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 is the ground truth for fake news established?
Context 1: 10pt
1 10pt
[ Characterizing Political Fake News in Twitter by its Meta-DataJulio Amador Díaz LópezAxel Oehmichen Miguel Molina-Solana( j amador, axelfrancois oehmichen11, mmolinas@imperial ac uk ) Imperial College London This article presents a preliminary approach towards characterizing political fake news on Twitter through the analysis of their meta-data  In particular, we focus on more than 1 5M tweets collected on the day of the election of Donald Trump as 45th president of the United States of America  We use the meta-data embedded within those tweets in order to look for differences between tweets containing fake news and tweets not containing them  Specifically, we perform our analysis only on tweets that went viral, by studying proxies for users' exposure to the tweets, by characterizing accounts spreading fake news, and by looking at their polarization  We found significant differences on the distribution of followers, the number of URLs on tweets, and the verification of the users 
]
Introduction
While fake news, understood as deliberately misleading pieces of information, have existed since long ago (e g  it is not unusual to receive news falsely claiming the death of a celebrity), the term reached the mainstream, particularly so in politics, during the 2016 presidential election in the United States BIBREF0   Since then, governments and corporations alike (e g  Google BIBREF1 and Facebook BIBREF2 ) have begun efforts to tackle fake news as they can affect political decisions BIBREF3   Yet, the ability to define, identify and stop fake news from spreading is limited 
Since the Obama campaign in 2008, social media has been pervasive in the political arena in the United States  Studies report that up to 62% of American adults receive their news from social media BIBREF4   The wide use of platforms such as Twitter and Facebook has facilitated the diffusion of fake news by simplifying the process of receiving content with no significant third party filtering, fact-checking or editorial judgement  Such characteristics make these platforms suitable means for sharing news that, disguised as legit ones, try to confuse readers 
Such use and their prominent rise has been confirmed by Craig Silverman, a Canadian journalist who is a prominent figure on fake news BIBREF5 : “In the final three months of the US presidential campaign, the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlet” 
Our current research hence departs from the assumption that social media is a conduit for fake news and asks the question of whether fake news (as spam was some years ago) can be identified, modelled and eventually blocked  In order to do so, we use a sample of more that 1 5M tweets collected on November 8th 2016 —election day in the United States— with the goal of identifying features that tweets containing fake news are likely to have  As such, our paper aims to provide a preliminary characterization of fake news in Twitter by looking into meta-data embedded in tweets  Considering meta-data as a relevant factor of analysis is in line with findings reported by Morris et al  BIBREF6   We argue that understanding differences between tweets containing fake news and regular tweets will allow researchers to design mechanisms to block fake news in Twitter 
Specifically, our goals are: 1) compare the characteristics of tweets labelled as containing fake news to tweets labelled as not containing them, 2) characterize, through their meta-data, viral tweets containing fake news and the accounts from which they originated, and 3) determine the extent to which tweets containing fake news expressed polarized political views 
For our study, we used the number of retweets to single-out those that went viral within our sample  Tweets within that subset (viral tweets hereafter) are varied and relate to different topics  We consider that a tweet contains fake news if its text falls within any of the following categories described by Rubin et al  BIBREF7 (see next section for the details of such categories): serious fabrication, large-scale hoaxes, jokes taken at face value, slanted reporting of real facts and stories where the truth is contentious  The dataset BIBREF8 , manually labelled by an expert, has been publicly released and is available to researchers and interested parties 
From our results, the following main observations can be made:
Our findings resonate with similar work done on fake news such as the one from Allcot and Gentzkow BIBREF9   Therefore, even if our study is a preliminary attempt at characterizing fake news on Twitter using only their meta-data, our results provide external validity to previous research  Moreover, our work not only stresses the importance of using meta-data, but also underscores which parameters may be useful to identify fake news on Twitter 
The rest of the paper is organized as follows  The next section briefly discusses where this work is located within the literature on fake news and contextualizes the type of fake news we are studying  Then, we present our hypotheses, the data, and the methodology we follow  Finally, we present our findings, conclusions of this study, and future lines of work 
Defining Fake news
Our research is connected to different strands of academic knowledge related to the phenomenon of fake news  In relation to Computer Science, a recent survey by Conroy and colleagues BIBREF10 identifies two popular approaches to single-out fake news  On the one hand, the authors pointed to linguistic approaches consisting in using text, its linguistic characteristics and machine learning techniques to automatically flag fake news  On the other, these researchers underscored the use of network approaches, which make use of network characteristics and meta-data, to identify fake news 
With respect to social sciences, efforts from psychology, political science and sociology, have been dedicated to understand why people consume and/or believe misinformation BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 , BIBREF14   Most of these studies consistently reported that psychological biases such as priming effects and confirmation bias play an important role in people ability to discern misinformation 
In relation to the production and distribution of fake news, a recent paper in the field of Economics BIBREF9 found that most fake news sites use names that resemble those of legitimate organizations, and that sites supplying fake news tend to be short-lived  These authors also noticed that fake news items are more likely shared than legitimate articles coming from trusted sources, and they tend to exhibit a larger level of polarization 
The conceptual issue of how to define fake news is a serious and unresolved issue  As the focus of our work is not attempting to offer light on this, we will rely on work by other authors to describe what we consider as fake news  In particular, we use the categorization provided by Rubin et al  BIBREF7   The five categories they described, together with illustrative examples from our dataset, are as follows:
Research Hypotheses
Previous works on the area (presented in the section above) suggest that there may be important determinants for the adoption and diffusion of fake news  Our hypotheses builds on them and identifies three important dimensions that may help distinguishing fake news from legit information:
Taking those three dimensions into account, we propose the following hypotheses about the features that we believe can help to identify tweets containing fake news from those not containing them  They will be later tested over our collected dataset 
Exposure 
Characterization 
Polarization 
Data and Methodology
For this study, we collected publicly available tweets using Twitter's public API  Given the nature of the data, it is important to emphasize that such tweets are subject to Twitter's terms and conditions which indicate that users consent to the collection, transfer, manipulation, storage, and disclosure of data  Therefore, we do not expect ethical, legal, or social implications from the usage of the tweets  Our data was collected using search terms related to the presidential election held in the United States on November 8th 2016  Particularly, we queried Twitter's streaming API, more precisely the filter endpoint of the streaming API, using the following hashtags and user handles: #MyVote2016, #ElectionDay, #electionnight, @realDonaldTrump and @HillaryClinton  The data collection ran for just one day (Nov 8th 2016) 
One straightforward way of sharing information on Twitter is by using the retweet functionality, which enables a user to share a exact copy of a tweet with his followers  Among the reasons for retweeting, Body et al  BIBREF15 reported the will to: 1) spread tweets to a new audience, 2) to show one’s role as a listener, and 3) to agree with someone or validate the thoughts of others  As indicated, our initial interest is to characterize tweets containing fake news that went viral (as they are the most harmful ones, as they reach a wider audience), and understand how it differs from other viral tweets (that do not contain fake news)  For our study, we consider that a tweet went viral if it was retweeted more than 1000 times 
Once we have the dataset of viral tweets, we eliminated duplicates (some of the tweets were collected several times because they had several handles) and an expert manually inspected the text field within the tweets to label them as containing fake news, or not containing them (according to the characterization presented before)  This annotated dataset BIBREF8 is publicly available and can be freely reused 
Finally, we use the following fields within tweets (from the ones returned by Twitter's API) to compare their distributions and look for differences between viral tweets containing fake news and viral tweets not containing fake news:
In the following section, we provide graphical descriptions of the distribution of each of the identified attributes for the two sets of tweets (those labelled as containing fake news and those labelled as not containing them)  Where appropriate, we normalized and/or took logarithms of the data for better representation  To gain a better understanding of the significance of those differences, we use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with the null hypothesis that both distributions are equal 
Results
The sample collected consisted on 1 785 855 tweets published by 848 196 different users  Within our sample, we identified 1327 tweets that went viral (retweeted more than 1000 times by the 8th of November 2016) produced by 643 users  Such small subset of viral tweets were retweeted on 290 841 occasions in the observed time-window 
The 1327 `viral' tweets were manually annotated as containing fake news or not  The annotation was carried out by a single person in order to obtain a consistent annotation throughout the dataset  Out of those 1327 tweets, we identified 136 as potentially containing fake news (according to the categories previously described), and the rest were classified as `non containing fake news'  Note that the categorization is far from being perfect given the ambiguity of fake news themselves and human judgement involved in the process of categorization  Because of this, we do not claim that this dataset can be considered a ground truth 
The following results detail characteristics of these tweets along the previously mentioned dimensions  Table TABREF23 reports the actual differences (together with their associated p-values) of the distributions of viral tweets containing fake news and viral tweets not containing them for every variable considered 
Exposure
Figure FIGREF24 shows that, in contrast to other kinds of viral tweets, those containing fake news were created more recently  As such, Twitter users were exposed to fake news related to the election for a shorter period of time 
However, in terms of retweets, Figure FIGREF25 shows no apparent difference between containing fake news or not containing them  That is confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test, which does not discard the hypothesis that the associated distributions are equal 
In relation to the number of favourites, users that generated at least a viral tweet containing fake news appear to have, on average, less favourites than users that do not generate them  Figure FIGREF26 shows the distribution of favourites  Despite the apparent visual differences, the difference are not statistically significant 
