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 cyberbulling topics did they address?
Context 1: Introduction
Cyberbullying has been defined by the National Crime Prevention Council as the use of the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person  Various studies have estimated that between to 10% to 40% of internet users are victims of cyberbullying BIBREF0   Effects of cyberbullying can range from temporary anxiety to suicide BIBREF1   Many high profile incidents have emphasized the prevalence of cyberbullying on social media  Most recently in October 2017, a Swedish model Arvida Byström was cyberbullied to the extent of receiving rape threats after she appeared in an advertisement with hairy legs 
Detection of cyberbullying in social media is a challenging task  Definition of what constitutes cyberbullying is quite subjective  For example, frequent use of swear words might be considered as bullying by the general population  However, for teen oriented social media platforms such as Formspring, this does not necessarily mean bullying (Table TABREF9 )  Across multiple SMPs, cyberbullies attack victims on different topics such as race, religion, and gender  Depending on the topic of cyberbullying, vocabulary and perceived meaning of words vary significantly across SMPs  For example, in our experiments we found that for word `fat', the most similar words as per Twitter dataset are `female' and `woman' (Table TABREF23 )  However, other two datasets do not show such particular bias against women  This platform specific semantic similarity between words is a key aspect of cyberbullying detection across SMPs  Style of communication varies significantly across SMPs  For example, Twitter posts are short and lack anonymity  Whereas posts on Q&A oriented SMPs are long and have option of anonymity (Table TABREF7 )  Fast evolving words and hashtags in social media make it difficult to detect cyberbullying using swear word list based simple filtering approaches  The option of anonymity in certain social networks also makes it harder to identify cyberbullying as profile and history of the bully might not be available 
Past works on cyberbullying detection have at least one of the following three bottlenecks  First (Bottleneck B1), they target only one particular social media platform  How these methods perform across other SMPs is unknown  Second (Bottleneck B2), they address only one topic of cyberbullying such as racism, and sexism  Depending on the topic, vocabulary and nature of cyberbullying changes  These models are not flexible in accommodating changes in the definition of cyberbullying  Third (Bottleneck B3), they rely on carefully handcrafted features such as swear word list and POS tagging  However, these handcrafted features are not robust against variations in writing style  In contrast to existing bottlenecks, this work targets three different types of social networks (Formspring: a Q&A forum, Twitter: microblogging, and Wikipedia: collaborative knowledge repository) for three topics of cyberbullying (personal attack, racism, and sexism) without doing any explicit feature engineering by developing deep learning based models along with transfer learning 
We experimented with diverse traditional machine learning models (logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, naive Bayes) and deep neural network models (CNN, LSTM, BLSTM, BLSTM with Attention) using variety of representation methods for words (bag of character n-gram, bag of word unigram, GloVe embeddings, SSWE embeddings)  Summary of our findings and research contributions is as follows 
Datasets
Please refer to Table TABREF7 for summary of datasets used  We performed experiments using large, diverse, manually annotated, and publicly available datasets for cyberbullying detection in social media  We cover three different types of social networks: teen oriented Q&A forum (Formspring), large microblogging platform (Twitter), and collaborative knowledge repository (Wikipedia talk pages)  Each dataset addresses a different topic of cyberbullying  Twitter dataset contains examples of racism and sexism  Wikipedia dataset contains examples of personal attack  However, Formspring dataset is not specifically about any single topic  All three datasets have the problem of class imbalance where posts labeled as cyberbullying are in the minority as compared to neutral posts  Variation in the number of posts across datasets also affects vocabulary size that represents the number of distinct words encountered in the dataset  We measure the size of a post in terms of the number of words in the post  For each dataset, there are only a few posts with large size  We truncate such large posts to the size of post ranked at 95 percentile in that dataset  For example, in Wikipedia dataset, the largest post has 2846 words  However, size of post ranked at 95 percentile in that dataset is only 231  Any post larger than size 231 in Wikipedia dataset will be truncated by considering only first 231 words  This truncation affects only a small minority of posts in each dataset  However, it is required for efficiently training various models in our experiments  Details of each dataset are as follows 
Formspring BIBREF2 : It was a question and answer based website where users could openly invite others to ask and answer questions  The dataset includes 12K annotated question and answer pairs  Each post is manually labeled by three workers  Among these pairs, 825 were labeled as containing cyberbullying content by at least two Amazon Mechanical turk workers 
Twitter BIBREF3 : This dataset includes 16K annotated tweets  The authors bootstrapped the corpus collection, by performing an initial manual search of common slurs and terms used pertaining to religious, sexual, gender, and ethnic minorities  Of the 16K tweets, 3117 are labeled as sexist, 1937 as racist, and the remaining are marked as neither sexist nor racist 
Wikipedia BIBREF4 : For each page in Wikipedia, a corresponding talk page maintains the history of discussion among users who participated in its editing  This data set includes over 100k labeled discussion comments from English Wikipedia's talk pages  Each comment was labeled by 10 annotators via Crowdflower on whether it contains a personal attack  There are total 13590 comments labeled as personal attack 
Use of Swear Words and Anonymity
Please refer to Table TABREF9   We use the following short forms in this section: B=Bullying, S=Swearing, A=Anonymous  Some of the values for Twitter dataset are undefined as Twitter does not allow anonymous postings  Use of swear words has been repeatedly linked to cyberbullying  However, preliminary analysis of datasets reveals that depending on swear word usage can neither lead to high precision nor high recall for cyberbullying detection  Swear word list based methods will have low precision as P(B INLINEFORM0 S) is not close to 1  In fact, for teen oriented social network Formspring, 78% of the swearing posts are non-bullying  Swear words based filtering will be irritating to the users in such SMPs where swear words are used casually  Swear word list based methods will also have a low recall as P(S INLINEFORM1 B) is not close to 1  For Twitter dataset, 82% of bullying posts do not use any swear words  Such passive-aggressive cyberbullying will go undetected with swear word list based methods  Anonymity is another clue that is used for detecting cyberbullying as bully might prefer to hide its identity  Anonymity definitely leads to increased use of swear words (P(S INLINEFORM2 A) INLINEFORM3 P(S)) and cyberbullying (P(B INLINEFORM4 A) INLINEFORM5 P(B), and P(B INLINEFORM6 A&S)) INLINEFORM7 P(B))  However, significant fraction of anonymous posts are non-bullying (P(B INLINEFORM8 A) not close to 1) and many of bullying posts are not anonymous (P(A INLINEFORM9 B) not close to 1)  Further, anonymity might not be allowed by many SMPs such as Twitter 
Related Work
Cyberbullying is recognized as a phenomenon at least since 2003 BIBREF5   Use of social media exploded with launching of multiple platforms such as Wikipedia (2001), MySpace (2003), Orkut (2004), Facebook (2004), and Twitter (2005)  By 2006, researchers had pointed that cyberbullying was as serious phenomenon as offline bullying BIBREF6   However, automatic detection of cyberbullying was addressed only since 2009 BIBREF7   As a research topic, cyberbullying detection is a text classification problem  Most of the existing works fit in the following template: get training dataset from single SMP, engineer variety of features with certain style of cyberbullying as the target, apply a few traditional machine learning methods, and evaluate success in terms of measures such as F1 score and accuracy  These works heavily rely on handcrafted features such as use of swear words  These methods tend to have low precision for cyberbullying detection as handcrafted features are not robust against variations in bullying style across SMPs and bullying topics  Only recently, deep learning has been applied for cyberbullying detection BIBREF8   Table TABREF27 summarizes important related work 
Deep Neural Network (DNN) Based Models
We experimented with four DNN based models for cyberbullying detection: CNN, LSTM, BLSTM, and BLSTM with attention  These models are listed in the increasing complexity of their neural architecture and amount of information used by these models  Please refer to Figure 1 for general architecture that we have used across four models  Various models differ only in the Neural Architecture layer while having identical rest of the layers  CNNs are providing state-of-the-results on extracting contextual feature for classification tasks in images, videos, audios, and text  Recently, CNNs were used for sentiment classification BIBREF9   Long Short Term Memory networks are a special kind of RNN, capable of learning long-term dependencies  Their ability to use their internal memory to process arbitrary sequences of inputs has been found to be effective for text classification BIBREF10   Bidirectional LSTMs BIBREF11 further increase the amount of input information available to the network by encoding information in both forward and backward direction  By using two directions, input information from both the past and future of the current time frame can be used  Attention mechanisms allow for a more direct dependence between the state of the model at different points in time  Importantly, attention mechanism lets the model learn what to attend to based on the input sentence and what it has produced so far 
