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 1: 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)  (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)  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 
Context 2: Introduction
The automatic processing of medical texts and documents plays an increasingly important role in the recent development of the digital health area  To enable dedicated Natural Language Processing (NLP) that is highly accurate with respect to medically relevant categories, manually annotated data from this domain is needed  One category of high interest and relevance are medical entities  Only very few annotated corpora in the medical domain exist  Many of them focus on the relation between chemicals and diseases or proteins and diseases, such as the BC5CDR corpus BIBREF0, the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database BIBREF1, the FSU PRotein GEne corpus BIBREF2 or the ADE (adverse drug effect) corpus BIBREF3  The NCBI Disease Corpus BIBREF4 contains condition mention annotations along with annotations of symptoms  Several new corpora of annotated case reports were made available recently  grouin-etal-2019-clinical presented a corpus with medical entity annotations of clinical cases written in French, copdPhenotype presented a corpus focusing on phenotypic information for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease while 10 1093/database/bay143 presented a corpus focusing on identifying main finding sentences in case reports 
The corpus most comparable to ours is the French corpus of clinical case reports by grouin-etal-2019-clinical  Their annotations are based on UMLS semantic types  Even though there is an overlap in annotated entities, semantic classes are not the same  Lab results are subsumed under findings in our corpus and are not annotated as their own class  Factors extend beyond gender and age and describe any kind of risk factor that contributes to a higher probability of having a certain disease  Our corpus includes additional entity types  We annotate conditions, findings (including medical findings such as blood values), factors, and also modifiers which indicate the negation of other entities as well as case entities, i  e , entities specific to one case report  An overview is available in Table TABREF3 
A Corpus of Medical Case Reports with Medical Entity Annotation ::: Annotation tasks
Case reports are standardized in the CARE guidelines BIBREF5  They represent a detailed description of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient  We focus on documents freely available through PubMed Central (PMC)  The presentation of the patient's case can usually be found in a dedicated section or the abstract  We perform a manual annotation of all mentions of case entities, conditions, findings, factors and modifiers  The scope of our manual annotation is limited to the presentation of a patient's signs and symptoms  In addition, we annotate the title of the case report 
A Corpus of Medical Case Reports with Medical Entity Annotation ::: Annotation Guidelines
We annotate the following entities:
case entity marks the mention of a patient  A case report can contain more than one case description  Therefore, all the findings, factors and conditions related to one patient are linked to the respective case entity  Within the text, this entity is often represented by the first mention of the patient and overlaps with the factor annotations which can, e  g , mark sex and age (cf  Figure FIGREF12) 
condition marks a medical disease such as pneumothorax or dislocation of the shoulder 
factor marks a feature of a patient which might influence the probability for a specific diagnosis  It can be immutable (e  g , sex and age), describe a specific medical history (e  g , diabetes mellitus) or a behaviour (e  g , smoking) 
finding marks a sign or symptom a patient shows  This can be visible (e  g , rash), described by a patient (e  g , headache) or measurable (e  g , decreased blood glucose level) 
negation modifier explicitly negate the presence of a certain finding usually setting the case apart from common cases 
We also annotate relations between these entities, where applicable  Since we work on case descriptions, the anchor point of these relations is the case that is described  The following relations are annotated:
has relations exist between a case entity and factor, finding or condition entities 
modifies relations exist between negation modifiers and findings 
causes relations exist between conditions and findings 
Example annotations are shown in Figure FIGREF16 
A Corpus of Medical Case Reports with Medical Entity Annotation ::: Annotators
We asked medical doctors experienced in extracting knowledge related to medical entities from texts to annotate the entities described above  Initially, we asked four annotators to test our guidelines on two texts  Subsequently, identified issues were discussed and resolved  Following this pilot annotation phase, we asked two different annotators to annotate two case reports according to our guidelines  The same annotators annotated an overall collection of 53 case reports 