Finally, the number of hashtags used in viral fake news appears to be larger than those in other viral tweets  Figure FIGREF27 shows the density distribution of the number of hashtags used  However, once again, we were not able to find any statistical difference between the average number of hashtags in a viral tweet and the average number of hashtags in viral fake news 
Characterization
We found that 82 users within our sample were spreading fake news (i e  they produced at least one tweet which was labelled as fake news)  Out of those, 34 had verified accounts, and the rest were unverified  From the 48 unverified accounts, 6 have been suspended by Twitter at the date of writing, 3 tried to imitate legitimate accounts of others, and 4 accounts have been already deleted  Figure FIGREF28 shows the proportion of verified accounts to unverified accounts for viral tweets (containing fake news vs  not containing fake news)  From the chart, it is clear that there is a higher chance of fake news coming from unverified accounts 
Turning to friends, accounts distributing fake news appear to have, on average, the same number of friends than those distributing tweets with no fake news  However, the density distribution of friends from the accounts (Figure FIGREF29 ) shows that there is indeed a statistically significant difference in their distributions 
If we take into consideration the number of followers, accounts generating viral tweets with fake news do have a very different distribution on this dimension, compared to those accounts generating viral tweets with no fake news (see Figure FIGREF30 )  In fact, such differences are statistically significant 
A useful representation for friends and followers is the ratio between friends/followers  Figures FIGREF31 and FIGREF32 show this representation  Notice that accounts spreading viral tweets with fake news have, on average, a larger ratio of friends/followers  The distribution of those accounts not generating fake news is more evenly distributed 
With respect to the number of mentions, Figure FIGREF33 shows that viral tweets labelled as containing fake news appear to use mentions to other users less frequently than viral tweets not containing fake news  In other words, tweets containing fake news mostly contain 1 mention, whereas other tweets tend to have two)  Such differences are statistically significant 
The analysis (Figure FIGREF34 ) of the presence of media in the tweets in our dataset shows that tweets labelled as not containing fake news appear to present more media elements than those labelled as fake news  However, the difference is not statistically significant 
On the other hand, Figure FIGREF35 shows that viral tweets containing fake news appear to include more URLs to other sites than viral tweets that do not contain fake news  In fact, the difference between the two distributions is statistically significant (assuming INLINEFORM0 ) 
Polarization
Finally, manual inspection of the text field of those viral tweets labelled as containing fake news shows that 117 of such tweets expressed support for Donald Trump, while only 8 supported Hillary Clinton  The remaining tweets contained fake news related to other topics, not expressing support for any of the candidates 
Discussion
As a summary, and constrained by our existing dataset, we made the following observations regarding differences between viral tweets labelled as containing fake news and viral tweets labelled as not containing them:
These findings (related to our initial hypothesis in Table TABREF44 ) clearly suggest that there are specific pieces of meta-data about tweets that may allow the identification of fake news  One such parameter is the time of exposure  Viral tweets containing fake news are shorter-lived than those containing other type of content  This notion seems to resonate with our findings showing that a number of accounts spreading fake news have already been deleted or suspended by Twitter by the time of writing  If one considers that researchers using different data have found similar results BIBREF9 , it appears that the lifetime of accounts, together with the age of the questioned viral content could be useful to identify fake news  In the light of this finding, accounts newly created should probably put under higher scrutiny than older ones  This in fact, would be a nice a-priori bias for a Bayesian classifier 
Accounts spreading fake news appear to have a larger proportion of friends/followers (i e  they have, on average, the same number of friends but a smaller number of followers) than those spreading viral content only  Together with the fact that, on average, tweets containing fake news have more URLs than those spreading viral content, it is possible to hypothesize that, both, the ratio of friends/followers of the account producing a viral tweet and number of URLs contained in such a tweet could be useful to single-out fake news in Twitter  Not only that, but our finding related to the number of URLs is in line with intuitions behind the incentives to create fake news commonly found in the literature BIBREF9 (in particular that of obtaining revenue through click-through advertising) 
Finally, it is interesting to notice that the content of viral fake news was highly polarized  This finding is also in line with those of Alcott et al  BIBREF9   This feature suggests that textual sentiment analysis of the content of tweets (as most researchers do), together with the above mentioned parameters from meta-data, may prove useful for identifying fake news 
Conclusions
With the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the concept of fake news has become a broadly-known phenomenon that is getting tremendous attention from governments and media companies  We have presented a preliminary study on the meta-data of a publicly available dataset of tweets that became viral during the day of the 2016 US presidential election  Our aim is to advance the understanding of which features might be characteristic of viral tweets containing fake news in comparison with viral tweets without fake news 
We believe that the only way to automatically identify those deceitful tweets (i e  containing fake news) is by actually understanding and modelling them  Only then, the automation of the processes of tagging and blocking these tweets can be successfully performed  In the same way that spam was fought, we anticipate fake news will suffer a similar evolution, with social platforms implementing tools to deal with them  With most works so far focusing on the actual content of the tweets, ours is a novel attempt from a different, but also complementary, angle 
Within the used dataset, we found there are differences around exposure, characteristics of accounts spreading fake news and the tone of the content  Those findings suggest that it is indeed possible to model and automatically detect fake news  We plan to replicate and validate our experiments in an extended sample of tweets (until 4 months after the US election), and tests the predictive power of the features we found relevant within our sample 
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interest exist 
Context 2: Introduction
Medical search engines are an essential component for many online medical applications, such as online diagnosis systems and medical document databases  A typical online diagnosis system, for instance, relies on a medical search engine  The search engine takes as input a user query that describes some symptoms and then outputs clinical concept entries that provide relevant information to assist in diagnosing the problem  One challenge medical search engines face is the segmentation of individual clinical entities  When a user query consists of multiple clinical entities, a search engine would often fail to recognize them as separate entities  For example, the user query “fever joint pain weight loss headache” contains four separate clinical entities: “fever”, “joint pain”, “weight loss”, and “headache”  But when the search engine does not recognize them as separate entities and proceeds to retrieve results for each word in the query, it may find "pain" in body locations other than "joint pain", or it may miss "headache" altogether, for example  Some search engines allow the users to enter a single clinical concept by selecting from an auto-completion pick list  But this could also result in retrieving inaccurate or partial results and lead to poor user experience 
We want to improve the medical search engine so that it can accurately retrieve all the relevant clinical concepts mentioned in a user query, where relevant clinical concepts are defined with respect to the terminologies the search engine uses  The problem of extracting clinical concept mentions from a user query can be seen as a variant of the Concept Extraction (CE) task in the frequently-cited NLP challenges in healthcare, such as 2010 i2b2/VA BIBREF0 and 2013 ShARe/CLEF Task 1 BIBREF1  Both CE tasks in 2010 i2b2/VA and 2013 ShARe/CLEF Task 1 ask the participants to design an algorithm to tag a set of predefined entities of interest in clinical notes  These entity tagging tasks are also known as clinical Named Entity Recognition (NER)  For example, the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA defines three types of entities: “problem”, “treatment”, and “test”  The CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF defines various types of disorder such as “injury or poisoning”, "disease or syndrome”, etc  In addition to tagging, the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF has an encoding component which requires selecting one and only one Concept Unique Identifier (CUI) from Systematized Nomenclature Of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) for each disorder entity tagged  Our problem, similar to the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF, also contains two sub-problems: tagging mentions of entities of interest (entity tagging), and selecting appropriate terms from a glossary to match the mentions (term matching)  However, several major differences exist  First, compared to clinical notes, the user queries are much shorter, less technical, and often less coherent  Second, instead of encoding, we are dealing with term matching where we rank a few best terms that match an entity, instead of selecting only one  This is because the users who type the queries may not have a clear idea about what they are looking for, or could be laymen who know little terminology, it may be more helpful to provide a set of likely results and let the users choose  Third, the types of entities are different  Each medical search engine may have its own types of entities to tag  There is also one minor difference in the tagging scheme between our problem and the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF - We limit our scope to dealing with entities of consecutive words and not disjoint entities   We use only Beginning, Inside, Outside (BIO) tags  Given the differences listed above, we need to customize a framework consisting of an entity tagging and term matching component for our CE problem 
Related Work
An effective model that has been commonly used for NER problem is a Bi-directional LSTM with a Conditional Random Field (CRF) on the top layer (BiLSTM-CRF), which is described in the next section  Combining LSTM’s power of representing relations between words and CRF’s capability of accounting for tag sequence constraints, Huang et al  BIBREF2 proposed the BiLSTM-CRF model and used handcrafted word features as the input to the model  Lample et al  BIBREF3 used a combination of character-level and word-level word embeddings as the input to BiLSTM-CRF  Since then, similar models with variation in types of word embeddings have been used extensively for clinical CE tasks and produced state-of-the-art results BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6, BIBREF7  Word embeddings have become the cornerstone of the neural models in NLP since the famous Word2vec BIBREF8 model demonstrated its power in word analogy tasks  One well-known example is that after training Word2vec on a large amount of news data, we can get word relations such as $vector(^{\prime }king^{\prime }) - vector(^{\prime }queen^{\prime }) + vector(^{\prime }woman^{\prime }) \approx vector(^{\prime }man^{\prime })$  More sophisticated word embedding technique emerged since Word2vec  It has been shown empirically that better quality in word embeddings leads to better performance in many downstream NLP including entity tagging BIBREF9, BIBREF10  Recently, contextualized word embeddings generated by deep learning models, such as ELMo BIBREF11, BERT BIBREF12, and Flair BIBREF13, have been shown to be more effective in various NLP tasks  In our project, we make use of a fine-tuned ELMo model and a fine-tuned Flair model in the medical domain  We experiment with the word embeddings from the two fine-tuned models as the input to the BiLSTM-CRF model separately and compare the results 
