to assign more probability mass to guesses that are more similar to the correct one  Applying some sort of filtering or reranking of the system output might therefore lead to better performance 
Future Work
Because the language ID token is so beneficial to performance, it would be very interesting to find ways to extend a similar benefit to unseen languages  One possible way to do so is with tokens that identify something other than the language, such as typological features about the language's phonemic inventory  This could enable better sharing of resources among languages  Such typological knowledge is readily available in databases like Phoible and WALS for a wide variety of languages  It would be interesting to explore if any of these features is a good predictor of a language's orthographic rules 
It would also be interesting to apply the artificial token approach to other problems besides multilingual g2p  One closely related application is monolingual English g2p  Some of the ambiguity of English spelling is due to the wide variety of loanwords in the language, many of which have unassimilated spellings  Knowing the origins of these loanwords could provide a useful hint for figuring out their pronunciations  The etymology of a word could be tagged in an analogous way to how language ID is tagged in multilingual g2p 
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  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
Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness quantify the degree to which two concepts are similar (e g , INLINEFORM0 – INLINEFORM1 ) or related (e g , INLINEFORM2 – INLINEFORM3 )  Semantic similarity can be viewed as a special case of semantic relatedness – to be similar is one of many ways that a pair of concepts may be related  The automated discovery of groups of semantically similar or related terms is critical to improving the retrieval BIBREF0 and clustering BIBREF1 of biomedical and clinical documents, and the development of biomedical terminologies and ontologies BIBREF2  
There is a long history in using distributional methods to discover semantic similarity and relatedness (e g , BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 )  These methods are all based on the distributional hypothesis, which holds that two terms that are distributionally similar (i e , used in the same context) will also be semantically similar BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   Recently word embedding techniques such as word2vec BIBREF9 have become very popular  Despite the prominent role that neural networks play in many of these approaches, at their core they remain distributional techniques that typically start with a word by word co–occurrence matrix, much like many of the more traditional approaches 
However, despite these successes distributional methods do not perform well when data is very sparse (which is common)  One possible solution is to use second–order co–occurrence vectors BIBREF10 , BIBREF11   In this approach the similarity between two words is not strictly based on their co–occurrence frequencies, but rather on the frequencies of the other words which occur with both of them (i e , second order co–occurrences)  This approach has been shown to be successful in quantifying semantic relatedness BIBREF12 , BIBREF13   However, while more robust in the face of sparsity, second–order methods can result in significant amounts of noise, where contextual information that is overly general is included and does not contribute to quantifying the semantic relatedness between the two concepts 
Our goal then is to discover methods that automatically reduce the amount of noise in a second–order co–occurrence vector  We achieve this by incorporating pairwise semantic similarity scores derived from a taxonomy into our second–order vectors, and then using these scores to select only the most semantically similar co–occurrences (thereby reducing noise) 
We evaluate our method on two datasets that have been annotated in multiple ways  One has been annotated for both similarity and relatedness, and the other has been annotated for relatedness by two different types of experts (medical doctors and medical coders)  Our results show that integrating second order co–occurrences with measures of semantic similarity increases correlation with our human reference standards  We also compare our result to a number of other studies which have applied various word embedding methods to the same reference standards we have used  We find that our method often performs at a comparable or higher level than these approaches  These results suggest that our methods of integrating semantic similarity and relatedness values have the potential to improve performance of purely distributional methods 
Similarity and Relatedness Measures
This section describes the similarity and relatedness measures we integrate in our second–order co–occurrence vectors  We use two taxonomies in this study, SNOMED–CT and MeSH  SNOMED–CT (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms) is a comprehensive clinical terminology created for the electronic representation of clinical health information  MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) is a taxonomy of biomedical terms developed for indexing biomedical journal articles 
We obtain SNOMED–CT and MeSH via the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Metathesaurus (version 2016AA)  The Metathesaurus contains approximately 2 million biomedical and clinical concepts from over 150 different terminologies that have been semi–automatically integrated into a single source  Concepts in the Metathesaurus are connected largely by two types of hierarchical relations: INLINEFORM0 / INLINEFORM1 (PAR/CHD) and INLINEFORM2 / INLINEFORM3 (RB/RN) 
Similarity Measures
Measures of semantic similarity can be classified into three broad categories : path–based, feature–based and information content (IC)  Path–based similarity measures use the structure of a taxonomy to measure similarity – concepts positioned close to each other are more similar than those further apart  Feature–based methods rely on set theoretic measures of overlap between features (union and intersection)  The information content measures quantify the amount of information that a concept provides – more specific concepts have a higher amount of information content 
RadaMBB89 introduce the Conceptual Distance measure  This measure is simply the length of the shortest path between two concepts ( INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 ) in the MeSH hierarchy  Paths are based on broader than (RB) and narrower than (RN) relations  CaviedesC04 extends this measure to use parent (PAR) and child (CHD) relations  Our INLINEFORM2 measure is simply the reciprocal of this shortest path value (Equation EQREF3 ), so that larger values (approaching 1) indicate a high degree of similarity  DISPLAYFORM0
While the simplicity of INLINEFORM0 is appealing, it can be misleading when concepts are at different levels of specificity  Two very general concepts may have the same path length as two very specific concepts  WuP94 introduce a correction to INLINEFORM1 that incorporates the depth of the concepts, and the depth of their Least Common Subsumer (LCS)  This is the most specific ancestor two concepts share  In this measure, similarity is twice the depth of the two concept's LCS divided by the product of the depths of the individual concepts (Equation EQREF4 )  Note that if there are multiple LCSs for a pair of concepts, the deepest of them is used in this measure  DISPLAYFORM0