Inter-annotator agreement is calculated based on two case reports  We reach a Cohen's kappa BIBREF6 of 0 68  Disagreements mainly appear for findings that are rather unspecific such as She no longer eats out with friends which can be seen as a finding referring to “avoidance behaviour” 
A Corpus of Medical Case Reports with Medical Entity Annotation ::: Annotation Tools and Format
The annotation was performed using WebAnno BIBREF7, a web-based tool for linguistic annotation  The annotators could choose between a pre-annotated version or a blank version of each text  The pre-annotated versions contained suggested entity spans based on string matches from lists of conditions and findings synonym lists  Their quality varied widely throughout the corpus  The blank version was preferred by the annotators  We distribute the corpus in BioC JSON format  BioC was chosen as it allows us to capture the complexities of the annotations in the biomedical domain  It represented each documents properties ranging from full text, individual passages/sentences along with captured annotations and relationships in an organized manner  BioC is based on character offsets of annotations and allows the stacking of different layers 
A Corpus of Medical Case Reports with Medical Entity Annotation ::: Corpus Overview
The corpus consists of 53 documents, which contain an average number of 156 1 sentences per document, each with 19 55 tokens on average  The corpus comprises 8,275 sentences and 167,739 words in total  However, as mentioned above, only case presentation sections, headings and abstracts are annotated  The numbers of annotated entities are summarized in Table TABREF24 
Findings are the most frequently annotated type of entity  This makes sense given that findings paint a clinical picture of the patient's condition  The number of tokens per entity ranges from one token for all types to 5 tokens for cases (average length 3 1), nine tokens for conditions (average length 2 0), 16 tokens for factors (average length 2 5), 25 tokens for findings (average length 2 6) and 18 tokens for modifiers (average length 1 4) (cf  Table TABREF24)  Examples of rather long entities are given in Table TABREF25 
Entities can appear in a discontinuous way  We model this as a relation between two spans which we call “discontinuous” (cf  Figure FIGREF26)  Especially findings often appear as discontinuous entities, we found 543 discontinuous finding relations  The numbers for conditions and factors are lower with seven and two, respectively  Entities can also be nested within one another  This happens either when the span of one annotation is completely embedded in the span of another annotation (fully-nested; cf  Figure FIGREF12), or when there is a partial overlapping between the spans of two different entities (partially-nested; cf  Figure FIGREF12)  There is a high number of inter-sentential relations in the corpus (cf  Table TABREF27)  This can be explained by the fact that the case entity occurs early in each document; furthermore, it is related to finding and factor annotations that are distributed across different sentences 
The most frequently annotated relation in our corpus is the has-relation between a case entity and the findings related to that case  This correlates with the high number of finding entities  The relations contained in our corpus are summarized in Table TABREF27 
Baseline systems for Named Entity Recognition in medical case reports
We evaluate the corpus using Named Entity Recognition (NER), i  e , the task of finding mentions of concepts of interest in unstructured text  We focus on detecting cases, conditions, factors, findings and modifiers in case reports (cf  Section SECREF6)  We approach this as a sequence labeling problem  Four systems were developed to offer comparable robust baselines 
The original documents are pre-processed (sentence splitting and tokenization with ScispaCy)  We do not perform stop word removal or lower-casing of the tokens  The BIO labeling scheme is used to capture the order of tokens belonging to the same entity type and enable span-level detection of entities  Detection of nested and/or discontinuous entities is not supported  The annotated corpus is randomized and split in five folds using scikit-learn BIBREF9  Each fold has a train, test and dev split with the test split defined as  15% of the train split  This ensures comparability between the presented systems 
Baseline systems for Named Entity Recognition in medical case reports ::: Conditional Random Fields
Conditional Random Fields (CRF) BIBREF10 are a standard approach when dealing with sequential data in the context of sequence labeling  We use a combination of linguistic and semantic features, with a context window of size five, to describe each of the tokens and the dependencies between them  Hyper-parameter optimization is performed using randomized search and cross validation  Span-based F1 score is used as the optimization metric 
Baseline systems for Named Entity Recognition in medical case reports ::: BiLSTM-CRF