Tang et al  BIBREF14 provided straightforward algorithm for term matching  The algorithm starts with finding candidate terms that contain ALL the entity words, with term frequency - inverse document frequency (tf-idf) weighting  Then the candidates are ranked based on the pairwise cosine distance between the word embeddings of the candidates and the entity 
Framework
We adopt the tagging - encoding pipeline framework from the CE task in 2013 ShARe/CLEF  We first tag the clinical entities in the user query and then select relevant terms from a glossary in dermatology to match the entities 
Framework ::: Entity Tagging
We use the same BiLSTM-CRF model proposed by Huang et al  BIBREF2  An illustration of the architecture is shown in Figure FIGREF6   Given a sequence (or sentence) of n tokens, $r = (w_1, w_2,   , w_n)$, we use a fine-tuned ELMo model to generate contextual word embeddings for all the tokens in the sentence, where a token refers to a word or punctuation  We denote the ELMo embedding, $x$, for a token $w$ in the sentence $r$ by $x = ELMo(w|r)$  The notation and the procedure described here can be adopted for Flair embeddings or other embeddings  Now, given a sequence of tokens in ELMo embeddings, $X =(x_1, x_2,    , x_n)$, the BiLSTM layer generates a matrix of scores, $P(\theta )$ of size $n \times k$, where $k$ is the number of tag types, and $\theta $ is the parameters of the BiLSTM  To simplify notation, we will omit the $\theta $ and write $P$  Then, $P_{i,j}$ denotes the score of the token, $x_i$, being assigned to the $j$th tag  Since certain constraints may exist in the transition between tags, an "O" tag should not be followed by an "I" tag, for example, a transition matrix, $A$, of dimension $(k+2)\times (k+2)$, is initialized to model the constraints  The learnable parameters, $A_{i,j}$, represent the probability of the $j$th tag follows the $i$th tag in a sequence  For example, if we index the tags by: 1:“B”, 2:“I”, and 3:“O”, then $A_{1,3}$ would be the probability that an “O” tag follows a “B” tag  A beginning transition and an end transition are inserted in $A$ and hence $A$ is of dimension $(k+2)\times (k+2)$ 
Given a sequence of tags, $Y=(y_1,y_2,   ,y_n)$, where each $y_i$, $1\le i \le n$, corresponds to an index of the tags, the score of the sequence is then given by
The probability of the sequence of tags is then calculated by a softmax,
where $\lbrace Y_x\rbrace $ denotes the set of all possible tag sequences  During training, the objective function is to maximize $\log (P(Y|X))$ by adjusting $A$ and $P$ 
Framework ::: Term Matching
The term matching algorithm of Tang et al  BIBREF14 is adopted with some major modifications  First, to identify candidate terms, we use a much looser string search algorithm where we stem the entity words with snowball stemmer and then find candidate terms which contain ANY non-stopword words in the entity  The stemming is mainly used to represent a word in its stem  For example, “legs” becomes “leg”, and “jammed” becomes “jam”  Thus, stemming can provide more tolerance when finding candidates  Similarly, finding candidates using the condition ANY (instead of ALL) also increases the tolerance  However, if the tagged entity contains stopwords such as “in”, “on”, etc , the pool of candidates will naturally grow very large and increase the computation cost for later part, because even completely irrelevant terms may contain stopwords  Therefore, we match based on non-stopwords only  To illustrate the points above, suppose a query is tagged with the entity
Ex  3 1 “severe burns on legs”,
and one relevant term is “leg burn”  After stemming, “burns” and “legs” in Ex UNKREF12 become “burn” and “leg”, respectively, allowing "leg burn" to be considered as a candidate  Although the word “severe” is not in the term “leg burn”, the term is still considered a candidate because we selected using ANY  The stopword “on” is ignored when finding candidate terms so that not every term that contains the word “on” is added to the candidate pool  When a candidate term, $C$, is found in this manner for the tagged entity, $E$, we calculate the semantic similarity score, $s$, between $C$ and $E$ in two steps  In the first step, calculate the maximum similarity score for each word in $C$ as shown in Figure FIGREF10  Given a word in the candidate term, $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le m$, $m$ is the number of words in the candidate term) and a word in the tagged entity, $E_j$ Their similarity score, $s_{ij}$ (shown as the element in the boxed matrix in Figure FIGREF10), is given by
where $ELMo(C_i|C)$ and $ELMo(E_j|E)$ are the ELMo embeddings for the word $C_i$ and $E_j$, respectively  The ELMo embeddings have the same dimension for all words when using the same fine-tuned ELMo model  Thus, we can use a distance function (e g , the cosine distance), denoted $d(\cdot )$ in equation DISPLAY_FORM13, to compute the semantic similarity between words  In step 2, we calculate the candidate-entity relevance score (similarity) using the formula
where $s_c$ is a score threshold, and $\mathbb {I} \lbrace max(\vec{S_i}) > s_c\rbrace $ is an indicator function that equals 1 if $max(\vec{S_i}) > s_c$ or equals 0 if not  In equation DISPLAY_FORM14 we define a metric that measures “information coverage” of the candidate terms with respect to a tagged entity  If the constituent words of a candidate term are relevant to the constituent words in the tagged entity, then the candidate term offers more information coverage  Intuitively, the more relevant words present in the candidate term, the more relevant the candidate is to the tagged entity  The purpose of the cutoff, $s_c$, is to screen the $(C_i,E_j)$ word pairs that are dissimilar, so that they do not contribute to information coverage  One can adjust the strictness of the entity - terminology matching by adjusting $s_c$  The higher we set $s_c$, the fewer candidate terms will be selected for a tagged entity  A normalization factor, $\frac{1}{m}$, is added to give preference to more concise candidate terms given the same amount of information coverage 
We need to create an extra stopword list to include words such as “configuration” and “color”, and exclude these words from the word count for a candidate term  This is because the terms associated with the description of color or configuration usually have the word “color” or “configuration” in them  On the other hand, a user query normally does not contain such words  For example, a tagged entity in a user query could be “round yellow patches”, for which the relevant terminologies include “round configuration” and “yellow color”  Since we applied a normalization factor, $\frac{1}{m}$, to the relevance score, the word “color” and “configuration” would lower the relevance score because they do not have a counterpart in the tagged entity  Therefore, we need to exclude them from word count  Once the process is complete, calculate $s(C,E)$ for all candidate terms and then we can apply a threshold on all $s(C,E)$ to ignore candidate terms with low information coverage  Finally, rank the terms by their $s(C,E)$ and return the ranked list as the results 
Experiments ::: Data
Despite the greater similarity between our task and the 2013 ShARe/CLEF Task 1, we use the clinical notes from the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA on account of 1) the data from 2010 i2b2/VA being easier to access and parse, 2) 2013 ShARe/CLEF containing disjoint entities and hence requiring more complicated tagging schemes  The synthesized user queries are generated using the aforementioned dermatology glossary  Tagged sentences are extracted from the clinical notes  Sentences with no clinical entity present are ignored  22,489 tagged sentences are extracted from the clinical notes  We will refer to these tagged sentences interchangeably as the i2b2 data  The sentences are shuffled and split into train/dev/test set with a ratio of 7:2:1  The synthesized user queries are composed by randomly selecting several clinical terms from the dermatology glossary and then combining them in no particular order  When combining the clinical terms, we attach the BIO tags to their constituent words  The synthesized user queries (13,697 in total) are then split into train/dev/test set with the same ratio  Next, each set in the i2b2 data and the corresponding set in the synthesized query data are combined to form a hybrid train/dev/test set, respectively  This way we ensure that in each hybrid train/dev/test set, the ratio between the i2b2 data and the synthesized query data is the same 
The reason for combining the two data is their drastic structural difference (See figure FIGREF16 for an example)  Previously, when trained on the i2b2 data only, the BiLSTM-CRF model was not able to segment clinical entities at the correct boundary  It would fail to recognize the user query in Figure FIGREF16(a) as four separate entities  On the other hand, if the model was trained solely on the synthesized user queries, we could imagine that it would fail miserably on any queries that resemble the sentence in Figure FIGREF16(b) because the model would have never seen an “O” tag in the training data  Therefore, it is necessary to use the hybrid training data containing both the i2b2 data and the synthesized user queries 
To make the hybrid training data, we need to unify the tags  Recall that in Section SECREF1 we point out that the tags are different for the different tasks and datasets  Since we use custom tags for dermatology glossary in our problem, we would need to convert the tags used in 2010 i2b2/VA  But this would be an infeasible job as we need experts to manually do that  An alternative is to avoid distinguishing the tag types and label all tags under the generic BIO tags 
Experiments ::: Setup
To show the effects of using the hybrid training data, we trained two models of the same architecture and hyperparameters  One model was trained on the hybrid data and will be referred to as hybrid NER model  The other model was trained on clinical notes only and will be referred to as i2b2 NER model  We evaluated the performance of the NER models by micro-F1 score on the test set of both the synthesized queries and the i2b2 data 
We used the BiLSTM-CRF implementation provided by the flair package BIBREF16  We set the hidden size value to be 256 in the LSTM structure and left everything else at default values for the SequenceTagger model on flair  For word embeddings, we used the ELMo embeddings fine-tuned on PubMed articles and flair embeddings BIBREF13 trained on $5\%$ of PubMed abstracts , respectively  We trained models for 10 epochs and experimented with different learning rate, mini batch size, and dropouts  We ran hyperparameter optimization tests to find the best combination  $S_c$ is set to be 0 6 in our experiment 
Experiments ::: Hyperparameter Tuning
We defined the following hyperparameter search space:
embeddings: [“ELMo on pubmed”, “stacked flair on pubmed”],
hidden_size: [128, 256],
learning_rate: [0 05, 0 1],
mini_batch_size: [32, 64, 128] 
The hyperparameter optimization was performed using Hyperopt   Three evaluations were run for each combination of hyperparameters  Each ran for 10 epochs  Then the results were averaged to give the performance for that particular combination of hyperparameters 
Experiments ::: Results
From the hyperparameter tuning we found that the best combination was
embeddings: “ELMo on pubmed”,
hidden_size: 256,
learning_rate: 0 05,
mini_batch_size: 32 
With the above hyperparameter setting, the hybrid NER model achieved a F1 score of $0 995$ on synthesized queries and $0 948$ on clinical notes while the i2b2 NER model achieved a F1 score of $0 441$ on synthesized queries and $0 927$ on clinical notes (See Table TABREF23) 
Since there was no ground truth available for the retrieved terms, we randomly picked a few samples to assess its performance  Some example outputs of our complete framework on real user queries are shown in Figure FIGREF24  For example, from the figure we see that the query "child fever double vision dizzy" was correctly tagged with four entities: "child", "fever", "double vision", and "dizzy"  A list of terms from our glossary was matched to each entity  In real world application, the lists of terms will be presented to the user as the retrieval results to their queries 
Discussion