The embedding layer processes a fixed size sequence of words  Each word is represented as a real-valued vector, also known as word embeddings  We have experimented with three methods for initializing word embeddings: random, GloVe BIBREF12 , and SSWE BIBREF13   During the training, model improves upon the initial word embeddings to learn task specific word embeddings  We have observed that these task specific word embeddings capture the SMP specific and topic specific style of cyberbullying  Using GloVe vectors over random vector initialization has been reported to improve performance for some NLP tasks  Most of the word embedding methods such as GloVe, consider only syntactic context of the word while ignoring the sentiment conveyed by the text  SSWE method overcomes this problem by incorporating the text sentiment as one of the parameters for word embedding generation  We experimented with various dimension size for word embeddings  Experimental results reported here are with dimension size as 50  There was no significant variation in results with dimension size ranging from 30 to 200 
To avoid overfitting, we used two dropout layers, one before the neural architecture layer and one after, with dropout rates of 0 25 and 0 5 respectively  Fully connected layer is a dense output layer with the number of neurons equal to the number of classes, followed by softmax layer that provides softmax activation  All our models are trained using backpropagation  The optimizer used for training is Adam and the loss function is categorical cross-entropy  Besides learning the network weights, these methods also learn task-specific word embeddings tuned towards the bullying labels (See Section SECREF21 )  Our code is available at: https://github com/sweta20/Detecting-Cyberbullying-Across-SMPs 
Experiments
Existing works have heavily relied on traditional machine learning models for cyberbullying detection  However, they do not study the performance of these models across multiple SMPs  We experimented with four models: logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and naive Bayes (NB), as these are used in previous works (Table TABREF27 )  We used two data representation methods: character n-gram and word unigram  Past work in the domain of detecting abusive language have showed that simple n-gram features are more powerful than linguistic and syntactic features, hand-engineered lexicons, and word and paragraph embeddings BIBREF14   As compared to DNN models, performance of all four traditional machine learning models was significantly lower  Please refer to Table TABREF11  
All DNN models reported here were implemented using Keras  We pre-process the data, subjecting it to standard operations of removal of stop words, punctuation marks and lowercasing, before annotating it to assigning respective labels to each comment  For each trained model, we report its performance after doing five-fold cross-validation  We use following short forms 
Effect of Oversampling Bullying Instances
The training datasets had a major problem of class imbalance with posts marked as bullying in the minority  As a result, all models were biased towards labeling the posts as non-bullying  To remove this bias, we oversampled the data from bullying class thrice  That is, we replicated bullying posts thrice in the training data  This significantly improved the performance of all DNN models with major leap in all three evaluation measures  Table TABREF17 shows the effect of oversampling for a variety of word embedding methods with BLSTM Attention as the detection model  Results for other models are similar BIBREF15   We can notice that oversampled datasets (F+, T+, W+) have far better performance than their counterparts (F, T, W respectively)  Oversampling particularly helps the smallest dataset Formspring where number of training instances for bullying class is quite small (825) as compared to other two datasets (about 5K and 13K)  We also experimented with varying the replication rate for bullying posts BIBREF15   However, we observed that for bullying posts, replication rate of three is good enough 
Choice of Initial Word Embeddings and Model
Initial word embeddings decide data representation for DNN models  However during the training, DNN models modify these initial word embeddings to learn task specific word embeddings  We have experimented with three methods to initialize word embeddings  Please refer to Table TABREF19   This table shows the effect of varying initial word embeddings for multiple DNN models across datasets  We can notice that initial word embeddings do not have a significant effect on cyberbullying detection when oversampling of bullying posts is done (rows corresponding to F+, T+, W+)  In the absence of oversampling (rows corresponding to F, T W), there is a gap in performance of simplest (CNN) and most complex (BLSTM with attention) models  However, this gap goes on reducing with the increase in the size of datasets 
Table TABREF20 compares the performance of four DNN models for three evaluation measures while using SSWE as the initial word embeddings  We have noticed that most of the time LSTM performs weaker than other three models  However, performance gap in the other three models is not significant 
Task Specific Word Embeddings
DNN models learn word embeddings over the training data  These learned embeddings across multiple datasets show the difference in nature and style of bullying across cyberbullying topics and SMPs  Here we report results for BLSTM with attention model  Results for other models are similar  We first verify that important words for each topic of cyberbullying form clusters in the learned embeddings  To enable the visualization of grouping, we reduced dimensionality with t-SNE BIBREF16 , a well-known technique for dimensionality reduction particularly well suited for visualization of high dimensional datasets  Please refer to Table TABREF22   This table shows important clusters observed in t-SNE projection of learned word embeddings  Each cluster shows that words most relevant to a particular topic of bullying form cluster 
We also observed changes in the meanings of the words across topics of cyberbullying  Table TABREF23 shows most similar words for a given query word for two datasets  Twitter dataset which is heavy on sexism and racism, considers word slave as similar to targets of racism and sexism  However, Wikipedia dataset that is about personal attacks does not show such bias 
Transfer Learning
We used transfer learning to check if the knowledge gained by DNN models on one dataset can be used to improve cyberbullying detection performance on other datasets  We report results where BLSTM with attention is used as the DNN model  Results for other models are similar BIBREF15   We experimented with following three flavors of transfer learning 
Complete Transfer Learning (TL1): In this flavor, a model trained on one dataset was directly used to detect cyberbullying in other datasets without any extra training  TL1 resulted in significantly low recall indicating that three datasets have different nature of cyberbullying with low overlap (Table TABREF25 )  However precision was relatively higher for TL1, indicating that DNN models are cautious in labeling a post as bully (Table TABREF25 )  TL1 also helps to measure similarity in nature of cyberbullying across three datasets  We can observe that bullying nature in Formspring and Wikipedia datasets is more similar to each other than the Twitter dataset  This can be inferred from the fact that with TL1, cyberbullying detection performance for Formspring dataset is higher when base model is Wikipedia (precision =0 51 and recall=0 66)as compared to Twitter as the base model (precision=0 38 and recall=0 04)  Similarly, for Wikipedia dataset, Formspring acts as a better base model than Twitter while using TL1 flavor of transfer learning  Nature of SMP might be a factor behind this similarity in nature of cyberbullying  Both Formspring and Wikipedia are task oriented social networks (Q&A and collaborative knowledge repository respectively) that allow anonymity and larger posts  Whereas communication on Twitter is short, free of anonymity and not oriented towards a particular task 
Feature Level Transfer Learning (TL2): In this flavor, a model was trained on one dataset and only learned word embeddings were transferred to another dataset for training a new model  As compared to TL1, recall score improved dramatically with TL2 (Table TABREF25 )  Improvement in precision was also significant (Table TABREF25 )  These improvements indicate that learned word embeddings are an essential part of knowledge transfer across datasets for cyberbullying detection 
Model Level Transfer Learning (TL3): In this flavor, a model was trained on one dataset and learned word embeddings, as well as network weights, were transferred to another dataset for training a new model  TL3 does not result in any significant improvement over TL2  This lack of improvement indicates that transfer of network weights is not essential for cyberbullying detection and learned word embeddings is the key knowledge gained by the DNN models 
DNN based models coupled with transfer learning beat the best-known results for all three datasets  Previous best F1 scores for Wikipedia BIBREF4 and Twitter BIBREF8 datasets were 0 68 and 0 93 respectively  We achieve F1 scores of 0 94 for both these datasets using BLSTM with attention and feature level transfer learning (Table TABREF25 )  For Formspring dataset, authors have not reported F1 score  Their method has accuracy score of 78 5% BIBREF2   We achieve F1 score of 0 95 with accuracy score of 98% for the same dataset 
Conclusion and Future Work
We have shown that DNN models can be used for cyberbullying detection on various topics across multiple SMPs using three datasets and four DNN models  These models coupled with transfer learning beat state of the art results for all three datasets  These models can be further improved with extra data such as information about the profile and social graph of users  Most of the current datasets do not provide any information about the severity of bullying  If such fine-grained information is made available, then cyberbullying detection models can be further improved to take a variety of actions depending on the perceived seriousness of the posts 
Context 2: Introduction
Automatically answering questions, especially in the open-domain setting (i e , where minimal or no contextual knowledge is explicitly provided), requires bringing to bear considerable amount of background knowledge and reasoning abilities  For example, knowing the answers to the two questions in Figure FIGREF1 requires identifying a specific ISA relation (i e , that cooking is a type of learned behavior) as well as recalling the definition of a concept (i e , that global warming is defined as a worldwide increase in temperature)  In the multiple-choice setting, which is the variety of question-answering (QA) that we focus on in this paper, there is also pragmatic reasoning involved in selecting optimal answer choices (e g , while greenhouse effect might in some other context be a reasonable answer to the second question in Figure FIGREF1, global warming is a preferable candidate) 
Recent successes in QA, driven largely by the creation of new resources BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5 and advances in model pre-training BIBREF6, BIBREF7, raise a natural question: do state-of-the-art multiple-choice QA (MCQA) models that excel at standard tasks really have basic knowledge and reasoning skills?