Prior to the emergence of deep neural language models, BiLSTM-CRF models BIBREF11 had achieved state-of-the-art results for the task of sequence labeling  We use a BiLSTM-CRF model with both word-level and character-level input  BioWordVec BIBREF12 pre-trained word embeddings are used in the embedding layer for the input representation  A bidirectional LSTM layer is applied to a multiplication of the two input representations  Finally, a CRF layer is applied to predict the sequence of labels  Dropout and L1/L2 regularization is used where applicable  He (uniform) initialization BIBREF13 is used to initialize the kernels of the individual layers  As the loss metric, CRF-based loss is used, while optimizing the model based on the CRF Viterbi accuracy  Additionally, span-based F1 score is used to serialize the best performing model  We train for a maximum of 100 epochs, or until an early stopping criterion is reached (no change in validation loss value grater than 0 01 for ten consecutive epochs)  Furthermore, Adam BIBREF14 is used as the optimizer  The learning rate is reduced by a factor of 0 3 in case no significant increase of the optimization metric is achieved in three consecutive epochs 
Baseline systems for Named Entity Recognition in medical case reports ::: Multi-Task Learning
Multi-Task Learning (MTL) BIBREF15 has become popular with the progress in deep learning  This model family is characterized by simultaneous optimization of multiple loss functions and transfer of knowledge achieved this way  The knowledge is transferred through the use of one or multiple shared layers  Through finding supporting patterns in related tasks, MTL provides better generalization on unseen cases and the main tasks we are trying to solve 
We rely on the model presented by bekoulis2018joint and reuse the implementation provided by the authors  The model jointly trains two objectives supported by the dataset: the main task of NER and a supporting task of Relation Extraction (RE)  Two separate models are developed for each of the tasks  The NER task is solved with the help of a BiLSTM-CRF model, similar to the one presented in Section SECREF32 The RE task is solved by using a multi-head selection approach, where each token can have none or more relationships to in-sentence tokens  Additionally, this model also leverages the output of the NER branch model (the CRF prediction) to learn label embeddings  Shared layers consist of a concatenation of word and character embeddings followed by two bidirectional LSTM layers  We keep most of the parameters suggested by the authors and change (1) the number of training epochs to 100 to allow the comparison to other deep learning approaches in this work, (2) use label embeddings of size 64, (3) allow gradient clipping and (4) use $d=0 8$ as the pre-trained word embedding dropout and $d=0 5$ for all other dropouts  $\eta =1^{-3}$ is used as the learning rate with the Adam optimizer and tanh activation functions across layers  Although it is possible to use adversarial training BIBREF16, we omit from using it  We also omit the publication of results for the task of RE as we consider it to be a supporting task and no other competing approaches have been developed 
Baseline systems for Named Entity Recognition in medical case reports ::: BioBERT
Deep neural language models have recently evolved to a successful method for representing text  In particular, Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) outperformed previous state-of-the-art methods by a large margin on various NLP tasks BIBREF17  For our experiments, we use BioBERT, an adaptation of BERT for the biomedical domain, pre-trained on PubMed abstracts and PMC full-text articles BIBREF18  The BERT architecture for deriving text representations uses 12 hidden layers, consisting of 768 units each  For NER, token level BIO-tag probabilities are computed with a single output layer based on the representations from the last layer of BERT  We fine-tune the model on the entity recognition task during four training epochs with batch size $b=32$, dropout probability $d=0 1$ and learning rate $\eta =2^{-5}$  These hyper-parameters are proposed by Devlin2018 for BERT fine-tuning 
Baseline systems for Named Entity Recognition in medical case reports ::: Evaluation
To evaluate the performance of the four systems, we calculate the span-level precision (P), recall (R) and F1 scores, along with corresponding micro and macro scores  The reported values are shown in Table TABREF29 and are averaged over five folds, utilising the seqeval framework 