In most real user queries we sampled, the entities were tagged at the correct boundary and the tagging was complete (such as the ones shown in Figure FIGREF24)  Only on a few user queries the tagging was controversial  For example, the query “Erythematous blanching round, oval patches on torso, extremities” was tagged as “Erythematous blanching” and “oval patches on torso”  The entity “extremities” was missing  The segmentation was also not correct  A more appropriate tagging would be “Erythematous blanching round, oval patches”, “torso”, and “extremities”  The tagging could be further improved by synthesizing more realistic user queries  Recall that the synthesized user queries were created by randomly combining terminologies from the dermatology glossary, which, while providing data that helped the model learn entity segmentation, did not reflect the co-occurrence information in real user queries  For example, there could be two clinical entities that often co-occur or never co-occur in a user query  But since the synthesized user queries we used combined terms randomly, the co-occurrence information was thus missing 
The final retrieval results of our framework were not evaluated quantitatively in terms of recall and precision, due the the lack of ground truth  When ground truth becomes available, we will be able to evaluate our framework more thoroughly  Recently, a fine-tuned BERT model in the medical domain called BioBERT BIBREF17 has attracted some attention in the medical NLP domain  We could experiment with BioBERT embeddings in the future  We could also include query expansion technique for term matching  When finding candidate terms for an entity, our first step was still based on string matching  Given that there might be multiple entities that could be matched to the same term, it could be hard to include all these entities in the glossary and hard to match terms to these entities 
Conclusion
In this project, we tackle the problem of extracting clinical concepts from user queries on medical search engines  By training a BiLSTM-CRF model on a hybrid data consisting of synthesized user queries and sentences from clinical note, we adopt a CE framework for clinical user queries with minimal effort spent on annotating user queries  We find that the hybrid data enables the NER model perform better on both tagging the user queries and the clinical note sentences  Furthermore, our framework is built on an easy-to-use deep learning NLP Python library, which lends it more prospective value to various online medical applications that employ medical search engines 
Acknowledgment
This paper results from a technical report of a project the authors have worked on with visualDx, a healthcare informatics company that provides web-based clinical decision support system  The authors would like to thank visualDx for providing them the opportunity to work on such an exciting project  In particular, the authors would like to thank Roy Robinson, the Vice President of Technology and Medical Informatics at visualDx, for providing the synthesized user queries, as well as preliminary feedback on the performance of our framework 
Context 3: Introduction
We posses a wealth of prior knowledge about many natural language processing tasks  For example, in text categorization, we know that words such as NBA, player, and basketball are strong indicators of the sports category BIBREF0 , and words like terrible, boring, and messing indicate a negative polarity while words like perfect, exciting, and moving suggest a positive polarity in sentiment classification 
A key problem arisen here, is how to leverage such knowledge to guide the learning process, an interesting problem for both NLP and machine learning communities  Previous studies addressing the problem fall into several lines  First, to leverage prior knowledge to label data BIBREF1 , BIBREF2   Second, to encode prior knowledge with a prior on parameters, which can be commonly seen in many Bayesian approaches BIBREF3 , BIBREF4   Third, to formalise prior knowledge with additional variables and dependencies BIBREF5   Last, to use prior knowledge to control the distributions over latent output variables BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , which makes the output variables easily interpretable 
However, a crucial problem, which has rarely been addressed, is the bias in the prior knowledge that we supply to the learning model  Would the model be robust or sensitive to the prior knowledge? Or, which kind of knowledge is appropriate for the task? Let's see an example: we may be a baseball fan but unfamiliar with hockey so that we can provide a few number of feature words of baseball, but much less of hockey for a baseball-hockey classification task  Such prior knowledge may mislead the model with heavy bias to baseball  If the model cannot handle this situation appropriately, the performance may be undesirable 
In this paper, we investigate into the problem in the framework of Generalized Expectation Criteria BIBREF7   The study aims to reveal the factors of reducing the sensibility of the prior knowledge and therefore to make the model more robust and practical  To this end, we introduce auxiliary regularization terms in which our prior knowledge is formalized as distribution over output variables  Recall the example just mentioned, though we do not have enough knowledge to provide features for class hockey, it is easy for us to provide some neutral words, namely words that are not strong indicators of any class, like player here  As one of the factors revealed in this paper, supplying neutral feature words can boost the performance remarkably, making the model more robust 
More attractively, we do not need manual annotation to label these neutral feature words in our proposed approach 
More specifically, we explore three regularization terms to address the problem: (1) a regularization term associated with neutral features; (2) the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term; and (3) the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution  For the first manner, we simply use the most common features as neutral features and assume the neutral features are distributed uniformly over class labels  For the second and third one, we assume we have some knowledge about the class distribution which will be detailed soon later 
To summarize, the main contributions of this work are as follows:
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we briefly describe the generalized expectation criteria and present the proposed regularization terms  In Section 3, we conduct extensive experiments to justify the proposed methods  We survey related work in Section 4, and summarize our work in Section 5 
Method
We address the robustness problem on top of GE-FL BIBREF0 , a GE method which leverages labeled features as prior knowledge  A labeled feature is a strong indicator of a specific class and is manually provided to the classifier  For example, words like amazing, exciting can be labeled features for class positive in sentiment classification 
Generalized Expectation Criteria
Generalized expectation (GE) criteria BIBREF7 provides us a natural way to directly constrain the model in the preferred direction  For example, when we know the proportion of each class of the dataset in a classification task, we can guide the model to predict out a pre-specified class distribution 
Formally, in a parameter estimation objective function, a GE term expresses preferences on the value of some constraint functions about the model's expectation  Given a constraint function $G({\rm x}, y)$ , a conditional model distribution $p_\theta (y|\rm x)$ , an empirical distribution $\tilde{p}({\rm x})$ over input samples and a score function $S$ , a GE term can be expressed as follows:
$$S(E_{\tilde{p}({\rm x})}[E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]])$$   (Eq  4)
Learning from Labeled Features
Druck et al  ge-fl proposed GE-FL to learn from labeled features using generalized expectation criteria  When given a set of labeled features $K$ , the reference distribution over classes of these features is denoted by $\hat{p}(y| x_k), k \in K$   GE-FL introduces the divergence between this reference distribution and the model predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ , as a term of the objective function:
$$\mathcal {O} = \sum _{k \in K} KL(\hat{p}(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) + \sum _{y,i} \frac{\theta _{yi}^2}{2 \sigma ^2}$$   (Eq  6)
where $\theta _{yi}$ is the model parameter which indicates the importance of word $i$ to class $y$   The predicted distribution $p_\theta (y | x_k)$ can be expressed as follows: $ p_\theta (y | x_k) = \frac{1}{C_k} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y|{\rm x})I(x_k) $
in which $I(x_k)$ is 1 if feature $k$ occurs in instance ${\rm x}$ and 0 otherwise, $C_k = \sum _{\rm x} I(x_k)$ is the number of instances with a non-zero value of feature $k$ , and $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ takes a softmax form as follows: $ p_\theta (y|{\rm x}) = \frac{1}{Z(\rm x)}\exp (\sum _i \theta _{yi}x_i)  $
To solve the optimization problem, L-BFGS can be used for parameter estimation 
In the framework of GE, this term can be obtained by setting the constraint function $G({\rm x}, y) = \frac{1}{C_k} \vec{I} (y)I(x_k)$ , where $\vec{I}(y)$ is an indicator vector with 1 at the index corresponding to label $y$ and 0 elsewhere 
Regularization Terms
GE-FL reduces the heavy load of instance annotation and performs well when we provide prior knowledge with no bias  In our experiments, we observe that comparable numbers of labeled features for each class have to be supplied  But as mentioned before, it is often the case that we are not able to provide enough knowledge for some of the classes  For the baseball-hockey classification task, as shown before, GE-FL will predict most of the instances as baseball  In this section, we will show three terms to make the model more robust 
Neutral features are features that are not informative indicator of any classes, for instance, word player to the baseball-hockey classification task  Such features are usually frequent words across all categories  When we set the preference distribution of the neutral features to be uniform distributed, these neutral features will prevent the model from biasing to the class that has a dominate number of labeled features 
Formally, given a set of neutral features $K^{^{\prime }}$ , the uniform distribution is $\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) = \frac{1}{|C|}, k \in K^{^{\prime }}$ , where $|C|$ is the number of classes  The objective function with the new term becomes
$$\mathcal {O}_{NE} = \mathcal {O} + \sum _{k \in K^{^{\prime }}} KL(\hat{p}_u(y|x_k) || p_\theta (y | x_k)) $$   (Eq  9)
Note that we do not need manual annotation to provide neutral features  One simple way is to take the most common features as neutral features  Experimental results show that this strategy works successfully 
Another way to prevent the model from drifting from the desired direction is to constrain the predicted class distribution on unlabeled data  When lacking knowledge about the class distribution of the data, one feasible way is to take maximum entropy principle, as below:
$$\mathcal {O}_{ME} = \mathcal {O} + \lambda \sum _{y} p(y) \log p(y)$$   (Eq  11)
where $p(y)$ is the predicted class distribution, given by $ p(y) = \frac{1}{|X|} \sum _{\rm x} p_\theta (y | \rm x)  $ To control the influence of this term on the overall objective function, we can tune $\lambda $ according to the difference in the number of labeled features of each class  In this paper, we simply set $\lambda $ to be proportional to the total number of labeled features, say $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This maximum entropy term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$   Therefore, $E_{p_\theta (y|{\rm x})}[G({\rm x}, y)]$ is just the model distribution $p_\theta (y|{\rm x})$ and its expectation with the empirical distribution $\tilde{p}(\rm x)$ is simply the average over input samples, namely $p(y)$   When $S$ takes the maximum entropy form, we can derive the objective function as above 
Sometimes, we have already had much knowledge about the corpus, and can estimate the class distribution roughly without labeling instances  Therefore, we introduce the KL divergence between the predicted and reference class distributions into the objective function 
Given the preference class distribution $\hat{p}(y)$ , we modify the objective function as follows:
$$\mathcal {O}_{KL} &= \mathcal {O} + \lambda KL(\hat{p}(y) || p(y))$$   (Eq  13)
Similarly, we set $\lambda = \beta |K|$  
This divergence term can be derived by setting the constraint function to $G({\rm x}, y) = \vec{I}(y)$ and setting the score function to $S(\hat{p}, p) = \sum _i \hat{p}_i \log \frac{\hat{p}_i}{p_i}$ , where $p$ and $\hat{p}$ are distributions  Note that this regularization term involves the reference class distribution which will be discussed later 
Experiments