ZhongZLY02 take a very similar approach and again scale the depth of the LCS by the sum of the depths of the two concepts (Equation EQREF5 ), where INLINEFORM0   The value of INLINEFORM1 was set to 2 based on their recommendations  DISPLAYFORM0
PekarS02 offer another variation on INLINEFORM0 , where the shortest path of the two concepts to the LCS is used, in addition to the shortest bath between the LCS and the root of the taxonomy (Equation EQREF6 )  DISPLAYFORM0
Feature–based methods represent each concept as a set of features and then measure the overlap or sharing of features to measure similarity  In particular, each concept is represented as the set of their ancestors, and similarity is a ratio of the intersection and union of these features 
MaedcheS01 quantify the similarity between two concepts as the ratio of the intersection over their union as shown in Equation EQREF8   DISPLAYFORM0
BatetSV11 extend this by excluding any shared features (in the numerator) as shown in Equation EQREF9   DISPLAYFORM0
Information content is formally defined as the negative log of the probability of a concept  The effect of this is to assign rare (low probability) concepts a high measure of information content, since the underlying assumption is that more specific concepts are less frequently used than more common ones 
Resnik95 modified this notion of information content in order to use it as a similarity measure  He defines the similarity of two concepts to be the information content of their LCS (Equation EQREF11 )  DISPLAYFORM0
JiangC97, Lin98, and PirroE10 extend INLINEFORM0 by incorporating the information content of the individual concepts in various different ways  Lin98 defines the similarity between two concepts as the ratio of information content of the LCS with the sum of the individual concept's information content (Equation EQREF12 )  Note that INLINEFORM1 has the same form as INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 , and is in effect using information content as a measure of specificity (rather than depth)  If there is more than one possible LCS, the LCS with the greatest IC is chosen  DISPLAYFORM0
JiangC97 define the distance between two concepts to be the sum of the information content of the two concepts minus twice the information content of the concepts' LCS  We modify this from a distance to a similarity measure by taking the reciprocal of the distance (Equation EQREF13 )  Note that the denominator of INLINEFORM0 is very similar to the numerator of INLINEFORM1   DISPLAYFORM0
PirroE10 define the similarity between two concepts as the information content of the two concept's LCS divided by the sum of their individual information content values minus the information content of their LCS (Equation EQREF14 )  Note that INLINEFORM0 can be viewed as a set–theoretic version of INLINEFORM1   DISPLAYFORM0
Information Content
The information content of a concept may be derived from a corpus (corpus–based) or directly from a taxonomy (intrinsic–based)  In this work we focus on corpus–based techniques 
For corpus–based information content, we estimate the probability of a concept INLINEFORM0 by taking the sum of the probability of the concept INLINEFORM1 and the probability its descendants INLINEFORM2 (Equation EQREF16 )  DISPLAYFORM0
The initial probabilities of a concept ( INLINEFORM0 ) and its descendants ( INLINEFORM1 ) are obtained by dividing the number of times each concept and descendant occurs in the corpus, and dividing that by the total numbers of concepts ( INLINEFORM2 ) 
Ideally the corpus from which we are estimating the probabilities of concepts will be sense–tagged  However, sense–tagging is a challenging problem in its own right, and it is not always possible to carry out reliably on larger amounts of text  In fact in this paper we did not use any sense–tagging of the corpus we derived information content from 
Instead, we estimated the probability of a concept by using the UMLSonMedline dataset  This was created by the National Library of Medicine and consists of concepts from the 2009AB UMLS and the counts of the number of times they occurred in a snapshot of Medline taken on 12 January, 2009  These counts were obtained by using the Essie Search Engine BIBREF14 which queried Medline with normalized strings from the 2009AB MRCONSO table in the UMLS  The frequency of a CUI was obtained by aggregating the frequency counts of the terms associated with the CUI to provide a rough estimate of its frequency  The information content measures then use this information to calculate the probability of a concept 
Another alternative is the use of Intrinsic Information Content  It assess the informativeness of concept based on its placement within a taxonomy by considering the number of incoming (ancestors) relative to outgoing (descendant) links BIBREF15 (Equation EQREF17 )  DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 are the number of descendants of concept INLINEFORM1 that are leaf nodes, INLINEFORM2 are the number of concept INLINEFORM3 's ancestors and INLINEFORM4 are the total number of leaf nodes in the taxonomy 
Relatedness Measures
Lesk86 observed that concepts that are related should share more words in their respective definitions than concepts that are less connected  He was able to perform word sense disambiguation by identifying the senses of words in a sentence with the largest number of overlaps between their definitions  An overlap is the longest sequence of one or more consecutive words that occur in both definitions  BanerjeeP03 extended this idea to WordNet, but observed that WordNet glosses are often very short, and did not contain enough information to distinguish between multiple concepts  Therefore, they created a super–gloss for each concept by adding the glosses of related concepts to the gloss of the concept itself (and then finding overlaps) 
PatwardhanP06 adapted this measure to second–order co–occurrence vectors  In this approach, a vector is created for each word in a concept's definition that shows which words co–occur with it in a corpus  These word vectors are averaged to create a single co-occurrence vector for the concept  The similarity between the concepts is calculated by taking the cosine between the concepts second–order vectors  LiuMPMP12 modified and extended this measure to be used to quantify the relatedness between biomedical and clinical terms in the UMLS  The work in this paper can be seen as a further extension of PatwardhanP06 and LiuMPMP12 
Method
In this section, we describe our second–order similarity vector measure  This incorporates both contextual information using the term pair's definition and their pairwise semantic similarity scores derived from a taxonomy  There are two stages to our approach  First, a co–occurrence matrix must be constructed  Second, this matrix is used to construct a second–order co–occurrence vector for each concept in a pair of concepts to be measured for relatedness 
Co–occurrence Matrix Construction
We build an INLINEFORM0 similarity matrix using an external corpus where the rows and columns represent words within the corpus and the element contains the similarity score between the row word and column word using the similarity measures discussed above  If a word maps to more than one possible sense, we use the sense that returns the highest similarity score 
