In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and you have to write an answerable question based on the context. Your questions can be extractive, abstractive, or yes-no questions.

[Q]: Comparing Eq.DISPLAY_FORM14 with Eq.DISPLAY_FORM22, we can see that Eq.DISPLAY_FORM14 is actually a soft form of $F1$, using a continuous $p$ rather than the binary $\mathbb {I}( p_{i1}>0.5)$. This gap isn't a big issue for balanced datasets, but is extremely detrimental if a big proportion of training examples are easy-negative ones: easy-negative examples can easily dominate training since their probabilities can be pushed to 0 fairly easily. Meanwhile, the model can hardly distinguish between hard-negative examples and positive ones, which has a huge negative effect on the final F1 performance.

To address this issue, we propose to multiply the soft probability $p$ with a decaying factor $(1-p)$, changing Eq.DISPLAY_FORM22 to the following form:

One can think $(1-p_{i1})$ as a weight associated with each example, which changes as training proceeds. The intuition of changing $p_{i1}$ to $(1-p_{i1}) p_{i1}$ is to push down the weight of easy examples. For easy examples whose probability are approaching 0 or 1, $(1-p_{i1}) p_{i1}$ makes the model attach significantly less focus to them. Figure FIGREF23 gives gives an explanation from the perspective in derivative: the derivative of $\frac{(1-p)p}{1+(1-p)p}$ with respect to $p$ approaches 0 immediately after $p$ approaches 0, which means the model attends less to examples once they are correctly classified.

A close look at Eq.DISPLAY_FORM14 reveals that it actually mimics the idea of focal loss (FL for short) BIBREF16 for object detection in vision. Focal loss was proposed for one-stage object detector to handle foreground-background tradeoff encountered during training. It down-weights the loss assigned to well-classified examples by adding a $(1-p)^{\beta }$ factor, leading the final loss to be $(1-p)^{\beta }\log p$.
[A]: How are weights dynamically adjusted?


[Q]: However, we also showed difference in produced errors for each method and different impact at word-level depending of the approach or units. Thus, future work will focus on analysing the orthographic output of these systems in two ways: 1) investigate errors produced by the end-to-end methods and explore several approaches to correct common errors done in French and 2) compare the end-to-end methods in a SLU context and evaluate the semantic value of the partially correct produced words.
[A]: What will be in focus for future work?


[Q]: We asked medical doctors experienced in extracting knowledge related to medical entities from texts to annotate the entities described above. Initially, we asked four annotators to test our guidelines on two texts. Subsequently, identified issues were discussed and resolved. Following this pilot annotation phase, we asked two different annotators to annotate two case reports according to our guidelines. The same annotators annotated an overall collection of 53 case reports. The annotation was performed using WebAnno BIBREF7, a web-based tool for linguistic annotation. The annotators could choose between a pre-annotated version or a blank version of each text. The pre-annotated versions contained suggested entity spans based on string matches from lists of conditions and findings synonym lists.
[A]:
How was annotation performed?