In this section, we first justify the approach when there exists unbalance in the number of labeled features or in class distribution  Then, to test the influence of $\lambda $ , we conduct some experiments with the method which incorporates the KL divergence of class distribution  Last, we evaluate our approaches in 9 commonly used text classification datasets  We set $\lambda = 5|K|$ by default in all experiments unless there is explicit declaration  The baseline we choose here is GE-FL BIBREF0 , a method based on generalization expectation criteria 
Data Preparation
We evaluate our methods on several commonly used datasets whose themes range from sentiment, web-page, science to medical and healthcare  We use bag-of-words feature and remove stopwords in the preprocess stage  Though we have labels of all documents, we do not use them during the learning process, instead, we use the label of features 
The movie dataset, in which the task is to classify the movie reviews as positive or negtive, is used for testing the proposed approaches with unbalanced labeled features, unbalanced datasets or different $\lambda $ parameters  All unbalanced datasets are constructed based on the movie dataset by randomly removing documents of the positive class  For each experiment, we conduct 10-fold cross validation 
As described in BIBREF0 , there are two ways to obtain labeled features  The first way is to use information gain  We first calculate the mutual information of all features according to the labels of the documents and select the top 20 as labeled features for each class as a feature pool  Note that using information gain requires the document label, but this is only to simulate how we human provide prior knowledge to the model  The second way is to use LDA BIBREF9 to select features  We use the same selection process as BIBREF0 , where they first train a LDA on the dataset, and then select the most probable features of each topic (sorted by $P(w_i|t_j)$ , the probability of word $w_i$ given topic $t_j$ ) 
Similar to BIBREF10 , BIBREF0 , we estimate the reference distribution of the labeled features using a heuristic strategy  If there are $|C|$ classes in total, and $n$ classes are associated with a feature $k$ , the probability that feature $k$ is related with any one of the $n$ classes is $\frac{0 9}{n}$ and with any other class is $\frac{0 1}{|C| - n}$  
Neutral features are the most frequent words after removing stop words, and their reference distributions are uniformly distributed  We use the top 10 frequent words as neutral features in all experiments 
With Unbalanced Labeled Features
In this section, we evaluate our approach when there is unbalanced knowledge on the categories to be classified  The labeled features are obtained through information gain  Two settings are chosen:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
As shown in Figure 1 , Maximum entropy principle shows improvement only on the balanced case  An obvious reason is that maximum entropy only favors uniform distribution 
Incorporating Neutral features performs similarly to maximum entropy since we assume that neutral words are uniformly distributed  Its accuracy decreases slowly when the number of labeled features becomes larger ( $t>4$ ) (Figure 1 (a)), suggesting that the model gradually biases to the class with more labeled features, just like GE-FL 
Incorporating the KL divergence of class distribution performs much better than GE-FL on both balanced and unbalanced datasets  This shows that it is effective to control the unbalance in labeled features and in the dataset 
With Balanced Labeled Features
We also compare with the baseline when the labeled features are balanced  Similar to the experiment above, the labeled features are obtained by information gain  Two settings are experimented with:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for each class, and conduct comparisons on the original balanced movie dataset (positive:negtive=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the class distribution is unbalanced, by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 2   When the dataset is balanced (Figure 2 (a)), there is little difference between GE-FL and our methods  The reason is that the proposed regularization terms provide no additional knowledge to the model and there is no bias in the labeled features  On the unbalanced dataset (Figure 2 (b)), incorporating KL divergence is much better than GE-FL since we provide additional knowledge(the true class distribution), but maximum entropy and neutral features are much worse because forcing the model to approach the uniform distribution misleads it 
With Unbalanced Class Distributions
Our methods are also evaluated on datasets with different unbalanced class distributions  We manually construct several movie datasets with class distributions of 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 by randomly removing 50%, 67%, 75% positive documents  The original balanced movie dataset is used as a control group  We test with both balanced and unbalanced labeled features  For the balanced case, we randomly select 10 features from the feature pool for each class, and for the unbalanced case, we select 10 features for one class, and 1 feature for the other  Results are shown in Figure 3  
Figure 3 (a) shows that when the dataset and the labeled features are both balanced, there is little difference between our methods and GE-FL(also see Figure 2 (a))  But when the class distribution becomes more unbalanced, the difference becomes more remarkable  Performance of neutral features and maximum entropy decrease significantly but incorporating KL divergence increases remarkably  This suggests if we have more accurate knowledge about class distribution, KL divergence can guide the model to the right direction 
Figure 3 (b) shows that when the labeled features are unbalanced, our methods significantly outperforms GE-FL  Incorporating KL divergence is robust enough to control unbalance both in the dataset and in labeled features while the other three methods are not so competitive 
The Influence of λ\lambda 
We present the influence of $\lambda $ on the method that incorporates KL divergence in this section  Since we simply set $\lambda = \beta |K|$ , we just tune $\beta $ here  Note that when $\beta = 0$ , the newly introduced regularization term is disappeared, and thus the model is actually GE-FL  Again, we test the method with different $\lambda $ in two settings:
(a) We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other class  The original balanced movie dataset is used (positive:negative=1:1) 
(b) Similar to (a), but the dataset is unbalanced, obtained by randomly removing 75% positive documents (positive:negative=1:4) 
Results are shown in Figure 4   As expected, $\lambda $ reflects how strong the regularization is  The model tends to be closer to our preferences with the increasing of $\lambda $ on both cases 
Using LDA Selected Features
We compare our methods with GE-FL on all the 9 datasets in this section  Instead of using features obtained by information gain, we use LDA to select labeled features  Unlike information gain, LDA does not employ any instance labels to find labeled features  In this setting, we can build classification models without any instance annotation, but just with labeled features 
Table 1 shows that our three methods significantly outperform GE-FL  Incorporating neutral features performs better than GE-FL on 7 of the 9 datasets, maximum entropy is better on 8 datasets, and KL divergence better on 7 datasets 
LDA selects out the most predictive features as labeled features without considering the balance among classes  GE-FL does not exert any control on such an issue, so the performance is severely suffered  Our methods introduce auxiliary regularization terms to control such a bias problem and thus promote the model significantly 
Related Work
There have been much work that incorporate prior knowledge into learning, and two related lines are surveyed here  One is to use prior knowledge to label unlabeled instances and then apply a standard learning algorithm  The other is to constrain the model directly with prior knowledge 
Liu et al text manually labeled features which are highly predictive to unsupervised clustering assignments and use them to label unlabeled data  Chang et al guiding proposed constraint driven learning  They first used constraints and the learned model to annotate unlabeled instances, and then updated the model with the newly labeled data  Daumé daume2008cross proposed a self training method in which several models are trained on the same dataset, and only unlabeled instances that satisfy the cross task knowledge constraints are used in the self training process 
MaCallum et al gec proposed generalized expectation(GE) criteria which formalised the knowledge as constraint terms about the expectation of the model into the objective function Graça et al pr proposed posterior regularization(PR) framework which projects the model's posterior onto a set of distributions that satisfy the auxiliary constraints  Druck et al ge-fl explored constraints of labeled features in the framework of GE by forcing the model's predicted feature distribution to approach the reference distribution  Andrzejewski et al andrzejewski2011framework proposed a framework in which general domain knowledge can be easily incorporated into LDA  Altendorf et al altendorf2012learning explored monotonicity constraints to improve the accuracy while learning from sparse data  Chen et al chen2013leveraging tried to learn comprehensible topic models by leveraging multi-domain knowledge 
Mann and McCallum simple,generalized incorporated not only labeled features but also other knowledge like class distribution into the objective function of GE-FL  But they discussed only from the semi-supervised perspective and did not investigate into the robustness problem, unlike what we addressed in this paper 
There are also some active learning methods trying to use prior knowledge  Raghavan et al feedback proposed to use feedback on instances and features interlacedly, and demonstrated that feedback on features boosts the model much  Druck et al active proposed an active learning method which solicits labels on features rather than on instances and then used GE-FL to train the model 
Conclusion and Discussions
This paper investigates into the problem of how to leverage prior knowledge robustly in learning models  We propose three regularization terms on top of generalized expectation criteria  As demonstrated by the experimental results, the performance can be considerably improved when taking into account these factors  Comparative results show that our proposed methods is more effective and works more robustly against baselines  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to address the robustness problem of leveraging knowledge, and may inspire other research 
We then present more detailed discussions about the three regularization methods  Incorporating neutral features is the simplest way of regularization, which doesn't require any modification of GE-FL but just finding out some common features  But as Figure 1 (a) shows, only using neutral features are not strong enough to handle extremely unbalanced labeled features 
The maximum entropy regularization term shows the strong ability of controlling unbalance 
This method doesn't need any extra knowledge, and is thus suitable when we know nothing about the corpus  But this method assumes that the categories are uniformly distributed, which may not be the case in practice, and it will have a degraded performance if the assumption is violated (see Figure 1 (b), Figure 2 (b), Figure 3 (a)) 
The KL divergence performs much better on unbalanced corpora than other methods  The reason is that KL divergence utilizes the reference class distribution and doesn't make any assumptions  The fact suggests that additional knowledge does benefit the model 
However, the KL divergence term requires providing the true class distribution  Sometimes, we may have the exact knowledge about the true distribution, but sometimes we may not  Fortunately, the model is insensitive to the true distribution and therefore a rough estimation of the true distribution is sufficient  In our experiments, when the true class distribution is 1:2, where the reference class distribution is set to 1:1 5/1:2/1:2 5, the accuracy is 0 755/0 756/0 760 respectively  This provides us the possibility to perform simple computing on the corpus to obtain the distribution in reality  Or, we can set the distribution roughly with domain expertise 

ground_truth: Ground truth is not established in the paper

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. where did they obtain the annotated clinical notes from?