For this paper our external corpus was the NLM 2015 Medline baseline  Medline is a bibliographic database containing over 23 million citations to journal articles in the biomedical domain and is maintained by National Library of Medicine  The 2015 Medline Baseline encompasses approximately 5,600 journals starting from 1948 and contains 23,343,329 citations, of which 2,579,239 contain abstracts  In this work, we use Medline titles and abstracts from 1975 to present day  Prior to 1975, only 2% of the citations contained an abstract  We then calculate the similarity for each bigram in this dataset and include those that have a similarity score greater than a specified threshold on these experiments 
Measure Term Pairs for Relatedness
We obtain definitions for each of the two terms we wish to measure  Due to the sparsity and inconsistencies of the definitions in the UMLS, we not only use the definition of the term (CUI) but also include the definition of its related concepts  This follows the method proposed by PatwardhanP06 for general English and WordNet, and which was adapted for the UMLS and the medical domain by LiuMPMP12  In particular we add the definitions of any concepts connected via a parent (PAR), child (CHD), RB (broader than), RN (narrower than) or TERM (terms associated with CUI) relation  All of the definitions for a term are combined into a single super–gloss  At the end of this process we should have two super–glosses, one for each term to be measured for relatedness 
Next, we process each super–gloss as follows:
We extract a first–order co–occurrence vector for each term in the super–gloss from the co–occurrence matrix created previously 
We take the average of the first order co–occurrence vectors associated with the terms in a super–gloss and use that to represent the meaning of the term  This is a second–order co–occurrence vector 
After a second–order co–occurrence vector has been constructed for each term, then we calculate the cosine between these two vectors to measure the relatedness of the terms 
Data
We use two reference standards to evaluate the semantic similarity and relatedness measures   UMNSRS was annotated for both similarity and relatedness by medical residents  MiniMayoSRS was annotated for relatedness by medical doctors (MD) and medical coders (coder)  In this section, we describe these data sets and describe a few of their differences 
MiniMayoSRS: The MayoSRS, developed by PakhomovPMMRC10, consists of 101 clinical term pairs whose relatedness was determined by nine medical coders and three physicians from the Mayo Clinic  The relatedness of each term pair was assessed based on a four point scale: (4 0) practically synonymous, (3 0) related, (2 0) marginally related and (1 0) unrelated  MiniMayoSRS is a subset of the MayoSRS and consists of 30 term pairs on which a higher inter–annotator agreement was achieved  The average correlation between physicians is 0 68  The average correlation between medical coders is 0 78  We evaluate our method on the mean of the physician scores, and the mean of the coders scores in this subset in the same manner as reported by PedersenPPC07 
UMNSRS: The University of Minnesota Semantic Relatedness Set (UMNSRS) was developed by PakhomovMALPM10, and consists of 725 clinical term pairs whose semantic similarity and relatedness was determined independently by four medical residents from the University of Minnesota Medical School  The similarity and relatedness of each term pair was annotated based on a continuous scale by having the resident touch a bar on a touch sensitive computer screen to indicate the degree of similarity or relatedness  The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the reference standard tagged for similarity was 0 47, and 0 50 for relatedness  Therefore, as suggested by Pakhomov and colleagues,we use a subset of the ratings consisting of 401 pairs for the similarity set and 430 pairs for the relatedness set which each have an ICC of 0 73 
Experimental Framework
We conducted our experiments using the freely available open source software package UMLS::Similarity BIBREF16 version 1 47  This package takes as input two terms (or UMLS concepts) and returns their similarity or relatedness using the measures discussed in Section SECREF2  
Correlation between the similarity measures and human judgments were estimated using Spearman's Rank Correlation ( INLINEFORM0 )  Spearman's measures the statistical dependence between two variables to assess how well the relationship between the rankings of the variables can be described using a monotonic function  We used Fisher's r-to-z transformation BIBREF17 to calculate the significance between the correlation results 
Results and Discussion
Table TABREF26 shows the Spearman's Rank Correlation between the human scores from the four reference standards and the scores from the various measures of similarity introduced in Section SECREF2   Each class of measure is followed by the scores obtained when integrating our second order vector approach with these measures of semantic similarity 
Results Comparison
The results for UMNSRS tagged for similarity ( INLINEFORM0 ) and MiniMayoSRS tagged by coders show that all of the second-order similarity vector measures ( INLINEFORM1 ) except for INLINEFORM2 - INLINEFORM3 obtain a higher correlation than the original measures  We found that INLINEFORM4 - INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 - INLINEFORM7 obtain the highest correlations of all these results with human judgments 
For the UMNSRS dataset tagged for relatedness and MiniMayoSRS tagged by physicians (MD), the original INLINEFORM0 measure obtains a higher correlation than our measure ( INLINEFORM1 ) although the difference is not statistically significant ( INLINEFORM2 ) 
In order to analyze and better understand these results, we filtered the bigram pairs used to create the initial similarity matrix based on the strength of their similarity using the INLINEFORM0 and the INLINEFORM1 measures  Note that the INLINEFORM2 measure holds to a 0 to 1 scale, while INLINEFORM3 ranges from 0 to an unspecified upper bound that is dependent on the size of the corpus from which information content is estimated  As such we use a different range of threshold values for each measure  We discuss the results of this filtering below 
Thresholding Experiments
Table TABREF29 shows the results of applying the threshold parameter on each of the reference standards using the INLINEFORM0 measure  For example, a threshold of 0 indicates that all of the bigrams were included in the similarity matrix; and a threshold of 1 indicates that only the bigram pairs with a similarity score greater than one were included 
These results show that using a threshold cutoff of 2 obtains the highest correlation for the UMNSRS dataset, and that a threshold cutoff of 4 obtains the highest correlation for the MiniMayoSRS dataset  All of the results show an increase in correlation with human judgments when incorporating a threshold cutoff over all of the original measures  The increase in the correlation for the UMNSRS tagged for similarity is statistically significant ( INLINEFORM0 ), however this is not the case for the UMNSRS tagged for relatedness nor for the MiniMayoSRS data 
