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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What are the results from these proposed strategies?
Context 1: Introduction and Background
Many reinforcement learning algorithms are designed for relatively small discrete or continuous action spaces and so have trouble scaling  Text-adventure games—or interaction fictions—are simulations in which both an agents' state and action spaces are in textual natural language  An example of a one turn agent interaction in the popular text-game Zork1 can be seen in Fig  FIGREF1  Text-adventure games provide us with multiple challenges in the form of partial observability, commonsense reasoning, and a combinatorially-sized state-action space  Text-adventure games are structured as long puzzles or quests, interspersed with bottlenecks  The quests can usually be completed through multiple branching paths  However, games can also feature one or more bottlenecks  Bottlenecks are areas that an agent must pass through in order to progress to the next section of the game regardless of what path the agent has taken to complete that section of the quest BIBREF0  In this work, we focus on more effectively exploring this space and surpassing these bottlenecks—building on prior work that focuses on tackling the other problems 
Formally, we use the definition of text-adventure games as seen in BIBREF1 and BIBREF2  These games are partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs), represented as a 7-tuple of $\langle S,T,A,\Omega , O,R, \gamma \rangle $ representing the set of environment states, mostly deterministic conditional transition probabilities between states, the vocabulary or words used to compose text commands, observations returned by the game, observation conditional probabilities, reward function, and the discount factor respectively  For our purposes, understanding the exact state and action spaces we use in this work is critical and so we define each of these in relative depth 
Action-Space  To solve Zork1, the cannonical text-adventure games, requires the generation of actions consisting of up to five-words from a relatively modest vocabulary of 697 words recognized by the game’s parser  This results in $\mathcal {O}(697^5)={1 64e14}$ possible actions at every step  To facilitate text-adventure game playing, BIBREF2 introduce Jericho, a framework for interacting with text-games  They propose a template-based action space in which the agent first selects a template, consisting of an action verb and preposition, and then filling that in with relevant entities $($e g  $[get]$ $ [from] $ $)$  Zork1 has 237 templates, each with up to two blanks, yielding a template-action space of size $\mathcal {O}(237 \times 697^2)={1 15e8}$  This space is still far larger than most used by previous approaches applying reinforcement learning to text-based games 
State-Representation  Prior work has shown that knowledge graphs are effective in terms of dealing with the challenges of partial observability $($BIBREF3 BIBREF3; BIBREF4$)$  A knowledge graph is a set of 3-tuples of the form $\langle subject, relation, object \rangle $  These triples are extracted from the observations using Stanford's Open Information Extraction (OpenIE) BIBREF5  Human-made text-adventure games often contain relatively complex semi-structured information that OpenIE is not designed to parse and so they add additional rules to ensure that the correct information is parsed  The graph itself is more or less a map of the world, with information about objects' affordances and attributes linked to the rooms that they are place in a map  The graph also makes a distinction with respect to items that are in the agent's possession or in their immediate surrounding environment  An example of what the knowledge graph looks like and specific implementation details can be found in Appendix SECREF14 
BIBREF6 introduce the KG-A2C, which uses a knowledge graph based state-representation to aid in the section of actions in a combinatorially-sized action-space—specifically they use the knowledge graph to constrain the kinds of entities that can be filled in the blanks in the template action-space  They test their approach on Zork1, showing the combination of the knowledge graph and template action selection resulted in improvements over existing methods  They note that their approach reaches a score of 40 which corresponds to a bottleneck in Zork1 where the player is eaten by a “grue” (resulting in negative reward) if the player has not first lit a lamp  The lamp must be lit many steps after first being encountered, in a different section of the game; this action is necessary to continue exploring but doesn’t immediately produce any positive reward  That is, there is a long term dependency between actions that is not immediately rewarded, as seen in Figure FIGREF1  Others using artificially constrained action spaces also report an inability to pass through this bottleneck BIBREF7, BIBREF8  They pose a significant challenge for these methods because the agent does not see the correct action sequence to pass the bottleneck enough times  This is in part due to the fact that for that sequence to be reinforced, the agent needs to reach the next possible reward beyond the bottleneck 
More efficient exploration strategies are required to pass bottlenecks  Our contributions are two-fold  We first introduce a method that detects bottlenecks in text-games using the overall reward gained and the knowledge graph state  This method freezes the policy used to reach the bottleneck and restarts the training from there on out, additionally conducting a backtracking search to ensure that a sub-optimal policy has not been frozen  The second contribution explore how to leverage knowledge graphs to improve existing exploration algorithms for dealing with combinatorial action-spaces such as Go-Explore BIBREF9  We additionally present a comparative ablation study analyzing the performance of these methods on the popular text-game Zork1 
Exploration Methods
In this section, we describe methods to explore combinatorially sized action spaces such as text-games—focusing especially on methods that can deal with their inherent bottleneck structure  We first describe our method that explicitly attempts to detect bottlenecks and then describe how an exploration algorithm such as Go Explore BIBREF9 can leverage knowledge graphs 
KG-A2C-chained An example of a bottleneck can be seen in Figure FIGREF1  We extend the KG-A2C algorithm as follows  First, we detect bottlenecks as states where the agent is unable to progress any further  We set a patience parameter and if the agent has not seen a higher score in patience steps, the agent assumes it has been limited by a bottleneck  Second, when a bottleneck is found, we freeze the policy that gets the agent to the state with the highest score  The agent then begins training a new policy from that particular state 
Simply freezing the policy that led to the bottleneck, however, can potentially result in a policy one that is globally sub-optimal  We therefore employ a backtracking strategy that restarts exploration from each of the $n$ previous steps—searching for a more optimal policy that reaches that bottleneck  At each step, we keep track of a buffer of $n$ states and admissible actions that led up to that locally optimal state  We force the agent to explore from this state to attempt to drive it out of the local optima  If it is further unable to find itself out of this local optima, we refresh the training process again, but starting at the state immediately before the agent reaches the local optima  If this continues to fail, we continue to iterate through this buffer of seen states states up to that local optima until we either find a more optimal state or we run out of states to refresh from, in which we terminate the training algorithm 