Context 4: Introduction
There is a recent spark of interest in the task of Question Answering (QA) over unstructured textual data, also referred to as Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC)  This is mostly due to wide-spread success of advances in various facets of deep learning related research, such as novel architectures BIBREF0, BIBREF1 that allow for efficient optimisation of neural networks consisting of multiple layers, hardware designed for deep learning purposes and software frameworks BIBREF2, BIBREF3 that allow efficient development and testing of novel approaches  These factors enable researchers to produce models that are pre-trained on large scale corpora and provide contextualised word representations BIBREF4 that are shown to be a vital component towards solutions for a variety of natural language understanding tasks, including MRC BIBREF5  Another important factor that led to the recent success in MRC-related tasks is the widespread availability of various large datasets, e g , SQuAD BIBREF6, that provide sufficient examples for optimising statistical models  The combination of these factors yields notable results, even surpassing human performance BIBREF7 
MRC is a generic task format that can be used to probe for various natural language understanding capabilities BIBREF8  Therefore it is crucially important to establish a rigorous evaluation methodology in order to be able to draw reliable conclusions from conducted experiments  While increasing effort is put into the evaluation of novel architectures, such as keeping the evaluation data from public access to prevent unintentional overfitting to test data, performing ablation and error studies and introducing novel metrics BIBREF9, surprisingly little is done to establish the quality of the data itself  Additionally, recent research arrived at worrisome findings: the data of those gold standards, which is usually gathered involving a crowd-sourcing step, suffers from flaws in design BIBREF10 or contains overly specific keywords BIBREF11  Furthermore, these gold standards contain “annotation artefacts”, cues that lead models into focusing on superficial aspects of text, such as lexical overlap and word order, instead of actual language understanding BIBREF12, BIBREF13  These weaknesses cast some doubt on whether the data can reliably evaluate the reading comprehension performance of the models they evaluate, i e  if the models are indeed being assessed for their capability to read 
Figure FIGREF3 shows an example from HotpotQA BIBREF14, a dataset that exhibits the last kind of weakness mentioned above, i e , the presence of unique keywords in both the question and the passage (in close proximity to the expected answer) 
An evaluation methodology is vital to the fine-grained understanding of challenges associated with a single gold standard, in order to understand in greater detail which capabilities of MRC models it evaluates  More importantly, it allows to draw comparisons between multiple gold standards and between the results of respective state-of-the-art models that are evaluated on them 
In this work, we take a step back and propose a framework to systematically analyse MRC evaluation data, typically a set of questions and expected answers to be derived from accompanying passages  Concretely, we introduce a methodology to categorise the linguistic complexity of the textual data and the reasoning and potential external knowledge required to obtain the expected answer  Additionally we propose to take a closer look at the factual correctness of the expected answers, a quality dimension that appears under-explored in literature 
We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed framework by applying it to precisely describe and compare six contemporary MRC datasets  Our findings reveal concerns about their factual correctness, the presence of lexical cues that simplify the task of reading comprehension and the lack of semantic altering grammatical modifiers  We release the raw data comprised of 300 paragraphs, questions and answers richly annotated under the proposed framework as a resource for researchers developing natural language understanding models and datasets to utilise further 
To the best of our knowledge this is the first attempt to introduce a common evaluation methodology for MRC gold standards and the first across-the-board qualitative evaluation of MRC datasets with respect to the proposed categories 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Problem definition
We define the task of machine reading comprehension, the target application of the proposed methodology as follows: Given a paragraph $P$ that consists of tokens (words) $p_1, \ldots , p_{n_P}$ and a question $Q$ that consists of tokens $q_1 \ldots q_{n_Q}$, the goal is to retrieve an answer $A$ with tokens $a_1 \ldots a_{n_A}$  $A$ is commonly constrained to be one of the following cases BIBREF15, illustrated in Figure FIGREF9:
Multiple choice, where the goal is to predict $A$ from a given set of choices $\mathcal {A}$ 
Cloze-style, where $S$ is a sentence, and $A$ and $Q$ are obtained by removing a sequence of words such that $Q = S - A$  The task is to fill in the resulting gap in $Q$ with the expected answer $A$ to form $S$ 
Span, where is a continuous subsequence of tokens from the paragraph ($A \subseteq P$)  Flavours include multiple spans as the correct answer or $A \subseteq Q$ 
Free form, where $A$ is an unconstrained natural language string 
A gold standard $G$ is composed of $m$ entries $(Q_i, A_i, P_i)_{i\in \lbrace 1,\ldots , m\rbrace }$ 
The performance of an approach is established by comparing its answer predictions $A^*_{i}$ on the given input $(Q_i, T_i)$ (and $\mathcal {A}_i$ for the multiple choice setting) against the expected answer $A_i$ for all $i\in \lbrace 1,\ldots , m\rbrace $ under a performance metric  Typical performance metrics are exact match (EM) or accuracy, i e  the percentage of exactly predicted answers, and the F1 score – the harmonic mean between the precision and the recall of the predicted tokens compared to expected answer tokens  The overall F1 score can either be computed by averaging the F1 scores for every instance or by first averaging the precision and recall and then computing the F1 score from those averages (macro F1)  Free-text answers, meanwhile, are evaluated by means of text generation and summarisation metrics such as BLEU BIBREF16 or ROUGE-L BIBREF17 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Dimensions of Interest
In this section we describe a methodology to categorise gold standards according to linguistic complexity, required reasoning and background knowledge, and their factual correctness  Specifically, we use those dimensions as high-level categories of a qualitative annotation schema for annotating question, expected answer and the corresponding context  We further enrich the qualitative annotations by a metric based on lexical cues in order to approximate a lower bound for the complexity of the reading comprehension task  By sampling entries from each gold standard and annotating them, we obtain measurable results and thus are able to make observations about the challenges present in that gold standard data 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Dimensions of Interest ::: Problem setting
We are interested in different types of the expected answer  We differentiate between Span, where an answer is a continuous span taken from the passage, Paraphrasing, where the answer is a paraphrase of a text span, Unanswerable, where there is no answer present in the context, and Generated, if it does not fall into any of the other categories  It is not sufficient for an answer to restate the question or combine multiple Span or Paraphrasing answers to be annotated as Generated  It is worth mentioning that we focus our investigations on answerable questions  For a complementary qualitative analysis that categorises unanswerable questions, the reader is referred to Yatskar2019 
Furthermore, we mark a sentence as Supporting Fact if it contains evidence required to produce the expected answer, as they are used further in the complexity analysis 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Dimensions of Interest ::: Factual Correctness
An important factor for the quality of a benchmark is its factual correctness, because on the one hand, the presence of factually wrong or debatable examples introduces an upper bound for the achievable performance of models on those gold standards  On the other hand, it is hard to draw conclusions about the correctness of answers produced by a model that is evaluated on partially incorrect data 
One way by which developers of modern crowd-sourced gold standards ensure quality is by having the same entry annotated by multiple workers BIBREF18 and keeping only those with high agreement  We investigate whether this method is enough to establish a sound ground truth answer that is unambiguously correct  Concretely we annotate an answer as Debatable when the passage features multiple plausible answers, when multiple expected answers contradict each other, or an answer is not specific enough with respect to the question and a more specific answer is present  We annotate an answer as Wrong when it is factually wrong and a correct answer is present in the context 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Dimensions of Interest ::: Required Reasoning
It is important to understand what types of reasoning the benchmark evaluates, in order to be able to accredit various reasoning capabilities to the models it evaluates  Our proposed reasoning categories are inspired by those found in scientific question answering literature BIBREF19, BIBREF20, as research in this area focuses on understanding the required reasoning capabilities  We include reasoning about the Temporal succession of events, Spatial reasoning about directions and environment, and Causal reasoning about the cause-effect relationship between events  We further annotate (multiple-choice) answers that can only be answered By Exclusion of every other alternative 
We further extend the reasoning categories by operational logic, similar to those required in semantic parsing tasks BIBREF21, as solving those tasks typically requires “multi-hop” reasoning BIBREF14, BIBREF22  When an answer can only be obtained by combining information from different sentences joined by mentioning a common entity, concept, date, fact or event (from here on called entity), we annotate it as Bridge  We further annotate the cases, when the answer is a concrete entity that satisfies a Constraint specified in the question, when it is required to draw a Comparison of multiple entities' properties or when the expected answer is an Intersection of their properties (e g  “What do Person A and Person B have in common?”)