Similarly, Table TABREF30 shows the results of applying the threshold parameter (T) on each of the reference standards using the INLINEFORM0 measure  Although, unlike INLINEFORM1 whose scores are greater than or equal to 0 without an upper limit, the INLINEFORM2 measure returns scores between 0 and 1 (inclusive)  Therefore, here a threshold of 0 indicates that all of the bigrams were included in the similarity matrix; and a threshold of INLINEFORM3 indicates that only the bigram pairs with a similarity score greater than INLINEFORM4 were included  The results show an increase in accuracy for all of the datasets except for the MiniMayoSRS tagged for physicians  The increase in the results for the UMNSRS tagged for similarity and the MayoSRS is statistically significant ( INLINEFORM5 )  This is not the case for the UMNSRS tagged for relatedness nor the MiniMayoSRS 
Overall, these results indicate that including only those bigrams that have a sufficiently high similarity score increases the correlation results with human judgments, but what quantifies as sufficiently high varies depending on the dataset and measure 
Comparison with Previous Work
Recently, word embeddings BIBREF9 have become a popular method for measuring semantic relatedness in the biomedical domain  This is a neural network based approach that learns a representation of a word by word co–occurrence matrix  The basic idea is that the neural network learns a series of weights (the hidden layer within the neural network) that either maximizes the probability of a word given its context, referred to as the continuous bag of words (CBOW) approach, or that maximizes the probability of the context given a word, referred to as the Skip–gram approach  These approaches have been used in numerous recent papers 
muneeb2015evalutating trained both the Skip–gram and CBOW models over the PubMed Central Open Access (PMC) corpus of approximately 1 25 million articles  They evaluated the models on a subset of the UMNSRS data, removing word pairs that did not occur in their training corpus more than ten times  chiu2016how evaluated both the the Skip–gram and CBOW models over the PMC corpus and PubMed  They also evaluated the models on a subset of the UMNSRS ignoring those words that did not appear in their training corpus  Pakhomov2016corpus trained CBOW model over three different types of corpora: clinical (clinical notes from the Fairview Health System), biomedical (PMC corpus), and general English (Wikipedia)  They evaluated their method using a subset of the UMNSRS restricting to single word term pairs and removing those not found within their training corpus  sajad2015domain trained the Skip–gram model over CUIs identified by MetaMap on the OHSUMED corpus, a collection of 348,566 biomedical research articles  They evaluated the method on the complete UMNSRS, MiniMayoSRS and the MayoSRS datasets; any subset information about the dataset was not explicitly stated therefore we believe a direct comparison may be possible 
In addition, a previous work very closely related to ours is a retrofitting vector method proposed by YuCBJW16 that incorporates ontological information into a vector representation by including semantically related words  In their measure, they first map a biomedical term to MeSH terms, and second build a word vector based on the documents assigned to the respective MeSH term  They then retrofit the vector by including semantically related words found in the Unified Medical Language System  They evaluate their method on the MiniMayoSRS dataset 
Table TABREF31 shows a comparison to the top correlation scores reported by each of these works on the respective datasets (or subsets) they evaluated their methods on  N refers to the number of term pairs in the dataset the authors report they evaluated their method  The table also includes our top scoring results: the integrated vector-res and vector-faith  The results show that integrating semantic similarity measures into second–order co–occurrence vectors obtains a higher or on–par correlation with human judgments as the previous works reported results with the exception of the UMNSRS rel dataset  The results reported by Pakhomov2016corpus and chiu2016how obtain a higher correlation although the results can not be directly compared because both works used different subsets of the term pairs from the UMNSRS dataset 
Conclusion and Future Work
We have presented a method for quantifying the similarity and relatedness between two terms that integrates pair–wise similarity scores into second–order vectors  The goal of this approach is two–fold  First, we restrict the context used by the vector measure to words that exist in the biomedical domain, and second, we apply larger weights to those word pairs that are more similar to each other  Our hypothesis was that this combination would reduce the amount of noise in the vectors and therefore increase their correlation with human judgments  We evaluated our method on datasets that have been manually annotated for relatedness and similarity and found evidence to support this hypothesis  In particular we discovered that guiding the creation of a second–order context vector by selecting term pairs from biomedical text based on their semantic similarity led to improved levels of correlation with human judgment 
We also explored using a threshold cutoff to include only those term pairs that obtained a sufficiently large level of similarity  We found that eliminating less similar pairs improved the overall results (to a point)  In the future, we plan to explore metrics to automatically determine the threshold cutoff appropriate for a given dataset and measure  We also plan to explore additional features that can be integrated with a second–order vector measure that will reduce the noise but still provide sufficient information to quantify relatedness  We are particularly interested in approaches that learn word, phrase, and sentence embeddings from structured corpora such as literature BIBREF23 and dictionary entries BIBREF24   Such embeddings could be integrated into a second–order vector or be used on their own 
Finally, we compared our proposed method to other distributional approaches, focusing on those that used word embeddings  Our results showed that integrating semantic similarity measures into second–order co–occurrence vectors obtains the same or higher correlation with human judgments as do various different word embedding approaches  However, a direct comparison was not possible due to variations in the subsets of the UMNSRS evaluation dataset used  In the future, we would not only like to conduct a direct comparison but also explore integrating semantic similarity into various kinds of word embeddings by training on pair–wise values of semantic similarity as well as co–occurrence statistics 

ground_truth: the Carnegie Mellon Pronouncing Dictionary BIBREF12, the multilingual pronunciation corpus collected by deri2016grapheme , ranscriptions extracted from Wiktionary

multilingual pronunciation corpus collected by deri2016grapheme

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 4: Introduction