KG-A2C-Explore Go-Explore BIBREF9 is an algorithm that is designed to keep track of sub-optimal and under-explored states in order to allow the agent to explore upon more optimal states that may be a result of sparse rewards  The Go-Explore algorithm consists of two phases, the first to continuously explore until a set of promising states and corresponding trajectories are found on the basis of total score, and the second to robustify this found policy against potential stochasticity in the game  Promising states are defined as those states when explored from will likely result in higher reward trajectories  Since the text games we are dealing with are mostly deterministic, with the exception of Zork in later stages, we only focus on using Phase 1 of the Go-Explore algorithm to find an optimal policy  BIBREF10 look at applying Go-Explore to text-games on a set of simpler games generated using the game generation framework TextWorld BIBREF1  Instead of training a policy network in parallel to generate actions used for exploration, they use a small set of “admissible actions”—actions guaranteed to change the world state at any given step during Phase 1—to explore and find high reward trajectories  This space of actions is relatively small (of the order of $10^2$ per step) and so finding high reward trajectories in larger action-spaces such as in Zork would be infeasible
Go-Explore maintains an archive of cells—defined as a set of states that map to a single representation—to keep track of promising states  BIBREF9 simply encodes each cell by keeping track of the agent's position and BIBREF10 use the textual observations encoded by recurrent neural network as a cell representation  We improve on this implementation by training the KG-A2C network in parallel, using the snapshot of the knowledge graph in conjunction with the game state to further encode the current state and use this as a cell representation  At each step, Go-Explore chooses a cell to explore at random (weighted by score to prefer more advanced cells)  The KG-A2C will run for a number of steps, starting with the knowledge graph state and the last seen state of the game from the cell  This will generate a trajectory for the agent while further training the KG-A2C at each iteration, creating a new representation for the knowledge graph as well as a new game state for the cell  After expanding a cell, Go-Explore will continue to sample cells by weight to continue expanding its known states  At the same time, KG-A2C will benefit from the heuristics of selecting preferred cells and be trained on promising states more often 
Evaluation
We compare our two exploration strategies to the following baselines and ablations:
KG-A2C This is the exact same method presented in BIBREF6 with no modifications 
A2C Represents the same approach as KG-A2C but with all the knowledge graph components removed  The state representation is text only encoded using recurrent networks 
A2C-chained Is a variation on KG-A2C-chained where we use our policy chaining approach with the A2C method to train the agent instead of KG-A2C 
A2C-Explore Uses A2C in addition to the exploration strategy seen in KG-A2C-Explore  The cell representations here are defined in terms of the recurrent network based encoding of the textual observation 
Figure FIGREF10 shows that agents utilizing knowledge-graphs in addition to either enhanced exploration method far outperform the baseline A2C and KG-A2C  KG-A2C-chained and KG-A2C-Explore both pass the bottleneck of a score of 40, whereas A2C-Explore gets to the bottleneck but cannot surpass it 
There are a couple of key insights that can be drawn from these results The first is that the knowledge graph appears to be critical; it is theorized to help with partial observability  However the knowledge graph representation isn't sufficient in that the knowledge graph representation without enhanced exploration methods cannot surpass the bottleneck  A2C-chained—which explores without a knowledge graph—fails to even outperform the baseline A2C  We hypothesize that this is due to the knowledge graph aiding implicitly in the sample efficiency of bottleneck detection and subsequent exploration  That is, exploring after backtracking from a potentially detected bottleneck is much more efficient in the knowledge graph based agent 
The Go-Explore based exploration algorithm sees less of a difference between agents  A2C-Explore converges more quickly, but to a lower reward trajectory that fails to pass the bottleneck, whereas KG-A2C-Explore takes longer to reach a similar reward but consistently makes it through the bottleneck  The knowledge graph cell representation appears to thus be a better indication of what a promising state is as opposed to just the textual observation 
Comparing the advanced exploration methods when using the knowledge graph, we see that both agents successfully pass the bottleneck corresponding to entering the cellar and lighting the lamp and reach comparable scores within a margin of error  KG-A2C-chained is significantly more sample efficient and converges faster  We can infer that chaining policies by explicitly detecting bottlenecks lets us pass it more quickly than attempting to find promising cell representations with Go-Explore  This form of chained exploration with backtracking is particularly suited to sequential decision making problems that can be represented as acyclic directed graphs as in Figure FIGREF1 
Appendix ::: Zork1
Zork1 is one of the first text-adventure games and heavily influences games released later in terms of narrative style and game structure  It is a dungeon crawler where the player must explore a vast world and collect a series of treasures  It was identified by BIBREF2 as a moonshot game and has been the subject of much work in leaning agents BIBREF12, BIBREF7, BIBREF11, BIBREF8  Rewards are given to the player when they collect treasures as well as when important intermediate milestones needed to further explore the world are passed  Figure FIGREF15 and Figure FIGREF1 show us a map of the world of Zork1 and the corresponding quest structure 
The bottleneck seen at a score of around 40 is when the player first enters the cellar on the right side of the map  The cellar is dark and you need to immediately light the lamp to see anything  Attempting to explore the cellar in the dark results in you being instantly killed by a monster known as a “grue” 
Appendix ::: Knowledge Graph Rules
We make no changes from the graph update rules used by BIBREF6  Candidate interactive objects are identified by performing part-of-speech tagging on the current observation, identifying singular and proper nouns as well as adjectives, and are then filtered by checking if they can be examined using the command $examine$ $OBJ$  Only the interactive objects not found in the inventory are linked to the node corresponding to the current room and the inventory items are linked to the “you” node  The only other rule applied uses the navigational actions performed by the agent to infer the relative positions of rooms, e g  $\langle kitchen,down,cellar \rangle $ when the agent performs $go$ $down$ when in the kitchen to move to the cellar 
Appendix ::: Hyperparameters
Hyperparameters used for our agents are given below  Patience and buffer size are used for the policy chaining method as described in Section SECREF2  Cell step size is a parameter used for Go-Explore and describes how many steps are taken when exploring in a given cell state  Base hyperparameters for KG-A2C are taken from BIBREF6 and the same parameters are used for A2C 
Context 3: Introduction
Privacy policies are the documents which disclose the ways in which a company gathers, uses, shares and manages a user's data  As legal documents, they function using the principle of notice and choice BIBREF0, where companies post their policies, and theoretically, users read the policies and decide to use a company's products or services only if they find the conditions outlined in its privacy policy acceptable  Many legal jurisdictions around the world accept this framework, including the United States and the European Union BIBREF1, BIBREF2  However, the legitimacy of this framework depends upon users actually reading and understanding privacy policies to determine whether company practices are acceptable to them BIBREF3  In practice this is seldom the case BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8, BIBREF9, BIBREF10  This is further complicated by the highly individual and nuanced compromises that users are willing to make with their data BIBREF11, discouraging a `one-size-fits-all' approach to notice of data practices in privacy documents 