With a macro avg  F1-score of 0 59, MTL achieves the best result with a significant margin compared to CRF, BiLSTM-CRF and BERT  This confirms the usefulness of jointly training multiple objectives (minimizing multiple loss functions), and enabling knowledge transfer, especially in a setting with limited data (which is usually the case in the biomedical NLP domain)  This result also suggest the usefulness of BioBERT for other biomedical datasets as reported by Lee2019  Despite being a rather standard approach, CRF outperforms the more elaborated BiLSTM-CRF, presumably due to data scarcity and class imbalance  We hypothesize that an increase in training data would yield better results for BiLSTM-CRF but not outperform transfer learning approach of MTL (or even BioBERT)  In contrast to other common NER corpora, like CoNLL 2003, even the best baseline system only achieves relatively low scores  This outcome is due to the inherent difficulty of the task (annotators are experienced medical doctors) and the small number of training samples 
Conclusion
We present a new corpus, developed to facilitate the processing of case reports  The corpus focuses on five distinct entity types: cases, conditions, factors, findings and modifiers  Where applicable, relationships between entities are also annotated  Additionally, we annotate discontinuous entities with a special relationship type (discontinuous)  The corpus presented in this paper is the very first of its kind and a valuable addition to the scarce number of corpora available in the field of biomedical NLP  Its complexity, given the discontinuous nature of entities and a high number of nested and multi-label entities, poses new challenges for NLP methods applied for NER and can, hence, be a valuable source for insights into what entities “look like in the wild”  Moreover, it can serve as a playground for new modelling techniques such as the resolution of discontinuous entities as well as multi-task learning given the combination of entities and their relations  We provide an evaluation of four distinct NER systems that will serve as robust baselines for future work but which are, as of yet, unable to solve all the complex challenges this dataset holds  A functional service based on the presented corpus is currently being integrated, as a NER service, in the QURATOR platform BIBREF20 
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this article is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through the project QURATOR (Unternehmen Region, Wachstumskern, grant no  03WKDA1A), see http://qurator ai  We want to thank our medical experts for their help annotating the data set, especially Ashlee Finckh and Sophie Klopfenstein 
Context 3: Introduction
Twitter, a micro-blogging and social networking site has emerged as a platform where people express themselves and react to events in real-time  It is estimated that nearly 500 million tweets are sent per day   Twitter data is particularly interesting because of its peculiar nature where people convey messages in short sentences using hashtags, emoticons, emojis etc  In addition, each tweet has meta data like location and language used by the sender  It's challenging to analyze this data because the tweets might not be grammatically correct and the users tend to use informal and slang words all the time  Hence, this poses an interesting problem for NLP researchers  Any advances in using this abundant and diverse data can help understand and analyze information about a person, an event, a product, an organization or a country as a whole  Many notable use cases of the twitter can be found here 
Along the similar lines, The Task 1 of WASSA-2017 BIBREF0 poses a problem of finding emotion intensity of four emotions namely anger, fear, joy, sadness from tweets  In this paper, we describe our approach and experiments to solve this problem  The rest of the paper is laid out as follows: Section 2 describes the system architecture, Section 3 reports results and inference from different experiments, while Section 4 points to ways that the problem can be further explored 
Preprocessing
The preprocessing step modifies the raw tweets before they are passed to feature extraction  Tweets are processed using tweetokenize tool  Twitter specific features are replaced as follows: username handles to USERNAME, phone numbers to PHONENUMBER, numbers to NUMBER, URLs to URL and times to TIME  A continuous sequence of emojis is broken into individual tokens  Finally, all tokens are converted to lowercase 
Feature Extraction
Many tasks related to sentiment or emotion analysis depend upon affect, opinion, sentiment, sense and emotion lexicons  These lexicons associate words to corresponding sentiment or emotion metrics  On the other hand, the semantic meaning of words, sentences, and documents are preserved and compactly represented using low dimensional vectors BIBREF1 instead of one hot encoding vectors which are sparse and high dimensional  Finally, there are traditional NLP features like word N-grams, character N-grams, Part-Of-Speech N-grams and word clusters which are known to perform well on various tasks 
Based on these observations, the feature extraction step is implemented as a union of different independent feature extractors (featurizers) in a light-weight and easy to use Python program EmoInt   It comprises of all features available in the baseline model BIBREF2 along with additional feature extractors and bi-gram support  Fourteen such feature extractors have been implemented which can be clubbed into 3 major categories:
[noitemsep]
Lexicon Features
Word Vectors
Syntax Features
Lexicon Features: AFINN BIBREF3 word list are manually rated for valence with an integer between -5 (Negative Sentiment) and +5 (Positive Sentiment)  Bing Liu BIBREF4 opinion lexicon extract opinion on customer reviews  +/-EffectWordNet BIBREF5 by MPQA group are sense level lexicons  The NRC Affect Intensity BIBREF6 lexicons provide real valued affect intensity  NRC Word-Emotion Association Lexicon BIBREF7 contains 8 sense level associations (anger, fear, anticipation, trust, surprise, sadness, joy, and disgust) and 2 sentiment level associations (negative and positive)  Expanded NRC Word-Emotion Association Lexicon BIBREF8 expands the NRC word-emotion association lexicon for twitter specific language  NRC Hashtag Emotion Lexicon BIBREF9 contains emotion word associations computed on emotion labeled twitter corpus via Hashtags  NRC Hashtag Sentiment Lexicon and Sentiment140 Lexicon BIBREF10 contains sentiment word associations computed on twitter corpus via Hashtags and Emoticons

ground_truth: Unanswerable

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 large is the corpus?
Context 3:  SentiWordNet BIBREF11 assigns to each synset of WordNet three sentiment scores: positivity, negativity, objectivity  Negation lexicons collections are used to count the total occurrence of negative words  In addition to these, SentiStrength BIBREF12 application which estimates the strength of positive and negative sentiment from tweets is also added 
Word Vectors: We focus primarily on the word vector representations (word embeddings) created specifically using the twitter dataset  GloVe BIBREF13 is an unsupervised learning algorithm for obtaining vector representations for words  200-dimensional GloVe embeddings trained on 2 Billion tweets are integrated  Edinburgh embeddings BIBREF14 are obtained by training skip-gram model on Edinburgh corpus BIBREF15   Since tweets are abundant with emojis, Emoji embeddings BIBREF16 which are learned from the emoji descriptions have been used  Embeddings for each tweet are obtained by summing up individual word vectors and then dividing by the number of tokens in the tweet 
Syntactic Features: Syntax specific features such as Word N-grams, Part-Of-Speech N-grams BIBREF17 , Brown Cluster N-grams BIBREF18 obtained using TweetNLP project have been integrated into the system 
The final feature vector is the concatenation of all the individual features  For example, we concatenate average word vectors, sum of NRC Affect Intensities, number of positive and negative Bing Liu lexicons, number of negation words and so on to get final feature vector  The scaling of final features is not required when used with gradient boosted trees  However, scaling steps like standard scaling (zero mean and unit normal) may be beneficial for neural networks as the optimizers work well when the data is centered around origin 
A total of fourteen different feature extractors have been implemented, all of which can be enabled or disabled individually to extract features from a given tweet 
Regression
The dev data set BIBREF19 in the competition was small hence, the train and dev sets were merged to perform 10-fold cross validation  On each fold, a model was trained and the predictions were collected on the remaining dataset  The predictions are averaged across all the folds to generalize the solution and prevent over-fitting  As described in Section SECREF6 , different combinations of feature extractors were used  After performing feature extraction, the data was then passed to various regressors Support Vector Regression, AdaBoost, RandomForestRegressor, and, BaggingRegressor of sklearn BIBREF20   Finally, the chosen top performing models had the least error on evaluation metrics namely Pearson's Correlation Coefficient and Spearman's rank-order correlation 
Parameter Optimization
In order to find the optimal parameter values for the EmoInt system, an extensive grid search was performed through the scikit-Learn framework over all subsets of the training set (shuffled), using stratified 10-fold cross validation and optimizing the Pearson's Correlation score  Best cross-validation results were obtained using AdaBoost meta regressor with base regressor as XGBoost BIBREF21 with 1000 estimators and 0 1 learning rate  Experiments and analysis of results are presented in the next section 
Experimental Results
As described in Section SECREF6 various syntax features were used namely, Part-of-Speech tags, brown clusters of TweetNLP project  However, these didn't perform well in cross validation  Hence, they were dropped from the final system  While performing grid-search as mentioned in Section SECREF14 , keeping all the lexicon based features same, choice of combination of emoji vector and word vectors are varied to minimize cross validation metric  Table TABREF16 describes the results for experiments conducted with different combinations of word vectors

ground_truth: 8,275 sentences and 167,739 words in total

The corpus comprises 8,275 sentences and 167,739 words in total.