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International License  License details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/ Deep neural networks have been widely used in text classification and have achieved promising results BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Most focus on content information and use models such as convolutional neural networks (CNN) BIBREF3 or recursive neural networks BIBREF4   However, for user-generated posts on social media like Facebook or Twitter, there is more information that should not be ignored  On social media platforms, a user can act either as the author of a post or as a reader who expresses his or her comments about the post 
In this paper, we classify posts taking into account post authorship, likes, topics, and comments  In particular, users and their “likes” hold strong potential for text mining  For example, given a set of posts that are related to a specific topic, a user's likes and dislikes provide clues for stance labeling  From a user point of view, users with positive attitudes toward the issue leave positive comments on the posts with praise or even just the post's content; from a post point of view, positive posts attract users who hold positive stances  We also investigate the influence of topics: different topics are associated with different stance labeling tendencies and word usage  For example we discuss women's rights and unwanted babies on the topic of abortion, but we criticize medicine usage or crime when on the topic of marijuana BIBREF5   Even for posts on a specific topic like nuclear power, a variety of arguments are raised: green energy, radiation, air pollution, and so on  As for comments, we treat them as additional text information  The arguments in the comments and the commenters (the users who leave the comments) provide hints on the post's content and further facilitate stance classification 
In this paper, we propose the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN), a deep learning model that utilizes user, topic, and comment information  We attempt to learn user and topic representations which encode user interactions and topic influences to further enhance text classification, and we also incorporate comment information  We evaluate this model on a post stance classification task on forum-style social media platforms  The contributions of this paper are as follows: 1  We propose UTCNN, a neural network for text in modern social media channels as well as legacy social media, forums, and message boards — anywhere that reveals users, their tastes, as well as their replies to posts  2  When classifying social media post stances, we leverage users, including authors and likers  User embeddings can be generated even for users who have never posted anything  3  We incorporate a topic model to automatically assign topics to each post in a single topic dataset  4  We show that overall, the proposed method achieves the highest performance in all instances, and that all of the information extracted, whether users, topics, or comments, still has its contributions 
Extra-Linguistic Features for Stance Classification
In this paper we aim to use text as well as other features to see how they complement each other in a deep learning model  In the stance classification domain, previous work has showed that text features are limited, suggesting that adding extra-linguistic constraints could improve performance BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   For example, Hasan and Ng as well as Thomas et al  require that posts written by the same author have the same stance BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   The addition of this constraint yields accuracy improvements of 1–7% for some models and datasets  Hasan and Ng later added user-interaction constraints and ideology constraints BIBREF7 : the former models the relationship among posts in a sequence of replies and the latter models inter-topic relationships, e g , users who oppose abortion could be conservative and thus are likely to oppose gay rights 
For work focusing on online forum text, since posts are linked through user replies, sequential labeling methods have been used to model relationships between posts  For example, Hasan and Ng use hidden Markov models (HMMs) to model dependent relationships to the preceding post BIBREF9 ; Burfoot et al  use iterative classification to repeatedly generate new estimates based on the current state of knowledge BIBREF11 ; Sridhar et al  use probabilistic soft logic (PSL) to model reply links via collaborative filtering BIBREF12   In the Facebook dataset we study, we use comments instead of reply links  However, as the ultimate goal in this paper is predicting not comment stance but post stance, we treat comments as extra information for use in predicting post stance 
Deep Learning on Extra-Linguistic Features
In recent years neural network models have been applied to document sentiment classification BIBREF13 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF2   Text features can be used in deep networks to capture text semantics or sentiment  For example, Dong et al  use an adaptive layer in a recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment analysis, where targets are topics such as windows 7 or taylor swift BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 ; recursive neural tensor networks (RNTNs) utilize sentence parse trees to capture sentence-level sentiment for movie reviews BIBREF4 ; Le and Mikolov predict sentiment by using paragraph vectors to model each paragraph as a continuous representation BIBREF18   They show that performance can thus be improved by more delicate text models 
Others have suggested using extra-linguistic features to improve the deep learning model  The user-word composition vector model (UWCVM) BIBREF19 is inspired by the possibility that the strength of sentiment words is user-specific; to capture this they add user embeddings in their model  In UPNN, a later extension, they further add a product-word composition as product embeddings, arguing that products can also show different tendencies of being rated or reviewed BIBREF20   Their addition of user information yielded 2–10% improvements in accuracy as compared to the above-mentioned RNTN and paragraph vector methods  We also seek to inject user information into the neural network model  In comparison to the research of Tang et al  on sentiment classification for product reviews, the difference is two-fold  First, we take into account multiple users (one author and potentially many likers) for one post, whereas only one user (the reviewer) is involved in a review  Second, we add comment information to provide more features for post stance classification  None of these two factors have been considered previously in a deep learning model for text stance classification  Therefore, we propose UTCNN, which generates and utilizes user embeddings for all users — even for those who have not authored any posts — and incorporates comments to further improve performance 
Method
In this section, we first describe CNN-based document composition, which captures user- and topic-dependent document-level semantic representation from word representations  Then we show how to add comment information to construct the user-topic-comment neural network (UTCNN) 
User- and Topic-dependent Document Composition
As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , we use a general CNN BIBREF3 and two semantic transformations for document composition   We are given a document with an engaged user INLINEFORM0 , a topic INLINEFORM1 , and its composite INLINEFORM2 words, each word INLINEFORM3 of which is associated with a word embedding INLINEFORM4 where INLINEFORM5 is the vector dimension  For each word embedding INLINEFORM6 , we apply two dot operations as shown in Equation EQREF6 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 models the user reading preference for certain semantics, and INLINEFORM1 models the topic semantics; INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 are the dimensions of transformed user and topic embeddings respectively  We use INLINEFORM4 to model semantically what each user prefers to read and/or write, and use INLINEFORM5 to model the semantics of each topic  The dot operation of INLINEFORM6 and INLINEFORM7 transforms the global representation INLINEFORM8 to a user-dependent representation  Likewise, the dot operation of INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 transforms INLINEFORM11 to a topic-dependent representation 
After the two dot operations on INLINEFORM0 , we have user-dependent and topic-dependent word vectors INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 , which are concatenated to form a user- and topic-dependent word vector INLINEFORM3   Then the transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM4 are used as the CNN input  Here we apply three convolutional layers on the concatenated transformed word embeddings INLINEFORM5 : DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is the index of words; INLINEFORM1 is a non-linear activation function (we use INLINEFORM2 ); INLINEFORM5 is the convolutional filter with input length INLINEFORM6 and output length INLINEFORM7 , where INLINEFORM8 is the window size of the convolutional operation; and INLINEFORM9 and INLINEFORM10 are the output and bias of the convolution layer INLINEFORM11 , respectively  In our experiments, the three window sizes INLINEFORM12 in the three convolution layers are one, two, and three, encoding unigram, bigram, and trigram semantics accordingly 
After the convolutional layer, we add a maximum pooling layer among convolutional outputs to obtain the unigram, bigram, and trigram n-gram representations  This is succeeded by an average pooling layer for an element-wise average of the three maximized convolution outputs 
UTCNN Model Description
Figure FIGREF10 illustrates the UTCNN model  As more than one user may interact with a given post, we first add a maximum pooling layer after the user matrix embedding layer and user vector embedding layer to form a moderator matrix embedding INLINEFORM0 and a moderator vector embedding INLINEFORM1 for moderator INLINEFORM2 respectively, where INLINEFORM3 is used for the semantic transformation in the document composition process, as mentioned in the previous section  The term moderator here is to denote the pseudo user who provides the overall semantic/sentiment of all the engaged users for one document  The embedding INLINEFORM4 models the moderator stance preference, that is, the pattern of the revealed user stance: whether a user is willing to show his preference, whether a user likes to show impartiality with neutral statements and reasonable arguments, or just wants to show strong support for one stance  Ideally, the latent user stance is modeled by INLINEFORM5 for each user  Likewise, for topic information, a maximum pooling layer is added after the topic matrix embedding layer and topic vector embedding layer to form a joint topic matrix embedding INLINEFORM6 and a joint topic vector embedding INLINEFORM7 for topic INLINEFORM8 respectively, where INLINEFORM9 models the semantic transformation of topic INLINEFORM10 as in users and INLINEFORM11 models the topic stance tendency  The latent topic stance is also modeled by INLINEFORM12 for each topic 
As for comments, we view them as short documents with authors only but without likers nor their own comments  Therefore we apply document composition on comments although here users are commenters (users who comment)  It is noticed that the word embeddings INLINEFORM0 for the same word in the posts and comments are the same, but after being transformed to INLINEFORM1 in the document composition process shown in Figure FIGREF4 , they might become different because of their different engaged users  The output comment representation together with the commenter vector embedding INLINEFORM2 and topic vector embedding INLINEFORM3 are concatenated and a maximum pooling layer is added to select the most important feature for comments  Instead of requiring that the comment stance agree with the post, UTCNN simply extracts the most important features of the comment contents; they could be helpful, whether they show obvious agreement or disagreement  Therefore when combining comment information here, the maximum pooling layer is more appropriate than other pooling or merging layers  Indeed, we believe this is one reason for UTCNN's performance gains 
Finally, the pooled comment representation, together with user vector embedding INLINEFORM0 , topic vector embedding INLINEFORM1 , and document representation are fed to a fully connected network, and softmax is applied to yield the final stance label prediction for the post 
Experiment
We start with the experimental dataset and then describe the training process as well as the implementation of the baselines  We also implement several variations to reveal the effects of features: authors, likers, comment, and commenters  In the results section we compare our model with related work 
Dataset
We tested the proposed UTCNN on two different datasets: FBFans and CreateDebate  FBFans is a privately-owned, single-topic, Chinese, unbalanced, social media dataset, and CreateDebate is a public, multiple-topic, English, balanced, forum dataset  Results using these two datasets show the applicability and superiority for different topics, languages, data distributions, and platforms 
The FBFans dataset contains data from anti-nuclear-power Chinese Facebook fan groups from September 2013 to August 2014, including posts and their author and liker IDs  There are a total of 2,496 authors, 505,137 likers, 33,686 commenters, and 505,412 unique users  Two annotators were asked to take into account only the post content to label the stance of the posts in the whole dataset as supportive, neutral, or unsupportive (hereafter denoted as Sup, Neu, and Uns)  Sup/Uns posts were those in support of or against anti-reconstruction; Neu posts were those evincing a neutral standpoint on the topic, or were irrelevant  Raw agreement between annotators is 0 91, indicating high agreement  Specifically, Cohen’s Kappa for Neu and not Neu labeling is 0 58 (moderate), and for Sup or Uns labeling is 0 84 (almost perfect)  Posts with inconsistent labels were filtered out, and the development and testing sets were randomly selected from what was left  Posts in the development and testing sets involved at least one user who appeared in the training set  The number of posts for each stance is shown on the left-hand side of Table TABREF12   About twenty percent of the posts were labeled with a stance, and the number of supportive (Sup) posts was much larger than that of the unsupportive (Uns) ones: this is thus highly skewed data, which complicates stance classification  On average, 161

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 embedding techniques are explored in the paper?
Context 4: 1 users were involved in one post  The maximum was 23,297 and the minimum was one (the author)  For comments, on average there were 3 comments per post  The maximum was 1,092 and the minimum was zero 
To test whether the assumption of this paper – posts attract users who hold the same stance to like them – is reliable, we examine the likes from authors of different stances  Posts in FBFans dataset are used for this analysis  We calculate the like statistics of each distinct author from these 32,595 posts  As the numbers of authors in the Sup, Neu and Uns stances are largely imbalanced, these numbers are normalized by the number of users of each stance  Table TABREF13 shows the results  Posts with stances (i e , not neutral) attract users of the same stance  Neutral posts also attract both supportive and neutral users, like what we observe in supportive posts, but just the neutral posts can attract even more neutral likers  These results do suggest that users prefer posts of the same stance, or at least posts of no obvious stance which might cause annoyance when reading, and hence support the user modeling in our approach 
The CreateDebate dataset was collected from an English online debate forum discussing four topics: abortion (ABO), gay rights (GAY), Obama (OBA), and marijuana (MAR)  The posts are annotated as for (F) and against (A)  Replies to posts in this dataset are also labeled with stance and hence use the same data format as posts  The labeling results are shown in the right-hand side of Table TABREF12   We observe that the dataset is more balanced than the FBFans dataset  In addition, there are 977 unique users in the dataset  To compare with Hasan and Ng's work, we conducted five-fold cross-validation and present the annotation results as the average number of all folds BIBREF9 , BIBREF5  
The FBFans dataset has more integrated functions than the CreateDebate dataset; thus our model can utilize all linguistic and extra-linguistic features  For the CreateDebate dataset, on the other hand, the like and comment features are not available (as there is a stance label for each reply, replies are evaluated as posts as other previous work) but we still implemented our model using the content, author, and topic information 
Settings
In the UTCNN training process, cross-entropy was used as the loss function and AdaGrad as the optimizer  For FBFans dataset, we learned the 50-dimensional word embeddings on the whole dataset using GloVe BIBREF21 to capture the word semantics; for CreateDebate dataset we used the publicly available English 50-dimensional word embeddings, pre-trained also using GloVe  These word embeddings were fixed in the training process  The learning rate was set to 0 03  All user and topic embeddings were randomly initialized in the range of [-0 1 0 1]  Matrix embeddings for users and topics were sized at 250 ( INLINEFORM0 ); vector embeddings for users and topics were set to length 10 
We applied the LDA topic model BIBREF22 on the FBFans dataset to determine the latent topics with which to build topic embeddings, as there is only one general known topic: nuclear power plants  We learned 100 latent topics and assigned the top three topics for each post  For the CreateDebate dataset, which itself constitutes four topics, the topic labels for posts were used directly without additionally applying LDA 
For the FBFans data we report class-based f-scores as well as the macro-average f-score ( INLINEFORM0 ) shown in equation EQREF19   DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 are the average precision and recall of the three class  We adopted the macro-average f-score as the evaluation metric for the overall performance because (1) the experimental dataset is severely imbalanced, which is common for contentious issues; and (2) for stance classification, content in minor-class posts is usually more important for further applications  For the CreateDebate dataset, accuracy was adopted as the evaluation metric to compare the results with related work BIBREF7 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF12  
Baselines
We pit our model against the following baselines: 1) SVM with unigram, bigram, and trigram features, which is a standard yet rather strong classifier for text features; 2) SVM with average word embedding, where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the embeddings of the composite words; 3) SVM with average transformed word embeddings (the INLINEFORM0 in equation EQREF6 ), where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the transformed embeddings of the composite words; 4) two mature deep learning models on text classification, CNN BIBREF3 and Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks (RCNN) BIBREF0 , where the hyperparameters are based on their work; 5) the above SVM and deep learning models with comment information; 6) UTCNN without user information, representing a pure-text CNN model where we use the same user matrix and user embeddings INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 for each user; 7) UTCNN without the LDA model, representing how UTCNN works with a single-topic dataset; 8) UTCNN without comments, in which the model predicts the stance label given only user and topic information  All these models were trained on the training set, and parameters as well as the SVM kernel selections (linear or RBF) were fine-tuned on the development set  Also, we adopt oversampling on SVMs, CNN and RCNN because the FBFans dataset is highly imbalanced 
Results on FBFans Dataset
In Table TABREF22 we show the results of UTCNN and the baselines on the FBFans dataset  Here Majority yields good performance on Neu since FBFans is highly biased to the neutral class  The SVM models perform well on Sup and Neu but perform poorly for Uns, showing that content information in itself is insufficient to predict stance labels, especially for the minor class  With the transformed word embedding feature, SVM can achieve comparable performance as SVM with n-gram feature  However, the much fewer feature dimension of the transformed word embedding makes SVM with word embeddings a more efficient choice for modeling the large scale social media dataset  For the CNN and RCNN models, they perform slightly better than most of the SVM models but still, the content information is insufficient to achieve a good performance on the Uns posts  As to adding comment information to these models, since the commenters do not always hold the same stance as the author, simply adding comments and post contents together merely adds noise to the model 
Among all UTCNN variations, we find that user information is most important, followed by topic and comment information  UTCNN without user information shows results similar to SVMs — it does well for Sup and Neu but detects no Uns  Its best f-scores on both Sup and Neu among all methods show that with enough training data, content-based models can perform well; at the same time, the lack of user information results in too few clues for minor-class posts to either predict their stance directly or link them to other users and posts for improved performance  The 17 5% improvement when adding user information suggests that user information is especially useful when the dataset is highly imbalanced  All models that consider user information predict the minority class successfully  UCTNN without topic information works well but achieves lower performance than the full UTCNN model  The 4 9% performance gain brought by LDA shows that although it is satisfactory for single topic datasets, adding that latent topics still benefits performance: even when we are discussing the same topic, we use different arguments and supporting evidence  Lastly, we get 4 8% improvement when adding comment information and it achieves comparable performance to UTCNN without topic information, which shows that comments also benefit performance  For platforms where user IDs are pixelated or otherwise hidden, adding comments to a text model still improves performance  In its integration of user, content, and comment information, the full UTCNN produces the highest f-scores on all Sup, Neu, and Uns stances among models that predict the Uns class, and the highest macro-average f-score overall  This shows its ability to balance a biased dataset and supports our claim that UTCNN successfully bridges content and user, topic, and comment information for stance classification on social media text  Another merit of UTCNN is that it does not require a balanced training data  This is supported by its outperforming other models though no oversampling technique is applied to the UTCNN related experiments as shown in this paper  Thus we can conclude that the user information provides strong clues and it is still rich even in the minority class 
We also investigate the semantic difference when a user acts as an author/liker or a commenter  We evaluated a variation in which all embeddings from the same user were forced to be identical (this is the UTCNN shared user embedding setting in Table TABREF22 )  This setting yielded only a 2 5% improvement over the model without comments, which is not statistically significant  However, when separating authors/likers and commenters embeddings (i e , the UTCNN full model), we achieved much greater improvements (4 8%)  We attribute this result to the tendency of users to use different wording for different roles (for instance author vs commenter)  This is observed when the user, acting as an author, attempts to support her argument against nuclear power by using improvements in solar power; when acting as a commenter, though, she interacts with post contents by criticizing past politicians who supported nuclear power or by arguing that the proposed evacuation plan in case of a nuclear accident is ridiculous  Based on this finding, in the final UTCNN setting we train two user matrix embeddings for one user: one for the author/liker role and the other for the commenter role 
Results on CreateDebate Dataset
Table TABREF24 shows the results of UTCNN, baselines as we implemented on the FBFans datset and related work on the CreateDebate dataset  We do not adopt oversampling on these models because the CreateDebate dataset is almost balanced  In previous work, integer linear programming (ILP) or linear-chain conditional random fields (CRFs) were proposed to integrate text features, author, ideology, and user-interaction constraints, where text features are unigram, bigram, and POS-dependencies; the author constraint tends to require that posts from the same author for the same topic hold the same stance; the ideology constraint aims to capture inferences between topics for the same author; the user-interaction constraint models relationships among posts via user interactions such as replies BIBREF7 , BIBREF9  
The SVM with n-gram or average word embedding feature performs just similar to the majority  However, with the transformed word embedding, it achieves superior results  It shows that the learned user and topic embeddings really capture the user and topic semantics  This finding is not so obvious in the FBFans dataset and it might be due to the unfavorable data skewness for SVM  As for CNN and RCNN, they perform slightly better than most SVMs as we found in Table TABREF22 for FBFans 
Compared to the ILP BIBREF7 and CRF BIBREF9 methods, the UTCNN user embeddings encode author and user-interaction constraints, where the ideology constraint is modeled by the topic embeddings and text features are modeled by the CNN  The significant improvement achieved by UTCNN suggests the latent representations are more effective than overt model constraints 
The PSL model BIBREF12 jointly labels both author and post stance using probabilistic soft logic (PSL) BIBREF23 by considering text features and reply links between authors and posts as in Hasan and Ng's work  Table TABREF24 reports the result of their best AD setting, which represents the full joint stance/disagreement collective model on posts and is hence more relevant to UTCNN  In contrast to their model, the UTCNN user embeddings represent relationships between authors, but UTCNN models do not utilize link information between posts  Though the PSL model has the advantage of being able to jointly label the stances of authors and posts, its performance on posts is lower than the that for the ILP or CRF models  UTCNN significantly outperforms these models on posts and has the potential to predict user stances through the generated user embeddings 
For the CreateDebate dataset, we also evaluated performance when not using topic embeddings or user embeddings; as replies in this dataset are viewed as posts, the setting without comment embeddings is not available  Table TABREF24 shows the same findings as Table TABREF22 : the 21% improvement in accuracy demonstrates that user information is the most vital  This finding also supports the results in the related work: user constraints are useful and can yield 11 2% improvement in accuracy BIBREF7   Further considering topic information yields 3 4% improvement, suggesting that knowing the subject of debates provides useful information  In sum, Table TABREF22 together with Table TABREF24 show that UTCNN achieves promising performance regardless of topic, language, data distribution, and platform 
Conclusion
We have proposed UTCNN, a neural network model that incorporates user, topic, content and comment information for stance classification on social media texts  UTCNN learns user embeddings for all users with minimum active degree, i e , one post or one like  Topic information obtained from the topic model or the pre-defined labels further improves the UTCNN model  In addition, comment information provides additional clues for stance classification  We have shown that UTCNN achieves promising and balanced results  In the future we plan to explore the effectiveness of the UTCNN user embeddings for author stance classification 
Acknowledgements
Research of this paper was partially supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under the contract MOST 104-2221-E-001-024-MY2 

ground_truth: Skip–gram, CBOW

integrated vector-res, vector-faith, Skip–gram, CBOW