With devices constantly monitoring our environment, including our personal space and our bodies, lack of awareness of how our data is being used easily leads to problematic situations where users are outraged by information misuse, but companies insist that users have consented  The discovery of increasingly egregious uses of data by companies, such as the scandals involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica BIBREF12, have further brought public attention to the privacy concerns of the internet and ubiquitous computing  This makes privacy a well-motivated application domain for NLP researchers, where advances in enabling users to quickly identify the privacy issues most salient to them can potentially have large real-world impact 
[1]https://play google com/store/apps/details?id=com gotokeep keep intl [2]https://play google com/store/apps/details?id=com viber voip [3]A question might not have any supporting evidence for an answer within the privacy policy 
Motivated by this need, we contribute PrivacyQA, a corpus consisting of 1750 questions about the contents of privacy policies, paired with over 3500 expert annotations  The goal of this effort is to kickstart the development of question-answering methods for this domain, to address the (unrealistic) expectation that a large population should be reading many policies per day  In doing so, we identify several understudied challenges to our ability to answer these questions, with broad implications for systems seeking to serve users' information-seeking intent  By releasing this resource, we hope to provide an impetus to develop systems capable of language understanding in this increasingly important domain 
Related Work
Prior work has aimed to make privacy policies easier to understand  Prescriptive approaches towards communicating privacy information BIBREF21, BIBREF22, BIBREF23 have not been widely adopted by industry  Recently, there have been significant research effort devoted to understanding privacy policies by leveraging NLP techniques BIBREF24, BIBREF25, BIBREF26, BIBREF27, BIBREF28, especially by identifying specific data practices within a privacy policy  We adopt a personalized approach to understanding privacy policies, that allows users to query a document and selectively explore content salient to them  Most similar is the PolisisQA corpus BIBREF29, which examines questions users ask corporations on Twitter  Our approach differs in several ways: 1) The PrivacyQA dataset is larger, containing 10x as many questions and answers  2) Answers are formulated by domain experts with legal training  3) PrivacyQA includes diverse question types, including unanswerable and subjective questions 
Our work is also related to reading comprehension in the open domain, which is frequently based upon Wikipedia passages BIBREF16, BIBREF17, BIBREF15, BIBREF30 and news articles BIBREF20, BIBREF31, BIBREF32  Table TABREF4 presents the desirable attributes our dataset shares with past approaches  This work is also tied into research in applying NLP approaches to legal documents BIBREF33, BIBREF34, BIBREF35, BIBREF36, BIBREF37, BIBREF38, BIBREF39  While privacy policies have legal implications, their intended audience consists of the general public rather than individuals with legal expertise  This arrangement is problematic because the entities that write privacy policies often have different goals than the audience  feng2015applying, tan-EtAl:2016:P16-1 examine question answering in the insurance domain, another specialized domain similar to privacy, where the intended audience is the general public 
Data Collection
We describe the data collection methodology used to construct PrivacyQA  With the goal of achieving broad coverage across application types, we collect privacy policies from 35 mobile applications representing a number of different categories in the Google Play Store  One of our goals is to include both policies from well-known applications, which are likely to have carefully-constructed privacy policies, and lesser-known applications with smaller install bases, whose policies might be considerably less sophisticated  Thus, setting 5 million installs as a threshold, we ensure each category includes applications with installs on both sides of this threshold  All policies included in the corpus are in English, and were collected before April 1, 2018, predating many companies' GDPR-focused BIBREF41 updates  We leave it to future studies BIBREF42 to look at the impact of the GDPR (e g , to what extent GDPR requirements contribute to making it possible to provide users with more informative answers, and to what extent their disclosures continue to omit issues that matter to users) 
Data Collection ::: Crowdsourced Question Elicitation
The intended audience for privacy policies consists of the general public  This informs the decision to elicit questions from crowdworkers on the contents of privacy policies  We choose not to show the contents of privacy policies to crowdworkers, a procedure motivated by a desire to avoid inadvertent biases BIBREF43, BIBREF44, BIBREF45, BIBREF46, BIBREF47, and encourage crowdworkers to ask a variety of questions beyond only asking questions based on practices described in the document 
Instead, crowdworkers are presented with public information about a mobile application available on the Google Play Store including its name, description and navigable screenshots  Figure FIGREF9 shows an example of our user interface  Crowdworkers are asked to imagine they have access to a trusted third-party privacy assistant, to whom they can ask any privacy question about a given mobile application  We use the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform and recruit crowdworkers who have been conferred “master” status and are located within the United States of America  Turkers are asked to provide five questions per mobile application, and are paid $2 per assignment, taking ~eight minutes to complete the task 
Data Collection ::: Answer Selection
To identify legally sound answers, we recruit seven experts with legal training to construct answers to Turker questions  Experts identify relevant evidence within the privacy policy, as well as provide meta-annotation on the question's relevance, subjectivity, OPP-115 category BIBREF49, and how likely any privacy policy is to contain the answer to the question asked 
Data Collection ::: Analysis
Table TABREF17 presents aggregate statistics of the PrivacyQA dataset  1750 questions are posed to our imaginary privacy assistant over 35 mobile applications and their associated privacy documents  As an initial step, we formulate the problem of answering user questions as an extractive sentence selection task, ignoring for now background knowledge, statistical data and legal expertise that could otherwise be brought to bear  The dataset is partitioned into a training set featuring 27 mobile applications and 1350 questions, and a test set consisting of 400 questions over 8 policy documents  This ensures that documents in training and test splits are mutually exclusive  Every question is answered by at least one expert  In addition, in order to estimate annotation reliability and provide for better evaluation, every question in the test set is answered by at least two additional experts 
Table TABREF14 describes the distribution over first words of questions posed by crowdworkers  We also observe low redundancy in the questions posed by crowdworkers over each policy, with each policy receiving ~49 94 unique questions despite crowdworkers independently posing questions  Questions are on average 8 4 words long

ground_truth: Reward of 11.8 for the A2C-chained model, 41.8 for the KG-A2C-chained model, 40 for A2C-Explore and 44 for KG-A2C-Explore.

KG-A2C-chained and KG-A2C-Explore both pass the bottleneck of a score of 40

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How larger are the training sets of these versions of ELMo compared to the previous ones?
Context 2: Introduction
Word embeddings are representations of words in numerical form, as vectors of typically several hundred dimensions  The vectors are used as an input to machine learning models; for complex language processing tasks these are typically deep neural networks  The embedding vectors are obtained from specialized learning tasks, based on neural networks, e g , word2vec BIBREF0, GloVe BIBREF1, FastText BIBREF2, ELMo BIBREF3, and BERT BIBREF4  For training, the embeddings algorithms use large monolingual corpora that encode important information about word meaning as distances between vectors  In order to enable downstream machine learning on text understanding tasks, the embeddings shall preserve semantic relations between words, and this is true even across languages 
Probably the best known word embeddings are produced by the word2vec method BIBREF5  The problem with word2vec embeddings is their failure to express polysemous words  During training of an embedding, all senses of a given word (e g , paper as a material, as a newspaper, as a scientific work, and as an exam) contribute relevant information in proportion to their frequency in the training corpus  This causes the final vector to be placed somewhere in the weighted middle of all words' meanings  Consequently, rare meanings of words are poorly expressed with word2vec and the resulting vectors do not offer good semantic representations  For example, none of the 50 closest vectors of the word paper is related to science 
The idea of contextual embeddings is to generate a different vector for each context a word appears in and the context is typically defined sentence-wise  To a large extent, this solves the problems with word polysemy, i e  the context of a sentence is typically enough to disambiguate different meanings of a word for humans and so it is for the learning algorithms  In this work, we describe high-quality models for contextual embeddings, called ELMo BIBREF3, precomputed for seven morphologically rich, less-resourced languages: Slovenian, Croatian, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Swedish  ELMo is one of the most successful approaches to contextual word embeddings  At time of its creation, ELMo has been shown to outperform previous word embeddings BIBREF3 like word2vec and GloVe on many NLP tasks, e g , question answering, named entity extraction, sentiment analysis, textual entailment, semantic role labeling, and coreference resolution 
This report is split into further five sections  In section SECREF2, we describe the contextual embeddings ELMo  In Section SECREF3, we describe the datasets used and in Section SECREF4 we describe preprocessing and training of the embeddings  We describe the methodology for evaluation of created vectors and results in Section SECREF5  We present conclusion in Section SECREF6 where we also outline plans for further work 
ELMo
Typical word embeddings models or representations, such as word2vec BIBREF0, GloVe BIBREF1, or FastText BIBREF2, are fast to train and have been pre-trained for a number of different languages  They do not capture the context, though, so each word is always given the same vector, regardless of its context or meaning  This is especially problematic for polysemous words  ELMo (Embeddings from Language Models) embedding BIBREF3 is one of the state-of-the-art pretrained transfer learning models, that remedies the problem and introduces a contextual component 
ELMo model`s architecture consists of three neural network layers  The output of the model after each layer gives one set of embeddings, altogether three sets  The first layer is a CNN layer, which operates on a character level  It is context independent, so each word always gets the same embedding, regardless of its context  It is followed by two biLM layers  A biLM layer consists of two concatenated LSTMs  In the first LSTM, we try to predict the following word, based on the given past words, where each word is represented by the embeddings from the CNN layer  In the second LSTM, we try to predict the preceding word, based on the given following words  It is equivalent to the first LSTM, just reading the text in reverse 
In NLP tasks, any set of these embeddings may be used; however, a weighted average is usually used  The weights of the average are learned during the training of the model for the specific task  Additionally, an entire ELMo model can be fine-tuned on a specific end task 
Although ELMo is trained on character level and is able to handle out-of-vocabulary words, a vocabulary file containing most common tokens is used for efficiency during training and embedding generation  The original ELMo model was trained on a one billion word large English corpus, with a given vocabulary file of about 800,000 words  Later, ELMo models for other languages were trained as well, but limited to larger languages with many resources, like German and Japanese 
ELMo ::: ELMoForManyLangs
Recently, ELMoForManyLangs BIBREF6 project released pre-trained ELMo models for a number of different languages BIBREF7  These models, however, were trained on a significantly smaller datasets  They used 20-million-words data randomly sampled from the raw text released by the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task - Automatically Annotated Raw Texts and Word Embeddings BIBREF8, which is a combination of Wikipedia dump and common crawl  The quality of these models is questionable  For example, we compared the Latvian model by ELMoForManyLangs with a model we trained on a complete (wikidump + common crawl) Latvian corpus, which has about 280 million tokens  The difference of each model on the word analogy task is shown in Figure FIGREF16 in Section SECREF5  As the results of the ELMoForManyLangs embeddings are significantly worse than using the full corpus, we can conclude that these embeddings are not of sufficient quality  For that reason, we computed ELMo embeddings for seven languages on much larger corpora  As this effort requires access to large amount of textual data and considerable computational resources, we made the precomputed models publicly available by depositing them to Clarin repository 
Training Data
We trained ELMo models for seven languages: Slovenian, Croatian, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Swedish  To obtain high-quality embeddings, we used large monolingual corpora from various sources for each language  Some corpora are available online under permissive licences, others are available only for research purposes or have limited availability  The corpora used in training datasets are a mix of news articles and general web crawl, which we preprocessed and deduplicated  Below we shortly describe the used corpora in alphabetical order of the involved languages  Their names and sizes are summarized in Table TABREF3 
Croatian dataset include hrWaC 2 1 corpus BIBREF9, Riznica BIBREF10, and articles of Croatian branch of Styria media house, made available to us through partnership in a joint project  hrWaC was built by crawling the  hr internet domain in 2011 and 2014  Riznica is composed of Croatian fiction and non-fiction prose, poetry, drama, textbooks, manuals, etc  The Styria dataset consists of 570,219 news articles published on the Croatian 24sata news portal and niche portals related to 24sata 
Estonian dataset contains texts from two sources, CoNLL 2017 Shared Task - Automatically Annotated Raw Texts and Word Embeddings BIBREF8, and news articles made available to us by Ekspress Meedia due to partnership in the project  Ekspress Meedia dataset is composed of Estonian news articles between years 2009 and 2019  The CoNLL 2017 corpus is composed of Estonian Wikipedia and webcrawl 
Finnish dataset contains articles by Finnish news agency STT, Finnish part of the CoNLL 2017 dataset, and Ylilauta downloadable version BIBREF11  STT news articles were published between years 1992 and 2018  Ylilauta is a Finnish online discussion board; the corpus contains parts of the discussions from 2012 to 2014 
Latvian dataset consists only of the Latvian portion of the ConLL 2017 corpus 
Lithuanian dataset is composed of Lithuanian Wikipedia articles from 2018, DGT-UD corpus, and LtTenTen  DGT-UD is a parallel corpus of 23 official languages of the EU, composed of JRC DGT translation memory of European law, automatically annotated with UD-Pipe 1 2  LtTenTen is Lithuanian web corpus made up of texts collected from the internet in April 2014 BIBREF12 
Slovene dataset is formed from the Gigafida 2 0 corpus BIBREF13  It is a general language corpus composed of various sources, mostly newspapers, internet pages, and magazines, but also fiction and non-fiction prose, textbooks, etc 
Swedish dataset is composed of STT Swedish articles and Swedish part of CoNLL 2017  The Finnish news agency STT publishes some of its articles in Swedish language  They were made available to us through partnership in a joint project  The corpus contains those articles from 1992 to 2017 
Preprocessing and Training
Prior to training the ELMo models, we sentence and word tokenized all the datasets  The text was formatted in such a way that each sentence was in its own line with tokens separated by white spaces  CoNLL 2017, DGT-UD and LtTenTen14 corpora were already pre-tokenized  We tokenized the others using the NLTK library and its tokenizers for each of the languages  There is no tokenizer for Croatian in NLTK library, so we used Slovene tokenizer instead  After tokenization, we deduplicated the datasets for each language separately, using the Onion (ONe Instance ONly) tool for text deduplication  We applied the tool on paragraph level for corpora that did not have sentences shuffled and on sentence level for the rest  We considered 9-grams with duplicate content threshold of 0 9 
For each language we prepared a vocabulary file, containing roughly one million most common tokens, i e  tokens that appear at least $n$ times in the corpus, where $n$ is between 15 and 25, depending on the dataset size  We included the punctuation marks among the tokens  We trained each ELMo model using default values used to train the original English ELMo (large) model 
Evaluation
We evaluated the produced ELMo models for all languages using two evaluation tasks: a word analogy task and named entity recognition (NER) task  Below, we first shortly describe each task, followed by the evaluation results 
Evaluation ::: Word Analogy Task
The word analogy task was popularized by mikolov2013distributed  The goal is to find a term $y$ for a given term $x$ so that the relationship between $x$ and $y$ best resembles the given relationship $a : b$  There are two main groups of categories: 5 semantic and 10 syntactic  To illustrate a semantic relationship, consider for example that the word pair $a : b$ is given as “Finland : Helsinki”  The task is to find the term $y$ corresponding to the relationship “Sweden : $y$”, with the expected answer being $y=$ Stockholm  In syntactic categories, the two words in a pair have a common stem (in some cases even same lemma), with all the pairs in a given category having the same morphological relationship  For example, given the word pair “long : longer”, we see that we have an adjective in its base form and the same adjective in a comparative form  That task is then to find the term $y$ corresponding to the relationship “dark : $y$”, with the expected answer being $y=$ darker, that is a comparative form of the adjective dark 
In the vector space, the analogy task is transformed into vector arithmetic and search for nearest neighbours, i e  we compute the distance between vectors: d(vec(Finland), vec(Helsinki)) and search for word $y$ which would give the closest result in distance d(vec(Sweden), vec($y$))  In the analogy dataset the analogies are already pre-specified, so we are measuring how close are the given pairs  In the evaluation below, we use analogy datasets for all tested languages based on the English dataset by BIBREF14   Due to English-centered bias of this dataset, we used a modified dataset which was first written in Slovene language and then translated into other languages BIBREF15 
As each instance of analogy contains only four words, without any context, the contextual models (such as ELMo) do not have enough context to generate sensible embeddings  We therefore used some additional text to form simple sentences using the four analogy words, while taking care that their noun case stays the same  For example, for the words "Rome", "Italy", "Paris" and "France" (forming the analogy Rome is to Italy as Paris is to $x$, where the correct answer is $x=$France), we formed the sentence "If the word Rome corresponds to the word Italy, then the word Paris corresponds to the word France"  We generated embeddings for those four words in the constructed sentence, substituted the last word with each word in our vocabulary and generated the embeddings again  As typical for non-contextual analogy task, we measure the cosine distance ($d$) between the last word ($w_4$) and the combination of the first three words ($w_2-w_1+w_3$)  We use the CSLS metric BIBREF16 to find the closest candidate word ($w_4$)  If we find the correct word among the five closest words, we consider that entry as successfully identified  The proportion of correctly identified words forms a statistic called accuracy@5, which we report as the result 
We first compare existing Latvian ELMo embeddings from ELMoForManyLangs project with our Latvian embeddings, followed by the detailed analysis of our ELMo embeddings  We trained Latvian ELMo using only CoNLL 2017 corpora  Since this is the only language, where we trained the embedding model on exactly the same corpora as ELMoForManyLangs models, we chose it for comparison between our ELMo model with ELMoForManyLangs  In other languages, additional or other corpora were used, so a direct comparison would also reflect the quality of the corpora used for training  In Latvian, however, only the size of the training dataset is different  ELMoForManyLangs uses only 20 million tokens and we use the whole corpus of 270 million tokens 
The Latvian ELMo model from ELMoForManyLangs project performs significantly worse than EMBEDDIA ELMo Latvian model on all categories of word analogy task (Figure FIGREF16)  We also include the comparison with our Estonian ELMo embeddings in the same figure  This comparison shows that while differences between our Latvian and Estonian embeddings can be significant for certain categories, the accuracy score of ELMoForManyLangs is always worse than either of our models  The comparison of Estonian and Latvian models leads us to believe that a few hundred million tokens is a sufficiently large corpus to train ELMo models (at least for word analogy task), but 20-million token corpora used in ELMoForManyLangs are too small 
The results for all languages and all ELMo layers, averaged over semantic and syntactic categories, are shown in Table TABREF17  The embeddings after the first LSTM layer perform best in semantic categories  In syntactic categories, the non-contextual CNN layer performs the best  Syntactic categories are less context dependent and much more morphology and syntax based, so it is not surprising that the non-contextual layer performs well  The second LSTM layer embeddings perform the worst in syntactic categories, though still outperforming CNN layer embeddings in semantic categories  Latvian ELMo performs worse compared to other languages we trained, especially in semantic categories, presumably due to smaller training data size  Surprisingly, the original English ELMo performs very poorly in syntactic categories and only outperforms Latvian in semantic categories  The low score can be partially explained by English model scoring $0 00$ in one syntactic category “opposite adjective”, which we have not been able to explain 
Evaluation ::: Named Entity Recognition
For evaluation of ELMo models on a relevant downstream task, we used named entity recognition (NER) task  NER is an information extraction task that seeks to locate and classify named entity mentions in unstructured text into pre-defined categories such as the person names, organizations, locations, medical codes, time expressions, quantities, monetary values, percentages, etc  To allow comparison of results between languages, we used an adapted version of this task, which uses a reduced set of labels, available in NER datasets for all processed languages  The labels in the used NER datasets are simplified to a common label set of three labels (person - PER, location - LOC, organization - ORG)  Each word in the NER dataset is labeled with one of the three mentioned labels or a label 'O' (other, i e  not a named entity) if it does not fit any of the other three labels  The number of words having each label is shown in Table TABREF19 
To measure the performance of ELMo embeddings on the NER task we proceeded as follows  We embedded the text in the datasets sentence by sentence, producing three vectors (one from each ELMo layer) for each token in a sentence  We calculated the average of the three vectors and used it as the input of our recognition model  The input layer was followed by a single LSTM layer with 128 LSTM cells and a dropout layer, randomly dropping 10% of the neurons on both the output and the recurrent branch  The final layer of our model was a time distributed softmax layer with 4 neurons 
We used ADAM optimiser BIBREF17 with the learning rate 0 01 and $10^{-5}$ learning rate decay  We used categorical cross-entropy as a loss function and trained the model for 3 epochs  We present the results using the Macro $F_1$ score, that is the average of $F_1$-scores for each of the three NE classes (the class Other is excluded) 
Since the differences between the tested languages depend more on the properties of the NER datasets than on the quality of embeddings, we can not directly compare ELMo models  For this reason, we take the non-contextual fastText embeddings as a baseline and predict named entities using them  The architecture of the model using fastText embeddings is the same as the one using ELMo embeddings, except that the input uses 300 dimensional fastText embedding vectors, and the model was trained for 5 epochs (instead of 3 as for ELMo)  In both cases (ELMo and fastText) we trained and evaluated the model five times, because there is some random component involved in initialization of the neural network model  By training and evaluating multiple times, we minimise this random component 
The results are presented in Table TABREF21  We included the evaluation of the original ELMo English model in the same table  NER models have little difficulty distinguishing between types of named entities, but recognizing whether a word is a named entity or not is more difficult  For languages with the smallest NER datasets, Croatian and Lithuanian, ELMo embeddings show the largest improvement over fastText embeddings  However, we can observe significant improvements with ELMo also on English and Finnish, which are among the largest datasets (English being by far the largest)  Only on Slovenian dataset did ELMo perform slightly worse than fastText, on all other EMBEDDIA languages, the ELMo embeddings improve the results 
Conclusion
We prepared precomputed ELMo contextual embeddings for seven languages: Croatian, Estonian, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Slovenian, and Swedish  We present the necessary background on embeddings and contextual embeddings, the details of training the embedding models, and their evaluation  We show that the size of used training sets importantly affects the quality of produced embeddings, and therefore the existing publicly available ELMo embeddings for the processed languages are inadequate  We trained new ELMo embeddings on larger training sets and analysed their properties on the analogy task and on the NER task  The results show that the newly produced contextual embeddings produce substantially better results compared to the non-contextual fastText baseline  In future work, we plan to use the produced contextual embeddings on the problems of news media industry  The pretrained ELMo models will be deposited to the CLARIN repository by the time of the final version of this paper 
Acknowledgments
The work was partially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) core research programme P6-0411  This paper is supported by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 825153, project EMBEDDIA (Cross-Lingual Embeddings for Less-Represented Languages in European News Media)  The results of this publication reflects only the authors' view and the EU Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains 
Context 3:  As declining to answer a question can be a legally sound response but is seldom practically useful, answers to questions where a minority of experts abstain to answer are filtered from the dataset  Privacy policies are ~3000 words long on average  The answers to the question asked by the users typically have ~100 words of evidence in the privacy policy document 
Data Collection ::: Analysis ::: Categories of Questions
Questions are organized under nine categories from the OPP-115 Corpus annotation scheme BIBREF49:
First Party Collection/Use: What, why and how information is collected by the service provider
Third Party Sharing/Collection: What, why and how information shared with or collected by third parties
Data Security: Protection measures for user information
Data Retention: How long user information will be stored
User Choice/Control: Control options available to users
User Access, Edit and Deletion: If/how users can access, edit or delete information
Policy Change: Informing users if policy information has been changed
International and Specific Audiences: Practices pertaining to a specific group of users
Other: General text, contact information or practices not covered by other categories 
For each question, domain experts indicate one or more relevant OPP-115 categories  We mark a category as relevant to a question if it is identified as such by at least two annotators  If no such category exists, the category is marked as `Other' if atleast one annotator has identified the `Other' category to be relevant  If neither of these conditions is satisfied, we label the question as having no agreement  The distribution of questions in the corpus across OPP-115 categories is as shown in Table TABREF16  First party and third party related questions are the largest categories, forming nearly 66 4% of all questions asked to the privacy assistant 
Data Collection ::: Analysis ::: Answer Validation
When do experts disagree? We would like to analyze the reasons for potential disagreement on the annotation task, to ensure disagreements arise due to valid differences in opinion rather than lack of adequate specification in annotation guidelines  It is important to note that the annotators are experts rather than crowdworkers  Accordingly, their judgements can be considered valid, legally-informed opinions even when their perspectives differ  For the sake of this question we randomly sample 100 instances in the test data and analyze them for likely reasons for disagreements  We consider a disagreement to have occurred when more than one expert does not agree with the majority consensus  By disagreement we mean there is no overlap between the text identified as relevant by one expert and another 
We find that the annotators agree on the answer for 74% of the questions, even if the supporting evidence they identify is not identical i e full overlap  They disagree on the remaining 26%  Sources of apparent disagreement correspond to situations when different experts: have differing interpretations of question intent (11%) (for example, when a user asks 'who can contact me through the app', the questions admits multiple interpretations, including seeking information about the features of the app, asking about first party collection/use of data or asking about third party collection/use of data), identify different sources of evidence for questions that ask if a practice is performed or not (4%), have differing interpretations of policy content (3%), identify a partial answer to a question in the privacy policy (2%) (for example, when the user asks `who is allowed to use the app' a majority of our annotators decline to answer, but the remaining annotators highlight partial evidence in the privacy policy which states that children under the age of 13 are not allowed to use the app), and other legitimate sources of disagreement (6%) which include personal subjective views of the annotators (for example, when the user asks `is my DNA information used in any way other than what is specified', some experts consider the boilerplate text of the privacy policy which states that it abides to practices described in the policy document as sufficient evidence to answer this question, whereas others do not) 
Experimental Setup
We evaluate the ability of machine learning methods to identify relevant evidence for questions in the privacy domain  We establish baselines for the subtask of deciding on the answerability (§SECREF33) of a question, as well as the overall task of identifying evidence for questions from policies (§SECREF37)  We describe aspects of the question that can render it unanswerable within the privacy domain (§SECREF41) 
Experimental Setup ::: Answerability Identification Baselines
We define answerability identification as a binary classification task, evaluating model ability to predict if a question can be answered, given a question in isolation  This can serve as a prior for downstream question-answering  We describe three baselines on the answerability task, and find they considerably improve performance over a majority-class baseline 
SVM: We define 3 sets of features to characterize each question  The first is a simple bag-of-words set of features over the question (SVM-BOW), the second is bag-of-words features of the question as well as length of the question in words (SVM-BOW + LEN), and lastly we extract bag-of-words features, length of the question in words as well as part-of-speech tags for the question (SVM-BOW + LEN + POS)  This results in vectors of 200, 201 and 228 dimensions respectively, which are provided to an SVM with a linear kernel 
CNN: We utilize a CNN neural encoder for answerability prediction  We use GloVe word embeddings BIBREF50, and a filter size of 5 with 64 filters to encode questions 
BERT: BERT BIBREF51 is a bidirectional transformer-based language-model BIBREF52  We fine-tune BERT-base on our binary answerability identification task with a learning rate of 2e-5 for 3 epochs, with a maximum sequence length of 128 
Experimental Setup ::: Privacy Question Answering
Our goal is to identify evidence within a privacy policy for questions asked by a user  This is framed as an answer sentence selection task, where models identify a set of evidence sentences from all candidate sentences in each policy 
Experimental Setup ::: Privacy Question Answering ::: Evaluation Metric
Our evaluation metric for answer-sentence selection is sentence-level F1, implemented similar to BIBREF30, BIBREF16  Precision and recall are implemented by measuring the overlap between predicted sentences and sets of gold-reference sentences  We report the average of the maximum F1 from each n$-$1 subset, in relation to the heldout reference 
Experimental Setup ::: Privacy Question Answering ::: Baselines
We describe baselines on this task, including a human performance baseline 
No-Answer Baseline (NA) : Most of the questions we receive are difficult to answer in a legally-sound way on the basis of information present in the privacy policy  We establish a simple baseline to quantify the effect of identifying every question as unanswerable 
Word Count Baseline : To quantify the effect of using simple lexical matching to answer the questions, we retrieve the top candidate policy sentences for each question using a word count baseline BIBREF53, which counts the number of question words that also appear in a sentence  We include the top 2, 3 and 5 candidates as baselines 
BERT: We implement two BERT-based baselines BIBREF51 for evidence identification  First, we train BERT on each query-policy sentence pair as a binary classification task to identify if the sentence is evidence for the question or not (Bert)  We also experiment with a two-stage classifier, where we separately train the model on questions only to predict answerability  At inference time, if the answerable classifier predicts the question is answerable, the evidence identification classifier produces a set of candidate sentences (Bert + Unanswerable) 
Human Performance: We pick each reference answer provided by an annotator, and compute the F1 with respect to the remaining references, as described in section 4 2 1  Each reference answer is treated as the prediction, and the remaining n-1 answers are treated as the gold reference  The average of the maximum F1 across all reference answers is computed as the human baseline 
Results and Discussion
The results of the answerability baselines are presented in Table TABREF31, and on answer sentence selection in Table TABREF32  We observe that bert exhibits the best performance on a binary answerability identification task  However, most baselines considerably exceed the performance of a majority-class baseline  This suggests considerable information in the question, indicating it's possible answerability within this domain 
Table TABREF32 describes the performance of our baselines on the answer sentence selection task  The No-answer (NA) baseline performs at 28 F1, providing a lower bound on performance at this task  We observe that our best-performing baseline, Bert + Unanswerable achieves an F1 of 39 8  This suggest that bert is capable of making some progress towards answering questions in this difficult domain, while still leaving considerable headroom for improvement to reach human performance  Bert + Unanswerable performance suggests that incorporating information about answerability can help in this difficult domain  We examine this challenging phenomena of unanswerability further in Section  
Results and Discussion ::: Error Analysis
Disagreements are analyzed based on the OPP-115 categories of each question (Table TABREF34)  We compare our best performing BERT variant against the NA model and human performance

ground_truth: By 14 times.

up to 1.95 times larger

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. Who were the experts used for annotation?
Context 3:  We observe significant room for improvement across all categories of questions but especially for first party, third party and data retention categories 
We analyze the performance of our strongest BERT variant, to identify classes of errors and directions for future improvement (Table 8)  We observe that a majority of answerability mistakes made by the BERT model are questions which are in fact answerable, but are identified as unanswerable by BERT  We observe that BERT makes 124 such mistakes on the test set  We collect expert judgments on relevance, subjectivity , silence and information about how likely the question is to be answered from the privacy policy from our experts  We find that most of these mistakes are relevant questions  However many of them were identified as subjective by the annotators, and at least one annotator marked 19 of these questions as having no answer within the privacy policy  However, only 6 of these questions were unexpected or do not usually have an answer in privacy policies  These findings suggest that a more nuanced understanding of answerability might help improve model performance in his challenging domain 
Results and Discussion ::: What makes Questions Unanswerable?
We further ask legal experts to identify potential causes of unanswerability of questions  This analysis has considerable implications  While past work BIBREF17 has treated unanswerable questions as homogeneous, a question answering system might wish to have different treatments for different categories of `unanswerable' questions  The following factors were identified to play a role in unanswerability:
Incomprehensibility: If a question is incomprehensible to the extent that its meaning is not intelligible 
Relevance: Is this question in the scope of what could be answered by reading the privacy policy 
Ill-formedness: Is this question ambiguous or vague  An ambiguous statement will typically contain expressions that can refer to multiple potential explanations, whereas a vague statement carries a concept with an unclear or soft definition 
Silence: Other policies answer this type of question but this one does not 
Atypicality: The question is of a nature such that it is unlikely for any policy policy to have an answer to the question 
Our experts attempt to identify the different `unanswerable' factors for all 573 such questions in the corpus  4 18% of the questions were identified as being incomprehensible (for example, `any difficulties to occupy the privacy assistant')  Amongst the comprehendable questions, 50% were identified as likely to have an answer within the privacy policy, 33 1% were identified as being privacy-related questions but not within the scope of a privacy policy (e g , 'has Viber had any privacy breaches in the past?') and 16 9% of questions were identified as completely out-of-scope (e g , `'will the app consume much space?')  In the questions identified as relevant, 32% were ill-formed questions that were phrased by the user in a manner considered vague or ambiguous  Of the questions that were both relevant as well as `well-formed', 95 7% of the questions were not answered by the policy in question but it was reasonable to expect that a privacy policy would contain an answer  The remaining 4 3% were described as reasonable questions, but of a nature generally not discussed in privacy policies  This suggests that the answerability of questions over privacy policies is a complex issue, and future systems should consider each of these factors when serving user's information seeking intent 
We examine a large-scale dataset of “natural” unanswerable questions BIBREF54 based on real user search engine queries to identify if similar unanswerability factors exist  It is important to note that these questions have previously been filtered, according to a criteria for bad questions defined as “(questions that are) ambiguous, incomprehensible, dependent on clear false presuppositions, opinion-seeking, or not clearly a request for factual information ” Annotators made the decision based on the content of the question without viewing the equivalent Wikipedia page  We randomly sample 100 questions from the development set which were identified as unanswerable, and find that 20% of the questions are not questions (e g , “all I want for christmas is you mariah carey tour”)  12% of questions are unlikely to ever contain an answer on Wikipedia, corresponding closely to our atypicality category  3% of questions are unlikely to have an answer anywhere (e g , `what guides Santa home after he has delivered presents?')  7% of questions are incomplete or open-ended (e g , `the south west wind blows across nigeria between')  3% of questions have an unresolvable coreference (e g , `how do i get to Warsaw Missouri from here')  4% of questions are vague, and a further 7% have unknown sources of error  2% still contain false presuppositions (e g , `what is the only fruit that does not have seeds?') and the remaining 42% do not have an answer within the document  This reinforces our belief that though they have been understudied in past work, any question answering system interacting with real users should expect to receive such unanticipated and unanswerable questions 
Conclusion
We present PrivacyQA, the first significant corpus of privacy policy questions and more than 3500 expert annotations of relevant answers  The goal of this work is to promote question-answering research in the specialized privacy domain, where it can have large real-world impact  Strong neural baselines on PrivacyQA achieve a performance of only 39 8 F1 on this corpus, indicating considerable room for future research  Further, we shed light on several important considerations that affect the answerability of questions  We hope this contribution leads to multidisciplinary efforts to precisely understand user intent and reconcile it with information in policy documents, from both the privacy and NLP communities 
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation Secure and Trustworthy Computing program (CNS-1330596, CNS-1330214, CNS-15-13957, CNS-1801316, CNS-1914486, CNS-1914444) and a DARPA Brandeis grant on Personalized Privacy Assistants (FA8750-15-2-0277)  The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes not withstanding any copyright notation  The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the NSF, DARPA, or the US Government  The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Elias Wright, Gian Mascioli, Kiara Pillay, Harrison Kay, Eliel Talo, Alexander Fagella and N  Cameron Russell for providing their valuable expertise and insight to this effort  The authors are also grateful to Eduard Hovy, Lorrie Cranor, Florian Schaub, Joel Reidenberg, Aditya Potukuchi and Igor Shalyminov for helpful discussions related to this work, and to the three anonymous reviewers of this draft for their constructive feedback  Finally, the authors would like to thank all crowdworkers who consented to participate in this study 

ground_truth: Individuals with legal training

Yes