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 pretrained word embeddings were used?
Context 3:  Emoji embeddings BIBREF16 give better results than using plain GloVe and Edinburgh embeddings  Edinburgh embeddings outperform GloVe embeddings in Joy and Sadness category but lag behind in Anger and Fear category  The official submission comprised of the top-performing model for each emotion category  This system ranked 3 for the entire test dataset and 2 for the subset of the test data formed by taking every instance with a gold emotion intensity score greater than or equal to 0 5  Post competition, experiments were performed on ensembling diverse models for improving the accuracy  An ensemble obtained by averaging the results of the top 2 performing models outperforms all the individual models 
Feature Importance
The relative feature importance can be assessed by the relative depth of the feature used as a decision node in the tree  Features used at the top of the tree contribute to the final prediction decision of a larger fraction of the input samples  The expected fraction of the samples they contribute to can thus be used as an estimate of the relative importance of the features  By averaging the measure over several randomized trees, the variance of the estimate can be reduced and used as a measure of relative feature importance  In Figure FIGREF18 feature importance graphs are plotted for each emotion to infer which features are playing the major role in identifying emotional intensity in tweets  +/-EffectWordNet BIBREF5 , NRC Hashtag Sentiment Lexicon, Sentiment140 Lexicon BIBREF10 and NRC Hashtag Emotion Lexicon BIBREF9 are playing the most important role 
System Limitations
It is important to understand how the model performs in different scenarios  Table TABREF20 analyzes when the system performs the best and worst for each emotion  Since the features used are mostly lexicon based, the system has difficulties in capturing the overall sentiment and it leads to amplifying or vanishing intensity signals  For instance, in example 4 of fear louder and shaking lexicons imply fear but overall sentence doesn't imply fear  A similar pattern can be found in the 4 example of Anger and 3 example of Joy  The system has difficulties in understanding of sarcastic tweets, for instance, in the 3 tweet of Anger the user expressed anger but used lol which is used in a positive sense most of the times and hence the system did a bad job at predicting intensity  The system also fails in predicting sentences having deeper emotion and sentiment which humans can understand with a little context  For example, in sample 4 of sadness, the tweet refers to post travel blues which humans can understand  But with little context, it is difficult for the system to accurately estimate the intensity  The performance is poor with very short sentences as there are fewer indicators to provide a reasonable estimate 
Future Work & Conclusion
The paper studies the effectiveness of various affect lexicons word embeddings to estimate emotional intensity in tweets  A light-weight easy to use affect computing framework (EmoInt) to facilitate ease of experimenting with various lexicon features for text tasks is open-sourced  It provides plug and play access to various feature extractors and handy scripts for creating ensembles 
Few problems explained in the analysis section can be resolved with the help of sentence embeddings which take the context information into consideration  The features used in the system are generic enough to use them in other affective computing tasks on social media text, not just tweet data  Another interesting feature of lexicon-based systems is their good run-time performance during prediction, future work to benchmark the performance of the system can prove vital for deploying in a real-world setting 
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the organizers of the WASSA-2017 Shared Task on Emotion Intensity, for providing the data, the guidelines and timely support 

ground_truth: Pretrained word embeddings  were not used

GloVe, Edinburgh embeddings BIBREF14, Emoji embeddings BIBREF16