We are interested in the linguistic reasoning capabilities probed by a gold standard, therefore we include the appropriate category used by Wang2019  Specifically, we annotate occurrences that require understanding of Negation, Quantifiers (such as “every”, “some”, or “all”), Conditional (“if    then”) statements and the logical implications of Con-/Disjunction (i e  “and” and “or”) in order to derive the expected answer 
Finally, we investigate whether arithmetic reasoning requirements emerge in MRC gold standards as this can probe for reasoning that is not evaluated by simple answer retrieval BIBREF23  To this end, we annotate the presence of of Addition and Subtraction, answers that require Ordering of numerical values, Counting and Other occurrences of simple mathematical operations 
An example can exhibit multiple forms of reasoning  Notably, we do not annotate any of the categories mentioned above if the expected answer is directly stated in the passage  For example, if the question asks “How many total points were scored in the game?” and the passage contains a sentence similar to “The total score of the game was 51 points”, it does not require any reasoning, in which case we annotate it as Retrieval 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Dimensions of Interest ::: Knowledge
Worthwhile knowing is whether the information presented in the context is sufficient to answer the question, as there is an increase of benchmarks deliberately designed to probe a model's reliance on some sort of background knowledge BIBREF24  We seek to categorise the type of knowledge required  Similar to Wang2019, on the one hand we annotate the reliance on factual knowledge, that is (Geo)political/Legal, Cultural/Historic, Technical/Scientific and Other Domain Specific knowledge about the world that can be expressed as a set of facts  On the other hand, we denote Intuitive knowledge requirements, which is challenging to express as a set of facts, such as the knowledge that a parenthetic numerical expression next to a person's name in a biography usually denotes his life span 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Dimensions of Interest ::: Linguistic Complexity
Another dimension of interest is the evaluation of various linguistic capabilities of MRC models BIBREF25, BIBREF26, BIBREF27  We aim to establish which linguistic phenomena are probed by gold standards and to which degree  To that end, we draw inspiration from the annotation schema used by Wang2019, and adapt it around lexical semantics and syntax 
More specifically, we annotate features that introduce variance between the supporting facts and the question  With regard to lexical semantics, we focus on the use of redundant words that do not alter the meaning of a sentence for the task of retrieving the expected answer (Redundancy), requirements on the understanding of words' semantic fields (Lexical Entailment) and the use of Synonyms and Paraphrases with respect to the question wording  Furthermore we annotate cases where supporting facts contain Abbreviations of concepts introduced in the question (and vice versa) and when a Dative case substitutes the use of a preposition (e g  “I bought her a gift” vs “I bought a gift for her”)  Regarding syntax, we annotate changes from passive to active Voice, the substitution of a Genitive case with a preposition (e g  “of”) and changes from nominal to verbal style and vice versa (Nominalisation) 
We recognise features that add ambiguity to the supporting facts, for example when information is only expressed implicitly by using an Ellipsis  As opposed to redundant words, we annotate Restrictivity and Factivity modifiers, words and phrases whose presence does change the meaning of a sentence with regard to the expected answer, and occurrences of intra- or inter-sentence Coreference in supporting facts (that is relevant to the question)  Lastly, we mark ambiguous syntactic features, when their resolution is required in order to obtain the answer  Concretely, we mark argument collection with con- and disjunctions (Listing) and ambiguous Prepositions, Coordination Scope and Relative clauses/Adverbial phrases/Appositions 
Framework for MRC Gold Standard Analysis ::: Dimensions of Interest ::: Complexity
Finally, we want to approximate the presence of lexical cues that might simplify the reading required in order to arrive at the answer  Quantifying this allows for more reliable statements about and comparison of the complexity of gold standards, particularly regarding the evaluation of comprehension that goes beyond simple lexical matching  We propose the use of coarse metrics based on lexical overlap between question and context sentences  Intuitively, we aim to quantify how much supporting facts “stand out” from their surrounding passage context  This can be used as proxy for the capability to retrieve the answer BIBREF10  Specifically, we measure (i) the number of words jointly occurring in a question and a sentence, (ii) the length of the longest n-gram shared by question and sentence and (iii) whether a word or n-gram from the question uniquely appears in a sentence 
The resulting taxonomy of the framework is shown in Figure FIGREF10  The full catalogue of features, their description, detailed annotation guideline as well as illustrating examples can be found in Appendix  
Application of the Framework ::: Candidate Datasets
We select contemporary MRC benchmarks to represent all four commonly used problem definitions BIBREF15

ground_truth: clinical notes from the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA

clinical notes from the CE task in 2010 i2b2/VA 

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

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What are the three regularization terms?
Context 4:  In selecting relevant datasets, we do not consider those that are considered “solved”, i e  where the state of the art performance surpasses human performance, as is the case with SQuAD BIBREF28, BIBREF7  Concretely, we selected gold standards that fit our problem definition and were published in the years 2016 to 2019, have at least $(2019 - publication\ year) \times 20$ citations, and bucket them according to the answer selection styles as described in Section SECREF4 We randomly draw one from each bucket and add two randomly drawn datasets from the candidate pool  This leaves us with the datasets described in Table TABREF19  For a more detailed description, we refer to Appendix  
Application of the Framework ::: Annotation Task
We randomly select 50 distinct question, answer and passage triples from the publicly available development sets of the described datasets  Training, development and the (hidden) test set are drawn from the same distribution defined by the data collection method of the respective dataset  For those collections that contain multiple questions over a single passage, we ensure that we are sampling unique paragraphs in order to increase the variety of investigated texts 
The samples were annotated by the first author of this paper, using the proposed schema  In order to validate our findings, we further take 20% of the annotated samples and present them to a second annotator (second author)  Since at its core, the annotation is a multi-label task, we report the inter-annotator agreement by computing the (micro-averaged) F1 score, where we treat the first annotator's labels as gold  Table TABREF21 reports the agreement scores, the overall (micro) average F1 score of the annotations is 0 82, which means that on average, more than two thirds of the overall annotated labels were agreed on by both annotators  We deem this satisfactory, given the complexity of the annotation schema 
Application of the Framework ::: Qualitative Analysis
We present a concise view of the annotation results in Figure FIGREF23  The full annotation results can be found in Appendix   We centre our discussion around the following main points:
Application of the Framework ::: Qualitative Analysis ::: Linguistic Features
As observed in Figure FIGREF23 the gold standards feature a high degree of Redundancy, peaking at 76% of the annotated HotpotQA samples and synonyms and paraphrases (labelled Synonym), with ReCoRd samples containing 58% of them, likely to be attributed to the elaborating type of discourse of the dataset sources (encyclopedia and newswire)  This is, however, not surprising, as it is fairly well understood in the literature that current state-of-the-art models perform well on distinguishing relevant words and phrases from redundant ones BIBREF32  Additionally, the representational capability of synonym relationships of word embeddings has been investigated and is well known BIBREF33  Finally, we observe the presence of syntactic features, such as ambiguous relative clauses, appositions and adverbial phrases, (RelAdvApp 40% in HotpotQA and ReCoRd) and those introducing variance, concretely switching between verbal and nominal styles (e g  Nominalisation 10% in HotpotQA) and from passive to active voice (Voice, 8% in HotpotQA) 
Syntactic features contributing to variety and ambiguity that we did not observe in our samples are the exploitation of verb symmetry, the use of dative and genitive cases or ambiguous prepositions and coordination scope (respectively Symmetry, Dative, Genitive, Prepositions, Scope)  Therefore we cannot establish whether models are capable of dealing with those features by evaluating them on those gold standards 
Application of the Framework ::: Qualitative Analysis ::: Factual Correctness
We identify three common sources that surface in different problems regarding an answer's factual correctness, as reported in Figure FIGREF23 and illustrate their instantiations in Table TABREF31:
Design Constraints: Choosing the task design and the data collection method introduces some constraints that lead to factually debatable examples  For example, a span might have been arbitrarily selected from multiple spans that potentially answer a question, but only a single continuous answer span per question is allowed by design, as observed in the NewsQA and MsMarco samples (32% and 34% examples annotated as Debatable with 16% and 53% thereof exhibiting arbitrary selection, respectively)  Sometimes, when additional passages are added after the annotation step, they can by chance contain passages that answer the question more precisely than the original span, as seen in HotpotQA (16% Debatable samples, 25% of them due to arbitrary selection)  In the case of MultiRC it appears to be inconsistent, whether multiple correct answer choices are expected to be correct in isolation or in conjunction (28% Debatable with 29% of them exhibiting this problem)  This might provide an explanation to its relatively weak human baseline performance of 84% F1 score BIBREF31 
Weak Quality assurance: When the (typically crowd-sourced) annotations are not appropriately validated, incorrect examples will find their way into the gold standards  This typically results in factually wrong expected answers (i e  when a more correct answer is present in the context) or a question is expected to be Unanswerable, but is actually answerable from the provided context  The latter is observed in MsMarco (83% of examples annotated as Wrong) and NewsQA, where 60% of the examples annotated as Wrong are Unanswerable with an answer present 