Most existing MCQA datasets are constructed through either expensive crowd-sourcing BIBREF8 or hand engineering effort, in the former case making it possible to collect large amounts of data at the cost of losing systematic control over the semantics of the target questions  Hence, doing a controlled experiment to answer such a question for QA is difficult given a lack of targeted challenge datasets 
Having definitive empirical evidence of model competence on any given phenomenon requires constructing a wide range of systematic tests  For example, in measuring competence of definitions, not only do we want to see that the model can handle individual questions such as Figure FIGREF1 1 inside of benchmark tasks, but that it can answer a wider range of questions that exhaustively cover a broad set of concepts and question perturbations (i e , systematic adjustments to how the questions are constructed)  The same applies to ISA reasoning; not only is it important to recognize in the question in Figure FIGREF1 1 that cooking is a learned behavior, but also that cooking is a general type of behavior or, through a few more inferential steps, a type of human activity 
In this paper, we look at systematically constructing such tests by exploiting the vast amounts of structured information contained in various types of expert knowledge such as knowledge graphs and lexical taxonomies  Our general methodology works as illustrated in Figure FIGREF1: given any MCQA model trained on a set of benchmark tasks, we systematically generate a set of synthetic dataset probes (i e , MCQA renderings of the target information) from information in expert knowledge sources  We then use these probes to ask two empirical questions: 1) how well do models trained on benchmark tasks perform on these probing tasks and; 2) can such models be re-trained to master new challenges with minimal performance loss on their original tasks?
While our methodology is amenable to any knowledge source and set of models/benchmark tasks, we focus on probing state-of-the-art transformer models BIBREF7, BIBREF9 in the domain of science MCQA  For sources of expert knowledge, we use WordNet, a comprehensive lexical ontology, and other publicly available dictionary resources  We devise probes that measure model competence in definition and taxonomic knowledge in different settings (including hypernymy, hyponymy, and synonymy detection, and word sense disambiguation)  This choice is motivated by fact that the science domain is considered particularly challenging for QA BIBREF10, BIBREF11, BIBREF12, and existing science benchmarks are known to involve widespread use of such knowledge (see BIBREF1, BIBREF13 for analysis), which is also arguably fundamental to more complex forms of reasoning 
We show that accurately probing QA models via synthetic datasets is not straightforward, as unexpected artifacts can easily arise in such data  This motivates our carefully constructed baselines and close data inspection to ensure probe quality 
Our results confirm that transformer-based QA models have a remarkable ability to recognize certain types of knowledge captured in our probes—even without additional fine-tuning  Such models can even outperform strong task-specific models trained directly on our probing tasks (e g , on definitions, our best model achieves 77% test accuracy without specialized training, as opposed to 51% for a task-specific LSTM-based model)  We also show that the same models can be effectively re-fine-tuned on small samples (even 100 examples) of probe data, and that high performance on the probes tends to correlate with a smaller drop in the model's performance on the original QA task 
Our comprehensive assessment reveals several interesting nuances to the overall positive trend  For example, the performance of even the best QA models degrades substantially on our hyponym probes (by 8-15%) when going from 1-hop links to 2-hops  Further, the accuracy of even our best models on the WordNetQA probe drops by 14-44% under our cluster-based analysis, which assesses whether a model knows several facts about each individual concept, rather than just being good at answering isolated questions  State-of-the-art QA models thus have much room to improve even in some fundamental building blocks, namely definitions and taxonomic hierarchies, of more complex forms of reasoning 
Related Work
We follow recent work on constructing challenge datasets for probing neural models, which has primarily focused on the task of natural language inference (NLI) BIBREF14, BIBREF15, BIBREF16, BIBREF17, BIBREF18  Most of this work looks at constructing data through adversarial generation methods, which have also been found useful for creating stronger models BIBREF19  There has also been work on using synthetic data of the type we consider in this paper BIBREF20, BIBREF21, BIBREF22  We closely follow the methodology of BIBREF22, who use hand-constructed linguistic fragments to probe NLI models and study model re-training using a variant of the inoculation by fine-tuning strategy of BIBREF23  In contrast, we focus on probing open-domain MCQA models (see BIBREF24 for a related study in the reading comprehension setting) as well as constructing data from much larger sources of structured knowledge 
Our main study focuses on probing the BERT model and fine-tuning approach of BIBREF7, and other variants thereof, which are all based on the transformer architecture of BIBREF25  Related to our efforts, there have been recent studies into the types of relational knowledge contained in large-scale knowledge models BIBREF26, BIBREF27, BIBREF28, which, similar to our work, probe models using structured knowledge sources  This prior work, however, primarily focuses on unearthing the knowledge contained in the underlying language models as is without further training, using simple (single token) cloze-style probing tasks and templates (similar to what we propose in Section SECREF3)  In contrast, we focus on understanding the knowledge contained in language models after they have been trained for a QA end-task using benchmark datasets in which such knowledge is expected to be widespread  Further, our evaluation is done before and after these models are fine-tuned on our probe QA tasks, using a more complex set of QA templates and target inferences 
The use of lexical resources and knowledge graphs such as WordNet to construct datasets has a long history, and has recently appeared in work on adversarial attacks BIBREF14, BIBREF29 and general task construction BIBREF30, BIBREF31  In the area of MCQA, there is related work on constructing questions from tuples BIBREF32, BIBREF3, both of which involve standard crowd annotation to elicit question-answer pairs (see also BIBREF33, BIBREF34)  In contrast to this work, we focus on generating data in an entirely automatic fashion, which obviates the need for expensive annotation and gives us the flexibility to construct much larger datasets that control a rich set of semantic aspects of the target questions 
Dataset Probes and Construction
Our probing methodology starts by constructing challenge datasets (Figure FIGREF1, yellow box) from a target set of knowledge resources  Each of our probing datasets consists of multiple-choice questions that include a question $\textbf {q}$ and a set of answer choices or candidates $\lbrace a_{1},   a_{N}\rbrace $  This section describes in detail the 5 different datasets we build, which are drawn from two sources of expert knowledge, namely WordNet BIBREF35 and the GNU Collaborative International Dictionary of English (GCIDE)  We describe each resource in turn, and explain how the resulting dataset probes, which we call WordNetQA and DictionaryQA, are constructed 
For convenience, we will describe each source of expert knowledge as a directed, edge-labeled graph $G$  The nodes of this graph are $\mathcal {V} = \mathcal {C} \cup \mathcal {W} \cup \mathcal {S} \cup \mathcal {D}$, where $\mathcal {C}$ is a set of atomic concepts, $\mathcal {W}$ a set of words, $\mathcal {S}$ a set of sentences, and $\mathcal {D}$ a set of definitions (see Table TABREF4 for details for WordNet and GCIDE)  Each edge of $G$ is directed from an atomic concept in $\mathcal {C}$ to another node in $V$, and is labeled with a relation, such as hypernym or isa$^\uparrow $, from a set of relations $\mathcal {R}$ (see Table TABREF4) 
When defining our probe question templates, it will be useful to view $G$ as a set of (relation, source, target) triples $\mathcal {T} \subseteq \mathcal {R} \times \mathcal {C} \times \mathcal {V}$  Due to their origin in an expert knowledge source, such triples preserve semantic consistency  For instance, when the relation in a triple is def, the corresponding edge maps a concept in $\mathcal {C}$ to a definition in $\mathcal {D}$ 
To construct probe datasets, we rely on two heuristic functions, defined below for each individual probe: $\textsc {gen}_{\mathcal {Q}}(\tau )$, which generates gold question-answer pairs $(\textbf {q},\textbf {a})$ from a set of triples $\tau \subseteq \mathcal {T}$ and question templates $\mathcal {Q}$, and $\textsc {distr}(\tau ^{\prime })$, which generates distractor answers choices $\lbrace a^{\prime }_{1},   a^{\prime }_{N-1} \rbrace $ based on another set of triples $\tau ^{\prime }$ (where usually $\tau \subset \tau ^{\prime }$)  For brevity, we will use $\textsc {gen}(\tau )$ to denote $\textsc {gen}_{\mathcal {Q}}(\tau )$, leaving question templates $\mathcal {Q}$ implicit 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA
WordNet is an English lexical database consisting of around 117k concepts, which are organized into groups of synsets that each contain a gloss (i e , a definition of the target concept), a set of representative English words (called lemmas), and, in around 33k synsets, example sentences  In addition, many synsets have ISA links to other synsets that express complex taxonomic relations  Figure FIGREF6 shows an example and Table TABREF4 summarizes how we formulate WordNet as a set of triples $\mathcal {T}$ of various types  These triples together represent a directed, edge-labeled graph $G$  Our main motivation for using WordNet, as opposed to a resource such as ConceptNet BIBREF36, is the availability of glosses ($\mathcal {D}$) and example sentences ($\mathcal {S}$), which allows us to construct natural language questions that contextualize the types of concepts we want to probe 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA ::: Example Generation @!START@$\textsc {gen}(\tau )$@!END@ 
We build 4 individual datasets based on semantic relations native to WordNet (see BIBREF37): hypernymy (i e , generalization or ISA reasoning up a taxonomy, ISA$^\uparrow $), hyponymy (ISA$^{\downarrow }$), synonymy, and definitions  To generate a set of questions in each case, we employ a number of rule templates $\mathcal {Q}$ that operate over tuples  A subset of such templates is shown in Table TABREF8  The templates were designed to mimic naturalistic questions we observed in our science benchmarks 
For example, suppose we wish to create a question $\textbf {q}$ about the definition of a target concept $c \in \mathcal {C}$  We first select a question template from $\mathcal {Q}$ that first introduces the concept $c$ and its lemma $l \in \mathcal {W}$ in context using the example sentence $s \in \mathcal {S}$, and then asks to identify the corresponding WordNet gloss $d \in \mathcal {D}$, which serves as the gold answer $\textbf {a}$  The same is done for ISA reasoning; each question about a hypernym/hyponym relation between two concepts $c \rightarrow ^{\uparrow /\downarrow } c^{\prime } \in \mathcal {T}_{i}$ (e g , $\texttt {dog} \rightarrow ^{\uparrow /\downarrow } \texttt {animal/terrier}$) first introduces a context for $c$ and then asks for an answer that identifies $c^{\prime }$ (which is also provided with a gloss so as to contain all available context) 
In the latter case, the rules $(\texttt {isa}^{r},c,c^{\prime }) \in \mathcal {T}_i$ in Table TABREF8 cover only direct ISA links from $c$ in direction $r \in \lbrace \uparrow ,\downarrow \rbrace $  In practice, for each $c$ and direction $r$, we construct tests that cover the set HOPS$(c,r)$ of all direct as well as derived ISA relations of $c$:
This allows us to evaluate the extent to which models are able to handle complex forms of reasoning that require several inferential steps or hops 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA ::: Distractor Generation: @!START@$\textsc {distr}(\tau ^{\prime })$@!END@ 
An example of how distractors are generated is shown in Figure FIGREF6, which relies on similar principles as above  For each concept $c$, we choose 4 distractor answers that are close in the WordNet semantic space  For example, when constructing hypernymy tests for $c$ from the set hops$(c,\uparrow )$, we build distractors by drawing from $\textsc {hops}(c,\downarrow )$ (and vice versa), as well as from the $\ell $-deep sister family of $c$, defined as follows  The 1-deep sister family is simply $c$'s siblings or sisters, i e , the other children $\tilde{c} \ne c$ of the parent node $c^{\prime }$ of $c$  For $\ell > 1$, the $\ell $-deep sister family also includes all descendants of each $\tilde{c}$ up to $\ell -1$ levels deep, denoted $\textsc {hops}_{\ell -1}(\tilde{c},\downarrow )$  Formally:
For definitions and synonyms we build distractors from all of these sets (with a similar restriction on the depth of sister distractors as noted above)  In doing this, we can systematically investigate model performance on a wide range of distractor sets 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: WordNetQA ::: Perturbations and Semantic Clusters
Based on how we generate data, for each concept $c$ (i e , atomic WordNet synset) and probe type (i e , definitions, hypernymy, etc ), we have a wide variety of questions related to $c$ that manipulate 1) the complexity of reasoning that is involved (e g , the number of inferential hops) and; 2) the types of distractors (or distractor perturbations) that are employed  We call such sets semantic clusters  As we describe in the next section, semantic clusters allow us to devise new types of evaluation that reveal whether models have comprehensive and consistent knowledge of target concepts (e g , evaluating whether a model can correctly answer several questions associated with a concept, as opposed to a few disjoint instances) 
Details of the individual datasets are shown in Table TABREF12  From these sets, we follow BIBREF22 in allocating a maximum of 3k examples for training and reserve the rest for development and testing  Since we are interested in probing, having large held-out sets allows us to do detailed analysis and cluster-based evaluation 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: DictionaryQA
The DictionaryQA dataset is created from the GCIDE dictionary, which is a comprehensive open-source English dictionary built largely from the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary BIBREF38  Each entry consists of a word, its part-of-speech, its definition, and an optional example sentence (see Table TABREF14)  Overall, 33k entries (out of a total of 155k) contain example sentences/usages  As with the WordNet probes, we focus on this subset so as to contextualize each word being probed  In contrast to WordNet, GCIDE does not have ISA relations or explicit synsets, so we take each unique entry to be a distinct sense  We then use the dictionary entries to create a probe that centers around word-sense disambiguation, as described below 
Dataset Probes and Construction ::: DictionaryQA ::: Example and Distractor Generation 
To generate gold questions and answers, we use the same generation templates for definitions exemplified in Figure TABREF8 for WordNetQA  To generate distractors, we simply take alternative definitions for the target words that represent a different word sense (e g , the alternative definitions of gift shown in Table TABREF14), as well as randomly chosen definitions if needed to create a 5-way multiple choice question  As above, we reserve a maximum of 3k examples for training  Since we have only 9k examples in total in this dataset (see WordSense in Table TABREF12), we also reserve 3k each for development and testing 
We note that initial attempts to build this dataset through standard random splitting gave rise to certain systematic biases that were exploited by the choice-only baseline models described in the next section, and hence inflated overall model scores  After several efforts at filtering we found that, among other factors, using definitions from entries without example sentences as distractors (e g , the first two entries in Table TABREF14) had a surprising correlation with such biases  This suggests that possible biases involving differences between dictionary entries with and without examples can taint the resulting automatically generated MCQA dataset (for more discussion on the pitfalls involved with automatic dataset construction, see Section SECREF5) 
Probing Methodology and Modeling
Given the probes above, we now can start to answer the empirical questions posed at the beginning  Our main focus is on looking at transformer-based MCQA models trained in the science domain (using the benchmarks shown in Table TABREF21)  In this section, we provide details of MCQA and the target models, as well as several baselines that we use to sanity check our new datasets  To evaluate model competence, we look at a combination of model performance after science pre-training and after additional model fine-tuning using the lossless inoculation strategy of BIBREF22 (Section SECREF22)  In Section SECREF24, we also discuss a cluster-level accuracy metric for measuring performance over semantic clusters 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Task Definition and Modeling
Given a dataset $D =\lbrace (\textbf {q}^{(d)}, \lbrace a_{1}^{(d)},   , a_{N}^{(d)}\rbrace ) \rbrace _{d}^{\mid D \mid }$ consisting of pairs of questions stems $\textbf {q}$ and answer choices $a_{i}$, the goal is to find the correct answer $a_{i^{*}}$ that correctly answers each $\textbf {q}$  Throughout this paper, we look at 5-way multiple-choice problems (i e
Context 3: Introduction
Sarcasm is an intensive, indirect and complex construct that is often intended to express contempt or ridicule   Sarcasm, in speech, is multi-modal, involving tone, body-language and gestures along with linguistic artifacts used in speech  Sarcasm in text, on the other hand, is more restrictive when it comes to such non-linguistic modalities  This makes recognizing textual sarcasm more challenging for both humans and machines 
Sarcasm detection plays an indispensable role in applications like online review summarizers, dialog systems, recommendation systems and sentiment analyzers  This makes automatic detection of sarcasm an important problem  However, it has been quite difficult to solve such a problem with traditional NLP tools and techniques  This is apparent from the results reported by the survey from DBLP:journals/corr/JoshiBC16  The following discussion brings more insights into this 
Consider a scenario where an online reviewer gives a negative opinion about a movie through sarcasm: “This is the kind of movie you see because the theater has air conditioning”  It is difficult for an automatic sentiment analyzer to assign a rating to the movie and, in the absence of any other information, such a system may not be able to comprehend that prioritizing the air-conditioning facilities of the theater over the movie experience indicates a negative sentiment towards the movie  This gives an intuition to why, for sarcasm detection, it is necessary to go beyond textual analysis 
We aim to address this problem by exploiting the psycholinguistic side of sarcasm detection, using cognitive features extracted with the help of eye-tracking  A motivation to consider cognitive features comes from analyzing human eye-movement trajectories that supports the conjecture: Reading sarcastic texts induces distinctive eye movement patterns, compared to literal texts  The cognitive features, derived from human eye movement patterns observed during reading, include two primary feature types:
The cognitive features, along with textual features used in best available sarcasm detectors, are used to train binary classifiers against given sarcasm labels  Our experiments show significant improvement in classification accuracy over the state of the art, by performing such augmentation 
Related Work
Sarcasm, in general, has been the focus of research for quite some time  In one of the pioneering works jorgensen1984test explained how sarcasm arises when a figurative meaning is used opposite to the literal meaning of the utterance  In the word of clark1984pretense, sarcasm processing involves canceling the indirectly negated message and replacing it with the implicated one  giora1995irony, on the other hand, define sarcasm as a mode of indirect negation that requires processing of both negated and implicated messages  ivanko2003context define sarcasm as a six tuple entity consisting of a speaker, a listener, Context, Utterance, Literal Proposition and Intended Proposition and study the cognitive aspects of sarcasm processing 
Computational linguists have previously addressed this problem using rule based and statistical techniques, that make use of : (a) Unigrams and Pragmatic features BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 (b) Stylistic patterns BIBREF4 and patterns related to situational disparity BIBREF5 and (c) Hastag interpretations BIBREF6 , BIBREF7  
Most of the previously done work on sarcasm detection uses distant supervision based techniques (ex: leveraging hashtags) and stylistic/pragmatic features (emoticons, laughter expressions such as “lol” etc)  But, detecting sarcasm in linguistically well-formed structures, in absence of explicit cues or information (like emoticons), proves to be hard using such linguistic/stylistic features alone 
With the advent of sophisticated eye-trackers and electro/magneto-encephalographic (EEG/MEG) devices, it has been possible to delve deep into the cognitive underpinnings of sarcasm understanding  Filik2014, using a series of eye-tracking and EEG experiments try to show that for unfamiliar ironies, the literal interpretation would be computed first  They also show that a mismatch with context would lead to a re-interpretation of the statement, as being ironic  Camblin2007103 show that in multi-sentence passages, discourse congruence has robust effects on eye movements  This also implies that disrupted processing occurs for discourse incongruent words, even though they are perfectly congruous at the sentence level  In our previous work BIBREF8 , we augment cognitive features, derived from eye-movement patterns of readers, with textual features to detect whether a human reader has realized the presence of sarcasm in text or not 
The recent advancements in the literature discussed above, motivate us to explore gaze-based cognition for sarcasm detection  As far as we know, our work is the first of its kind 
Eye-tracking Database for Sarcasm Analysis
Sarcasm often emanates from incongruity BIBREF9 , which enforces the brain to reanalyze it BIBREF10   This, in turn, affects the way eyes move through the text  Hence, distinctive eye-movement patterns may be observed in the case of successful processing of sarcasm in text in contrast to literal texts  This hypothesis forms the crux of our method for sarcasm detection and we validate this using our previously released freely available sarcasm dataset BIBREF8 enriched with gaze information 
Document Description
The database consists of 1,000 short texts, each having 10-40 words  Out of these, 350 are sarcastic and are collected as follows: (a) 103 sentences are from two popular sarcastic quote websites, (b) 76 sarcastic short movie reviews are manually extracted from the Amazon Movie Corpus BIBREF11 by two linguists  (c) 171 tweets are downloaded using the hashtag #sarcasm from Twitter  The 650 non-sarcastic texts are either downloaded from Twitter or extracted from the Amazon Movie Review corpus  The sentences do not contain words/phrases that are highly topic or culture specific  The tweets were normalized to make them linguistically well formed to avoid difficulty in interpreting social media lingo  Every sentence in our dataset carries positive or negative opinion about specific “aspects”  For example, the sentence “The movie is extremely well cast” has positive sentiment about the aspect “cast” 
The annotators were seven graduate students with science and engineering background, and possess good English proficiency  They were given a set of instructions beforehand and are advised to seek clarifications before they proceed  The instructions mention the nature of the task, annotation input method, and necessity of head movement minimization during the experiment 
Task Description
The task assigned to annotators was to read sentences one at a time and label them with with binary labels indicating the polarity (i e , positive/negative)  Note that, the participants were not instructed to annotate whether a sentence is sarcastic or not , to rule out the Priming Effect (i e , if sarcasm is expected beforehand, processing incongruity becomes relatively easier BIBREF12 )  The setup ensures its “ecological validity” in two ways: (1) Readers are not given any clue that they have to treat sarcasm with special attention  This is done by setting the task to polarity annotation (instead of sarcasm detection)

ground_truth: personal attack, racism, and sexism

racism, sexism, personal attack, not specifically about any single topic

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. Are the automatically constructed datasets subject to quality control?
Context 2: , where each $N=5$) 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Task Definition and Modeling ::: Question+Answer Encoder 
To model this, our investigation centers around the use of the transformer-based BIBREF25 BERT encoder and fine-tuning approach of BIBREF7 (see also BIBREF6)  For each question and individual answer pair $q^{(j)}_{a_{i}}$, we assume the following rendering of this input:
which is run through the pre-trained BERT encoder to generate a representation for $ q^{(j)}_{a_{i}}$ using the hidden state representation for CLS (i e , the classifier token) $\textbf {c}_{i}$:
The probability of a given answer $p^{(j)}_{i}$ is then computed as $p^{(j)}_{i} \propto e^{\textbf {v}\cdot \textbf {c}^{(j)}_{i}}$, which uses an additional set of classification parameters $\textbf {v} \in \mathbb {R}^{H}$ that are optimized (along with the full transformer network) by taking the final loss of the probability of each correct answer $p_{i^{*}}$ over all answer choices:
We specifically use BERT-large uncased with whole-word masking, as well as the RoBERTa-large model from BIBREF9, which is a more robustly trained version of the original BERT model  Our system uses the implementations provided in AllenNLP BIBREF39 and Huggingface BIBREF40 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Task Definition and Modeling ::: Baselines and Sanity Checks 
When creating synthetic datasets, it is important to ensure that systematic biases, or annotation artifacts BIBREF41, are not introduced into the resulting probes and that the target datasets are sufficiently challenging (or good, in the sense of BIBREF42)  To test for this, we use several of the MCQA baseline models first introduced in BIBREF0, which take inspiration from the LSTM-based models used in BIBREF43 for NLI and various partial-input baselines based on these models 
Following the notation from BIBREF0, for any given sequence $s$ of tokens in $\lbrace q^{(j)}, a_{1}^{(j)},   ,a_{N}^{(j)}\rbrace $ in $D$, an encoding of $s$ is given as $h_{s}^{(j)} = \textbf {BiLSTM}(\textsc {embed}(s)) \in \mathbb {R}^{|s| \times 2h}$ (where $h$ is the dimension of the hidden state in each directional network, and embed$(\cdot )$ is an embedding function that assigns token-level embeddings to each token in $s$)  A contextual representation for each $s$ is then built by applying an element-wise max operation over $h_{s}$ as follows:
With these contextual representations, different baseline models can be constructed  For example, a Choice-Only model, which is a variant of the well-known hypothesis-only baseline used in NLI BIBREF46, scores each choice $c_{i}$ in the following way:
for $\textbf {W}^{T} \in \mathbb {R}^{2h}$ independently of the question and assigns a probability to each answer $p_{i}^{(j)} \propto e^{\alpha _{i}^{(j)}}$ 
A slight variant of this model, the Choice-to-choice model, tries to single out a given answer choice relative to other choices by scoring all choice pairs $\alpha _{i,i^{\prime }}^{(j)} = \textsc {Att}(r^{(j)}_{c_{i}},r^{(j)}_{c_{i^{\prime }}}) \in \mathbb {R}$ using a learned attention mechanism Att and finding the choice with the minimal similarity to other options (for full details, see their original paper)  In using these partial-input baselines, which we train directly on each target probe, we can check whether systematic biases related to answer choices were introduced into the data creation process 
A Question-to-choice model, in contrast, uses the contextual representations for each question and individual choice and an attention model Att model to get a score $\alpha ^{(j)}_{q,i} = \textsc {Att}(r^{(j)}_{q},r^{(j)}_{c_{i}}) \in \mathbb {R}$ as above  Here we also experiment with using ESIM BIBREF47 to generate the contextual representations $r$, as well as a simpler VecSimilarity model that measures the average vector similarity between question and answer tokens: $\alpha ^{(j)}_{q,i} = \textsc {Sim}(\textsc {embed}(q^{(j)}),\textsc {embed}(c^{(j)}_{i}))$  In contrast to the models above, these sets of baselines are used to check for artifacts between questions and answers that are not captured in the partial-input baselines (see discussion in BIBREF49) and ensure that the overall MCQA tasks are sufficiently difficult for our transformer models 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Inoculation and Pre-training
Using the various models introduced above, we train these models on benchmark tasks in the science domain and look at model performance on our probes with and without additional training on samples of probe data, building on the idea of inoculation from BIBREF23  Model inoculation is the idea of continuing to train models on new challenge tasks (in our cases, separately for each probe) using only a small amount of examples  Unlike in ordinary fine-tuning, the goal is not to learn an entirely re-purposed model, but to improve on (or vaccinate against) particular phenomena (e g , our synthetic probes) that potentially deviate from a model's original training distribution (but that nonetheless might involve knowledge already contained in the model) 
In the variant proposed in BIBREF22, for each pre-trained (science) model and architecture $M_{a}$ we continue training the model on $k$ new probe examples (with a maximum of $k=$ 3k) under a set of different hyper-parameter configurations $j \in \lbrace 1,    , J\rbrace $ and identify, for each $k$, the model $M_{*}^{a,k}$ with the best aggregate performance $S$ on the original (orig) and new task:
As in BIBREF22, we found all models to be especially sensitive to different learning rates, and performed comprehensive hyper-parameters searches that also manipulate the number of iterations and random seeds used 
Using this methodology, we can see how much exposure to new data it takes for a given model to master a new task, and whether there are phenomena that stress particular models (e g , lead to catastrophic forgetting of the original task)  Given the restrictions on the number of fine-tuning examples, our assumption is that when models are able to maintain good performance on their original task during inoculation, the quickness with which they are able to learn the inoculated task provides evidence of prior competence, which is precisely what we aim to probe  To measure past performance, we define a model's inoculation cost as the difference in the performance of this model on its original task before and after inoculation 
We pre-train on an aggregated training set of the benchmark science exams detailed in Table TABREF21, and created an aggregate development set of around 4k science questions for evaluating overall science performance and inoculation costs  To handle the mismatch between number of answer choices in these sets, we made all sets 5-way by adding empty answers as needed  We also experimented with a slight variant of inoculation, called add-some inoculation, which involves balancing the inoculation training sets with naturalistic science questions  We reserve the MCQL dataset in Table TABREF21 for this purpose, and experiment with balancing each probe example with a science example (x1 matching) and adding twice as many science questions (x2 matching, up to 3k) for each new example 
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Evaluating Model Competence
The standard way to evaluate our MCQA models is by looking at the overall accuracy of the correct answer prediction, or what we call instance-level accuracy (as in Table TABREF25)  Given the nature of our data and the existence of semantic clusters as detailed in Section SECREF11 (i e , sets of questions and answers under different distractor choices and inference complexity), we also measure a model's cluster-level (or strict cluster) accuracy, which requires correctly answering all questions in a cluster  Example semantic clusters are shown in Table TABREF30; in the first case, there are 6 ISA$^\uparrow $ questions (including perturbations) about the concept trouser n 01 (e g , involving knowing that trousers are a type of consumer good and garment/clothing), which a model must answer in order to receive full credit 
Our cluster-based analysis is motivated by the idea that if a model truly knows the meaning of a given concept, such as the concept of trousers, then it should be able to answer arbitrary questions about this concept without sensitivity to varied distractors  While our strict cluster metric is simplistic, it takes inspiration from work on visual QA BIBREF53, and allows us to evaluate how consistent and robust models are across our different probes, and to get insight into whether errors are concentrated on a small set of concepts or widespread across clusters 
Results and Findings
In this section, we provide the results of the empirical questions first introduced in Figure FIGREF1, starting with the results of our baseline models 
Results and Findings ::: Are our Probes Sufficiently Challenging?
As shown in Table TABREF25, most of our partial-input baselines (i e , Choice-Only and Choice-to-Choice models) failed to perform well on our dataset probes across a wide range of models, showing that such probes are generally immune from biases relating to how distractors were generated  As already discussed in Section SECREF13, however, initial versions of the DictionaryQA dataset had unforeseen biases partly related to whether distractors were sampled from entries without example sentences, which resulted in high Choice-Only-GloVe scores ranging around 56% accuracy before a filtering step was applied to remove these distractors 
We had similar issues with the hypernymy probe which, even after a filtering step that used our Choice-to-Choice-GloVe model, still leads to high results on the BERT and RoBERTa choice-only models  Given that several attempts were made to entirely de-duplicate the different splits (both in terms of gold answers and distractor types), the source of these biases is not at all obvious, which shows how easy it is for unintended biases in expert knowledge to appear in the resulting datasets and the importance of having rigorous baselines  We also note the large gap in some cases between the BERT and RoBERTa versus GloVe choice-only models, which highlights the need for having partial-input baselines that use the best available models 
Using a more conventional set of Task-Specific QA models (i e , the LSTM-based Question-to-Choice models trained directly on the probes), we can see that results are not particularly strong on any of the datasets, suggesting that our probes are indeed sufficiently challenging and largely immune from overt artifacts  The poor performance of the VecSimilarity (which uses pre-trained Word2Vec embeddings without additional training) provides additional evidence that elementary lexical matching strategies are insufficient for solving any of the probing tasks 
Results and Findings ::: How well do pre-trained MCQA models do?
Science models that use non-transformer based encoders, such as the ESIM model with GloVe and ELMO, perform poorly across all probes, in many cases scoring near random chance, showing limits to how well they generalize from science to other tasks even with pre-trained GloVe and ELMO embeddings  In sharp contrast, the transformer models have mixed results, the most striking result being the RoBERTa models on the definitions and synonymy probes (achieving a test accuracy of 77% and 61%, respectively), which outperform several of the task-specific LSTM models trained directly on the probes  At first glance, this suggests that RoBERTa, which generally far outpaces even BERT across most probes, has high competence of definitions and synonyms even without explicit training on our new tasks 
Given the controlled nature of our probes, we can get a more detailed view of how well the science models are performing across different reasoning and distractor types, as shown in the first column of Figure FIGREF28 for ESIM and RoBERTa  The ESIM science model without training has uniformly poor performance across all categories, whereas the performance of RoBERTa is more varied  Across all datasets and number of hops (i e , the rows in the heat maps), model performance for RoBERTa is consistently highest among examples with random distractors (i e , the first column), and lowest in cases involving distractors that are closest in WordNet space (e g , sister and ISA, or up/down, distractors of distance $k^{\prime }=1$)  This is not surprising, given that, in the first case, random distractors are likely to be the easiest category (and the opposite for distractors close in space), but suggests that RoBERTa might only be getting the easiest cases correct 
Model performance also clearly degrades for hypernymy and hyponymy across all models as the number of hops $k$ increases (see red dashed boxes)  For example, problems that involve hyponym reasoning with sister distractors of distance $k^{\prime }=1$ (i e , the second column) degrades from 47% to 15% when the number of hops $k$ increases from 1 to 4  This general tendency persists even after additional fine-tuning, as we discuss next, and gives evidence that models are limited in their capacity for certain types of multi-hop inferences 
As discussed by BIBREF26, the choice of generation templates can have a significant effect on model performance  The results so far should therefore be regarded as a lower bound on model competence  It is possible that model performance is high for definitions, for example, because the associated templates best align with the science training distribution (which we know little about)  For this reason, the subsequent inoculation step is important—it gives the model an opportunity to learn about our target templates and couple this learned knowledge with its general knowledge acquired during pre-training and science training (which is, again, what we aim to probe) 
Results and Findings ::: Can Models Be Effectively Inoculated?
Model performance after additional fine-tuning, or inoculation, is shown in the last 3 rows of Table TABREF25, along with learning curves shown in Figure FIGREF29 for a selection of probes and models  In the former case, the performance represents the model (and inoculation amount) with the highest aggregate performance over the old task and new probe  Here we again see the transformer-based models outperform non-transformer models, and that better models correlate with lower inoculation costs  For example, when inoculating on synonymy, the cost for ESIM is around 7% reduced accuracy on its original task, as opposed to $< 1$% and around 1% for BERT and RoBERTa, respectively  This shows the high capacity for transformer models to absorb new tasks with minimal costs, as also observed in BIBREF22 for NLI 
As shown in Figure FIGREF29, transformer models tend to learn most tasks fairly quickly while keeping constant scores on their original tasks (i e , the flat dashed lines observed in plots 1-4), which gives evidence of high competence  In both cases, add-some inoculation proves to be a cheap and easy way to 1) improve scores on the probing tasks (i e , the solid black and blue lines in plot 1) and; 2) minimize loss on science (e g , the blue and black dashed lines in plots 2-4)  The opposite is the case for ESIM (plots 5-6); models are generally unable to simultaneously learn individual probes without degrading on their original task, and adding more science data during inoculation confuses models on both tasks 
As shown in Figure FIGREF28, RoBERTa is able to significantly improve performance across most categories even after inoculation with a mere 100 examples (the middle plot), which again provides strong evidence of prior competence  As an example, RoBERTa improves on 2-hop hyponymy inference with random distractors by 18% (from 59% to 77%)  After 3k examples, the model has high performance on virtually all categories (the same score increases from 59% to 87%), however results still tends to degrade as a function of hop and distractor complexity, as discussed above 
Despite the high performance of our transformer models after inoculation, model performance on most probes (with the exception of Definitions) averages around 80% for our best models  This suggests that there is still considerable room for improvement, especially for synonymy and word sense, which is a topic that we discuss more in Section SECREF6 
Results and Findings ::: Are Models Consistent across Clusters?
Table TABREF32 shows cluster-level accuracies for the different WordNetQA probes  As with performance across the different inference/distractor categories, these results are mixed  For some probes, such as definitions, our best models appear to be rather robust; e g , our RoBERTa model has a cluster accuracy of $75\%$, meaning that it can answer all questions perfectly for 75% of the target concepts and that errors are concentrated on a small minority (25%) of concepts  On synonymy and hypernymy, both BERT and RoBERTa appear robust on the majority of concepts, showing that errors are similarly concentrated  In contrast, our best model on hyponymy has an accuracy of 36%, meaning that its errors are spread across many concepts, thus suggesting less robustness 
Table TABREF30 shows a selection of semantic clusters involving ISA reasoning, as well as the model performance over different answers (shown symbolically) and perturbations  For example, in the the second case, the cluster is based around the concept/synset oppose v 06 and involves 4 inferences and a total 24 questions (i e , inferences with perturbations)  Our weakest model, ESIM, answers only 5 out of 24 questions correctly, whereas RoBERTa gets 21/24  In the other cases, RoBERTa gets all clusters correct, whereas BERT and ESIM get none of them correct 
We emphasize that these results only provide a crude look into model consistency and robustness  Recalling again the details in Table TABREF12, probes differ in terms of average size of clusters  Hyponymy, in virtue of having many more questions per cluster, might simply be a much more difficult dataset  In addition, such a strict evaluation does not take into account potential errors inside of clusters, which is an important issue that we discuss in the next section  We leave addressing such issues and coming up with more insightful cluster-based metrics for future work 
Discussion and Conclusion
We presented several new challenge datasets and a novel methodology for automatically building such datasets from knowledge graphs and taxonomies  We used these to probe state-of-the-art open-domain QA models (centering around models based on variants of BERT)  While our general methodology is amendable to any target knowledge resource or QA model/domain, we focus on probing definitions and ISA knowledge using open-source dictionaries and MCQA models trained in the science domain 
We find, consistent with recent probing studies BIBREF26, that transformer-based models have a remarkable ability to answer questions that involve complex forms of relational knowledge, both with and without explicit exposure to our new target tasks  In the latter case, a newer RoBERTa model trained only on benchmark science tasks is able to outperform several task-specific LSTM-based models trained directly on our probing data  When re-trained on small samples (e g , 100 examples) of probing data using variations of the lossless inoculation strategy from BIBREF22, RoBERTa is able to master many aspects of our probes with virtually no performance loss on its original QA task 
These positive results suggest that transformer-based models, especially models additionally fine-tuned on small samples of synthetic data, can be used in place of task-specific models used for querying relational knowledge, as has already been done for targeted tasks such as word sense disambiguation BIBREF54  Since models seem to already contain considerable amounts of relational knowledge, our simple inoculation strategy, which tries to nudge models to bring out this knowledge explicitly, could serve as a cheaper alternative to recent attempts to build architectures that explicitly incorporate structured knowledge BIBREF55; we see many areas where our inoculation strategy could be improved for such purposes, including having more complex loss functions that manage old and new information, as well as using techniques that take into account network plasticity BIBREF56 
The main appeal of using automatically generate datasets is the ability to systematically manipulate and control the complexity of target questions, which allows for more controlled experimentation and new forms of evaluation  Despite the positive results described above, results that look directly at the effect of different types of distractors and the complexity of reasoning show that our best models, even after additional fine-tuning, struggle with certain categories of hard distractors and multi-hop inferences  For some probes, our cluster-based analysis also reveals that errors are widespread across concept clusters, suggesting that models are not always consistent and robust  These results, taken together with our findings about the vulnerability of synthetic datasets to systematic biases, suggest that there is much room for improvement and that the positive results should be taken with a grain of salt  Developing better ways to evaluate semantic clusters and model robustness would be a step in this direction 
We emphasize that using synthetic versus naturalistic QA data comes with important trade-offs  While we are able to generate large amounts of systematically controlled data at virtually no cost or need for manual annotation, it is much harder to validate the quality of such data at such a scale and such varying levels of complexity  Conversely, with benchmark QA datasets, it is much harder to perform the type of careful manipulations and cluster-based analyses we report here  While we assume that the expert knowledge we employ, in virtue of being hand-curated by human experts, is generally correct, we know that such resources are fallible and error-prone  Initial crowd-sourcing experiments that look at validating samples of our data show high agreement across probes and that human scores correlate with the model trends across the probe categories  More details of these studies are left for future work 
Context 3:  (2) Sarcastic sentences are mixed with non sarcastic text, which does not give prior knowledge about whether the forthcoming text will be sarcastic or not 
The eye-tracking experiment is conducted by following the standard norms in eye-movement research BIBREF13   At a time, one sentence is displayed to the reader along with the “aspect” with respect to which the annotation has to be provided  While reading, an SR-Research Eyelink-1000 eye-tracker (monocular remote mode, sampling rate 500Hz) records several eye-movement parameters like fixations (a long stay of gaze) and saccade (quick jumping of gaze between two positions of rest) and pupil size 
The accuracy of polarity annotation varies between 72%-91% for sarcastic texts and 75%-91% for non-sarcastic text, showing the inherent difficulty of sentiment annotation, when sarcasm is present in the text under consideration  Annotation errors may be attributed to: (a) lack of patience/attention while reading, (b) issues related to text comprehension, and (c) confusion/indecisiveness caused due to lack of context 
For our analysis, we do not discard the incorrect annotations present in the database  Since our system eventually aims to involve online readers for sarcasm detection, it will be hard to segregate readers who misinterpret the text  We make a rational assumption that, for a particular text, most of the readers, from a fairly large population, will be able to identify sarcasm  Under this assumption, the eye-movement parameters, averaged across all readers in our setting, may not be significantly distorted by a few readers who would have failed to identify sarcasm  This assumption is applicable for both regular and multi-instance based classifiers explained in section SECREF6  
Analysis of Eye-movement Data
We observe distinct behavior during sarcasm reading, by analyzing the “fixation duration on the text” (also referred to as “dwell time” in the literature) and “scanpaths” of the readers 
Variation in the Average Fixation Duration per Word
Since sarcasm in text can be expected to induce cognitive load, it is reasonable to believe that it would require more processing time BIBREF14   Hence, fixation duration normalized over total word count should usually be higher for a sarcastic text than for a non-sarcastic one  We observe this for all participants in our dataset, with the average fixation duration per word for sarcastic texts being at least 1 5 times more than that of non-sarcastic texts  To test the statistical significance, we conduct a two-tailed t-test (assuming unequal variance) to compare the average fixation duration per word for sarcastic and non-sarcastic texts  The hypothesized mean difference is set to 0 and the error tolerance limit ( INLINEFORM0 ) is set to 0 05  The t-test analysis, presented in Table TABREF11 , shows that for all participants, a statistically significant difference exists between the average fixation duration per word for sarcasm (higher average fixation duration) and non-sarcasm (lower average fixation duration)  This affirms that the presence of sarcasm affects the duration of fixation on words 
It is important to note that longer fixations may also be caused by other linguistic subtleties (such as difficult words, ambiguity and syntactically complex structures) causing delay in comprehension, or occulomotor control problems forcing readers to spend time adjusting eye-muscles  So, an elevated average fixation duration per word may not sufficiently indicate the presence of sarcasm  But we would also like to share that, for our dataset, when we considered readability (Flesch readability ease-score BIBREF15 ), number of words in a sentence and average character per word along with the sarcasm label as the predictors of average fixation duration following a linear mixed effect model BIBREF16 , sarcasm label turned out to be the most significant predictor with a maximum slope  This indicates that average fixation duration per word has a strong connection with the text being sarcastic, at least in our dataset 
We now analyze scanpaths to gain more insights into the sarcasm comprehension process 
Analysis of Scanpaths
Scanpaths are line-graphs that contain fixations as nodes and saccades as edges; the radii of the nodes represent the fixation duration  A scanpath corresponds to a participant's eye-movement pattern while reading a particular sentence  Figure FIGREF14 presents scanpaths of three participants for the sarcastic sentence S1 and the non-sarcastic sentence S2  The x-axis of the graph represents the sequence of words a reader reads, and the y-axis represents a temporal sequence in milliseconds 
Consider a sarcastic text containing incongruous phrases A and B  Our qualitative scanpath-analysis reveals that scanpaths with respect to sarcasm processing have two typical characteristics  Often, a long regression - a saccade that goes to a previously visited segment - is observed when a reader starts reading B after skimming through A  In a few cases, the fixation duration on A and B are significantly higher than the average fixation duration per word  In sentence S1, we see long and multiple regressions from the two incongruous phrases “misconception” and “cherish”, and a few instances where phrases “always cherish” and “original misconception” are fixated longer than usual  Such eye-movement behaviors are not seen for S2 
Though sarcasm induces distinctive scanpaths like the ones depicted in Figure FIGREF14 in the observed examples, presence of such patterns is not sufficient to guarantee sarcasm; such patterns may also possibly arise from literal texts  We believe that a combination of linguistic features, readability of text and features derived from scanpaths would help discriminative machine learning models learn sarcasm better 
Features for Sarcasm Detection
We describe the features used for sarcasm detection in Table   The features enlisted under lexical,implicit incongruity and explicit incongruity are borrowed from various literature (predominantly from joshi2015harnessing)  These features are essential to separate sarcasm from other forms semantic incongruity in text (for example ambiguity arising from semantic ambiguity or from metaphors)  Two additional textual features viz  readability and word count of the text are also taken under consideration  These features are used to reduce the effect of text hardness and text length on the eye-movement patterns 
Simple Gaze Based Features
Readers' eye-movement behavior, characterized by fixations, forward saccades, skips and regressions, can be directly quantified by simple statistical aggregation (i e , either computing features for individual participants and then averaging or performing a multi-instance based learning as explained in section SECREF6 )  Since these eye-movement attributes relate to the cognitive process in reading BIBREF17 , we consider these as features in our model  Some of these features have been reported by sarcasmunderstandability for modeling sarcasm understandability of readers  However, as far as we know, these features are being introduced in NLP tasks like textual sarcasm detection for the first time  The values of these features are believed to increase with the increase in the degree of surprisal caused by incongruity in text (except skip count, which will decrease) 
Complex Gaze Based Features
For these features, we rely on a graph structure, namely “saliency graphs", derived from eye-gaze information and word sequences in the text 
For each reader and each sentence, we construct a “saliency graph”, representing the reader's attention characteristics  A saliency graph for a sentence INLINEFORM0 for a reader INLINEFORM1 , represented as INLINEFORM2 , is a graph with vertices ( INLINEFORM3 ) and edges ( INLINEFORM4 ) where each vertex INLINEFORM5 corresponds to a word in INLINEFORM6 (may not be unique) and there exists an edge INLINEFORM7 between vertices INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9 if R performs at least one saccade between the words corresponding to INLINEFORM10 and INLINEFORM11  
Figure FIGREF15 shows an example of a saliency graph A saliency graph may be weighted, but not necessarily connected, for a given text (as there may be words in the given text with no fixation on them)

ground_truth: No

No

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 traditional linguistics features did they use?
Context 3:  The “complex” gaze features derived from saliency graphs are also motivated by the theory of incongruity  For instance, Edge Density of a saliency graph increases with the number of distinct saccades, which could arise from the complexity caused by presence of sarcasm  Similarly, the highest weighted degree of a graph is expected to be higher, if the node corresponds to a phrase, incongruous to some other phrase in the text 
The Sarcasm Classifier
We interpret sarcasm detection as a binary classification problem  The training data constitutes 994 examples created using our eye-movement database for sarcasm detection  To check the effectiveness of our feature set, we observe the performance of multiple classification techniques on our dataset through a stratified 10-fold cross validation  We also compare the classification accuracy of our system and the best available systems proposed by riloff2013sarcasm and joshi2015harnessing on our dataset  Using Weka BIBREF18 and LibSVM BIBREF19 APIs, we implement the following classifiers:
Results
Table TABREF17 shows the classification results considering various feature combinations for different classifiers and other systems  These are:
Unigram (with principal components of unigram feature vectors),
Sarcasm (the feature-set reported by joshi2015harnessing subsuming unigram features and features from other reported systems)
Gaze (the simple and complex cognitive features we introduce, along with readability and word count features), and
Gaze+Sarcasm (the complete set of features) 
For all regular classifiers, the gaze features are averaged across participants and augmented with linguistic and sarcasm related features  For the MILR classifier, the gaze features derived from each participant are augmented with linguistic features and thus, a multi instance “bag” of features is formed for each sentence in the training data  This multi-instance dataset is given to an MILR classifier, which follows the standard multi instance assumption to derive class-labels for each bag 
For all the classifiers, our feature combination outperforms the baselines (considering only unigram features) as well as BIBREF3 , with the MILR classifier getting an F-score improvement of 3 7% and Kappa difference of 0 08  We also achieve an improvement of 2% over the baseline, using SVM classifier, when we employ our feature set  We also observe that the gaze features alone, also capture the differences between sarcasm and non-sarcasm classes with a high-precision but a low recall 
To see if the improvement obtained is statistically significant over the state-of-the art system with textual sarcasm features alone, we perform McNemar test  The output of the SVM classifier using only linguistic features used for sarcasm detection by joshi2015harnessing and the output of the MILR classifier with the complete set of features are compared, setting threshold INLINEFORM0   There was a significant difference in the classifier's accuracy with p(two-tailed) = 0 02 with an odds-ratio of 1 43, showing that the classification accuracy improvement is unlikely to be observed by chance in 95% confidence interval 
Considering Reading Time as a Cognitive Feature along with Sarcasm Features
One may argue that, considering simple measures of reading effort like “reading time” as cognitive feature instead of the expensive eye-tracking features for sarcasm detection may be a cost-effective solution  To examine this, we repeated our experiments with “reading time” considered as the only cognitive feature, augmented with the textual features  The F-scores of all the classifiers turn out to be close to that of the classifiers considering sarcasm feature alone and the difference in the improvement is not statistically significant ( INLINEFORM0 )  One the other hand, F-scores with gaze features are superior to the F-scores when reading time is considered as a cognitive feature 
How Effective are the Cognitive Features
We examine the effectiveness of cognitive features on the classification accuracy by varying the input training data size  To examine this, we create a stratified (keeping the class ratio constant) random train-test split of 80%:20%  We train our classifier with 100%, 90%, 80% and 70% of the training data with our whole feature set, and the feature combination from joshi2015harnessing  The goodness of our system is demonstrated by improvements in F-score and Kappa statistics, shown in Figure FIGREF22  
We further analyze the importance of features by ranking the features based on (a) Chi squared test, and (b) Information Gain test, using Weka's attribute selection module  Figure FIGREF23 shows the top 20 ranked features produced by both the tests  For both the cases, we observe 16 out of top 20 features to be gaze features  Further, in each of the cases, Average Fixation Duration per Word and Largest Regression Position are seen to be the two most significant features 
Example Cases
Table TABREF21 shows a few example cases from the experiment with stratified 80%-20% train-test split 
Example sentence 1 is sarcastic, and requires extra-linguistic knowledge (about poor living conditions at Manchester)  Hence, the sarcasm detector relying only on textual features is unable to detect the underlying incongruity  However, our system predicts the label successfully, possibly helped by the gaze features 
Similarly, for sentence 2, the false sense of presence of incongruity (due to phrases like “Helped me” and “Can't stop”) affects the system with only linguistic features  Our system, though, performs well in this case also 
Sentence 3 presents a false-negative case where it was hard for even humans to get the sarcasm  This is why our gaze features (and subsequently the complete set of features) account for erroneous prediction 
In sentence 4, gaze features alone false-indicate presence of incongruity, whereas the system predicts correctly when gaze and linguistic features are taken together 
From these examples, it can be inferred that, only gaze features would not have sufficed to rule out the possibility of detecting other forms of incongruity that do not result in sarcasm 
Error Analysis
Errors committed by our system arise from multiple factors, starting from limitations of the eye-tracker hardware to errors committed by linguistic tools and resources  Also, aggregating various eye-tracking parameters to extract the cognitive features may have caused information loss in the regular classification setting 
Conclusion
In the current work, we created a novel framework to detect sarcasm, that derives insights from human cognition, that manifests over eye movement patterns  We hypothesized that distinctive eye-movement patterns, associated with reading sarcastic text, enables improved detection of sarcasm  We augmented traditional linguistic features with cognitive features obtained from readers' eye-movement data in the form of simple gaze-based features and complex features derived from a graph structure  This extended feature-set improved the success rate of the sarcasm detector by 3 7%, over the best available system  Using cognitive features in an NLP Processing system like ours is the first proposal of its kind 
Our general approach may be useful in other NLP sub-areas like sentiment and emotion analysis, text summarization and question answering, where considering textual clues alone does not prove to be sufficient  We propose to augment this work in future by exploring deeper graph and gaze features  We also propose to develop models for the purpose of learning complex gaze feature representation, that accounts for the power of individual eye movement patterns along with the aggregated patterns of eye movements 
Acknowledgments
We thank the members of CFILT Lab, especially Jaya Jha and Meghna Singh, and the students of IIT Bombay for their help and support 

ground_truth: Unanswerable