Arbitrary Precision: There appears to be no clear guideline on how precise the answer is expected to be, when the passage expresses the answer in varying granularities  We annotated instances as Debatable when the expected answer was not the most precise given the context (44% and 29% of Debatable instances in NewsQA and MultiRC, respectively) 
Application of the Framework ::: Qualitative Analysis ::: Semantics-altering grammatical modifiers
We took interest in whether any of the benchmarks contain what we call distracting lexical features (or distractors): grammatical modifiers that alter the semantics of a sentence for the final task of answering the given question while preserving a similar lexical form  An example of such features are cues for (double) Negation (e g , “no”, “not”), which when introduced in a sentence, reverse its meaning  Other examples include modifiers denoting Restrictivity, Factivity and Reasoning (such as Monotonicity and Conditional cues)  Examples of question-answer pairs containing a distractor are shown in Table FIGREF37 
We posit that the presence of such distractors would allow for evaluating reading comprehension beyond potential simple word matching  However, we observe no presence of such features in the benchmarks (beyond Negation in DROP, ReCoRd and HotpotQA, with 4%, 4% and 2% respectively)  This results in gold standards that clearly express the evidence required to obtain the answer, lacking more challenging, i e , distracting, sentences that can assess whether a model can truly understand meaning 
Application of the Framework ::: Qualitative Analysis ::: Other
In the Figure FIGREF23 we observe that Operational and Arithmetic reasoning moderately (6% to 8% combined) appears “in the wild”, i e  when not enforced by the data design as is the case with HotpotQA (80% Operations combined) or DROP (68% Arithmetic combined)  Causal reasoning is (exclusively) present in MultiRC (32%), whereas Temporal and Spatial reasoning requirements seem to not naturally emerge in gold standards  In ReCoRd, a fraction of 38% questions can only be answered By Exclusion of every other candidate, due to the design choice of allowing questions where the required information to answer them is not fully expressed in the accompanying paragraph 
Therefore, it is also a little surprising to observe that ReCoRd requires external resources with regard to knowledge, as seen in Figure FIGREF23  MultiRC requires technical or more precisely basic scientific knowledge (6% Technical/Scientific), as a portion of paragraphs is extracted from elementary school science textbooks BIBREF31  Other benchmarks moderately probe for factual knowledge (0% to 4% across all categories), while Intuitive knowledge is required to derive answers in each gold standard 
It is also worth pointing out, as done in Figure FIGREF23, that although MultiRC and MsMarco are not modelled as a span selection problem, their samples still contain 50% and 66% of answers that are directly taken from the context  DROP contains the biggest fraction of generated answers (60%), due to the requirement of arithmetic operations 
To conclude our analysis, we observe similar distributions of linguistic features and reasoning patterns, except where there are constraints enforced by dataset design, annotation guidelines or source text choice  Furthermore, careful consideration of design choices (such as single-span answers) is required, to avoid impairing the factual correctness of datasets, as pure crowd-worker agreement seems not sufficient in multiple cases 
Application of the Framework ::: Quantitative Results ::: Lexical overlap
We used the scores assigned by our proposed set of metrics (discussed in Section SECREF11 Dimensions of Interest: Complexity) to predict the supporting facts in the gold standard samples (that we included in our manual annotation)  Concretely, we used the following five features capturing lexical overlap: (i) the number of words occurring in sentence and question, (ii) the length of the longest n-gram shared by sentence and question, whether a (iii) uni- and (iv) bigram from the question is unique to a sentence, and (v) the sentence index, as input to a logistic regression classifier  We optimised on each sample leaving one example for evaluation  We compute the average Precision, Recall and F1 score by means of leave-one-out validation with every sample entry  The averaged results after 5 runs are reported in Table TABREF41 
We observe that even by using only our five features based lexical overlap, the simple logistic regression baseline is able to separate out the supporting facts from the context to a varying degree  This is in line with the lack of semantics-altering grammatical modifiers discussed in the qualitative analysis section above  The classifier performs best on DROP (66% F1) and MultiRC (40% F1), which means that lexical cues can considerably facilitate the search for the answer in those gold standards  On MultiRC, yadav2019quick come to a similar conclusion, by using a more sophisticated approach based on overlap between question, sentence and answer choices 
Surprisingly, the classifier is able to pick up a signal from supporting facts even on data that has been pruned against lexical overlap heuristics by populating the context with additional documents that have high overlap scores with the question  This results in significantly higher scores than when guessing randomly (HotpotQA 26% F1, and MsMarco 11% F1)  We observe similar results in the case the length of the question leaves few candidates to compute overlap with $6 3$ and $7 3$ tokens on average for MsMarco and NewsQA (26% F1), compared to $16 9$ tokens on average for the remaining four dataset samples 
Finally, it is worth mentioning that although the queries in ReCoRd are explicitly independent from the passage, the linear classifier is still capable of achieving 34% F1 score in predicting the supporting facts 
However, neural networks perform significantly better than our admittedly crude baseline (e g  66% F1 for supporting facts classification on HotpotQA BIBREF14), albeit utilising more training examples, and a richer sentence representation  This facts implies that those neural models are capable of solving more challenging problems than simple “text matching” as performed by the logistic regression baseline  However, they still circumvent actual reading comprehension as the respective gold standards are of limited suitability to evaluate this BIBREF34, BIBREF35  This suggests an exciting future research direction, that is categorising the scale between text matching and reading comprehension more precisely and respectively positioning state-of-the-art models thereon 
Related Work
Although not as prominent as the research on novel architecture, there has been steady progress in critically investigating the data and evaluation aspects of NLP and machine learning in general and MRC in particular 
Related Work ::: Adversarial Evaluation
The authors of the AddSent algorithm BIBREF11 show that MRC models trained and evaluated on the SQuAD dataset pay too little attention to details that might change the semantics of a sentence, and propose a crowd-sourcing based method to generate adversary examples to exploit that weakness  This method was further adapted to be fully automated BIBREF36 and applied to different gold standards BIBREF35  Our proposed approach differs in that we aim to provide qualitative justifications for those quantitatively measured issues 
Related Work ::: Sanity Baselines
Another line of research establishes sane baselines to provide more meaningful context to the raw performance scores of evaluated models  When removing integral parts of the task formulation such as question, the textual passage or parts thereof BIBREF37 or restricting model complexity by design in order to suppress some required form of reasoning BIBREF38, models are still able to perform comparably to the state-of-the-art  This raises concerns about the perceived benchmark complexity and is related to our work in a broader sense as one of our goals is to estimate the complexity of benchmarks 
Related Work ::: Benchmark evaluation in NLP
Beyond MRC, efforts similar to ours that pursue the goal of analysing the evaluation of established datasets exist in Natural Language Inference BIBREF13, BIBREF12  Their analyses reveal the existence of biases in training and evaluation data that can be approximated with simple majority-based heuristics  Because of these biases, trained models fail to extract the semantics that are required for the correct inference  Furthermore, a fair share of work was done to reveal gender bias in coreference resolution datasets and models BIBREF39, BIBREF40, BIBREF41 
Related Work ::: Annotation Taxonomies
Finally, related to our framework are works that introduce annotation categories for gold standards evaluation  Concretely, we build our annotation framework around linguistic features that were introduced in the GLUE suite BIBREF42 and the reasoning categories introduced in the WorldTree dataset BIBREF19  A qualitative analysis complementary to ours, with focus on the unanswerability patterns in datasets that feature unanswerable questions was done by Yatskar2019 
Conclusion
In this paper, we introduce a novel framework to characterise machine reading comprehension gold standards  This framework has potential applications when comparing different gold standards, considering the design choices for a new gold standard and performing qualitative error analyses for a proposed approach 
Furthermore we applied the framework to analyse popular state-of-the-art gold standards for machine reading comprehension: We reveal issues with their factual correctness, show the presence of lexical cues and we observe that semantics-altering grammatical modifiers are missing in all of the investigated gold standards  Studying how to introduce those modifiers into gold standards and observing whether state-of-the-art MRC models are capable of performing reading comprehension on text containing them, is a future research goal 
A future line of research is to extend the framework to be able to identify the different types of exploitable cues such as question or entity typing and concrete overlap patterns  This will allow the framework to serve as an interpretable estimate of reading comprehension complexity of gold standards  Finally, investigating gold standards under this framework where MRC models outperform the human baseline (e g  SQuAD) will contribute to a deeper understanding of the seemingly superb performance of deep learning approaches on them 

ground_truth: a regularization term associated with neutral features, the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term, the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution

a regularization term associated with neutral features,  the maximum entropy of class distribution, KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution