\section{Introduction}
Machine learning (ML) is becoming a powerful tool for a broad range of problems in physics,
and it is likely to solve certain long-standing problems in nonlinear physics, such as turbulence modeling \cite{turbulencemodel, PhysRevFluids.2.054604, Fukagata2019}, in the near future.
Solving these problems is not only crucial in fundamental physics,
but also has an immeasurable impact upon practical problems,
e.g., in fields such as
mechanical engineering and weather forecasting.

As an ML method suitable for nonlinear dynamics, we focus on {\it reservoir computing (RC)} \cite{rcbook}.
RC has been successfully applied to the problems of nonlinear dynamics
such as the inference of unmeasured variables
and the prediction of future states of
spatiotemporal chaos \cite{Lu2017, Parlitz2018, nakai2018, Soriano2019, Pathak2018, IY2017}.
Similarly to other ML methods, RC requires a large amount of training data.
However, this requirement is often unsatisfied,
i.e., the amount of training data is often limited.
This fundamental problem would be a major bottleneck of making RC applicable,
especially for spatiotemporal chaos with a large degree of freedom.

The ML-based turbulence modeling is a typical example.
Although the ML-based turbulence modeling will be useful in practical engineering applications,
these modeling requires a large amount of high-Reynolds-number turbulence data collected over a long period of time.
The length of the training data required for RC
exceeds the turnover time of the largest eddies by several thousand times,
for which we give a theoretical estimation in Appendix \ref{data_length}.
Generating such turbulence data for practical applications, e.g., using the direct numerical simulation, is usually impossible.
Therefore, it is essential to learn the knowledge of the high-Reynolds-number turbulence from a small amount of data.

To solve the fundamental problem, we employ {\it transfer learning},
which is a concept to utilize
knowledge learned in a task for another different but similar task.
Although transfer learning has been successfully used for ML tasks such as image classifications \cite{Weiss2016},
it is unclear how useful this concept is and how to implement it for problems in physics.

In this paper, we develop a transfer learning method for RC \cite{inubushi2019} with an optimization of {\it transfer rate} (defined below),
and then, we show that the method is indeed effective for tasks of chaotic dynamics.
Taking the Lorenz equations as an example,
we demonstrate that optimizing the transfer rate is essential,
which leads to
more accurate inference than the conventional method by an order of magnitude.

More importantly,
concerning the inference of the energy dissipation rate of the Navier-Stokes turbulence,
we uncover that
the amount of learning can be drastically reduced,
by transferring the knowledge learned from turbulence data at lower Reynolds number.
A main conclusion is that
the universality of the energy cascade of turbulence enables us to use a large transfer rate,
which is crucial for the ML-based turbulence modeling.

\section{Method}
We study a dynamical system ${\bm x}({k+1}) = {\bm f}_\rho ({\bm x}(k))$ with some control parameter $\rho$
and the inference task,
although our proposed method is not limited to this task.
The goal of the task is to infer an unmeasurable quantity $v({\bm x}(k))$ from a measurable quantity $u({\bm x}(k))$
at a parameter denoted by $\rho=\rho_{\mathcal{T}}$.
The training data $\mathcal{D_T}$ consists of the input data $u(k) = u({\bm x}(k))$ and the output data $v(k) = v({\bm x}(k))$,
i.e., $\mathcal{D_T}= \{ u(k), v(k) \}_{1 \le k \le T_L'}$.
We consider that the length of the training data $T_L'$ is not sufficiently long.

Here we assume that a sufficient amount of training data $\mathcal{D_S}= \{ u(k), v(k) \}_{1 \le k \le T_L}$ is available at a parameter $\rho=\rho_{\mathcal{S}}$ which differs from the parameter $\rho_{\mathcal{T}}$,
and these training data $\mathcal{D_T}$ and $\mathcal{D_S}$ are similar to each other.
We refer to the parameter $\rho_{\mathcal S}$ and $\rho_{\mathcal T}$ as the {\it source} and {\it target} domains (parameters), respectively.
Our method utilizes knowledge learned from the source domain to realize the inference in the target domain (see Fig.~1).

To derive explicit formulas,
we use the echo state network (ESN) introduced by Jaeger (2001)\cite{jaeger2001echo}
as a conventional RC method.
The state variable $r_i$ of the $i$-th node in the ESN evolves in time as follows:
$r_i(k+1) = \phi \Big[ \sum_{j=1}^N J_{ij} r_j (k) + \epsilon u(k) + \eta \xi_i \Big]$,
where $N$ is the number of nodes, and $J_{ij}$ and $\xi_{i}$ are the fixed random connections and biases, respectively.
Further, $\phi[ \cdot ]$ is the so-called activation function, and we employ $\phi[x] = \tanh [gx]$.
Here $g, \epsilon, \eta \in \mathbb{R}$ are hyper-parameters.
We used $N=100$ nodes of ESN with the following hyper-parameters: $g=0.95, \epsilon=0.2$, and $\eta=0.01$.
Elements $J_{ij}$ of the connection matrix and the bias terms $\xi_i$
are independently and identically drawn from the Gaussian distribution: $J_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, 1/N)$ and $\xi_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0, 1)$.
The time-series $\{ u(k), v(k) \}$ are normalized so as to have zero mean and unit variance.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{concept_TL.eps
\caption{Illustrative example of transfer learning for RC applied to the inference problem of $z(t)$ from $x(t)$ of the Lorenz chaos.
The red-shaded region on the left shows the data of the Lorenz chaos
in the source domain ($\rho_{\mathcal{S}} = 28$).
The blue-shaded region on the right shows the data in the target domain ($\rho_{\mathcal{T}} = 40$).
(a, a') Projection of the attractor onto the $x-z$ plane.
(b, b') Lorenz plot. The data plotted in (b) is replotted in (b') for comparison.
(c, c') Training data in $\mathcal{D_S}$ and $\mathcal{D_T}$. We consider the case that the training data in $\mathcal{D_T}$ is limited.
}
\label{concept_TL}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=17.2cm]{MSE_vs_mu_lorenz_x2z_Tl05_r28to32_inset.eps
\caption{(a)  Generalization error
(mean square error, MSE) of the inference task for the Lorenz equations with $ \rho_{\mathcal{T}}=32$.
The horizontal axis shows the transfer rate $\mu$. The red circles represent
the median MSE.
The blue shaded area indicates the range of the MSEs from the first to the third quartile.
Inset: the logarithmic graph of the same MSE data.
The broken and solid lines represent the median MSE in the cases of $\mu=0$ and $\mu=\infty$, respectively.
(b) The blue lines are the inferred values $\hat{z}^{(j)}(t)~~ (j=1,\cdots, 100)$
by the conventional method ($\mu=0$, upper panel) and the proposed transfer learning ($\mu=10^{-8}$, lower panel).
The red broken lines represent the answer data $z(t)$.
}
\label{Lorenz_MSE_vs_mu}
\end{figure*}

Our method consists of the following two steps: (I) training in the source domain with $\mathcal{D_S}$,
and (II) training in the target domain with $\mathcal{D_T}$.

(I) training in the source domain.
The readout from the ESN is given by $\hat{v}(k) = \sum_{i=1}^N w^{\mathcal{S}}_i r_i(k)$.
The hat symbol indicates the inferred quantities.
The readout weight ${\bm w}^{\mathcal{S}}$ is determined with $\mathcal{D_S}$
to minimize the mean square error (MSE)
${E}({\bm w}) = \langle ( v - \hat{v})^2 \rangle_{T_L} = \langle ( v - \sum_{i=1}^N w_i r_i )^2 \rangle_{T_L}$,
where $\langle a \rangle_T := \frac{1}{T} \sum_{k=1}^T a(k)$.
Calculating $\frac{\partial}{\partial w_j} E({\bm w}) = 0 ~ (j=1,\cdots,N)$,
the trained readout weight is given by
\begin{align}
{\bm w}^{\mathcal{S}} = R^{-1} {\bm q},
\label{RCformula}
\end{align}
where
$R_{ij} := \langle r_i r_j \rangle_{T_L}$ and $q_i := \langle v r_i \rangle_{T_L}$.

(II) training in the target domain.
We use the same ESN as in the source domain, and train the readout weight ${\bm w}^{\mathcal{T}}$.
Because of the similarity of the training data $\mathcal{D_S}$ and $\mathcal{D_T}$,
the relation ${\bm w}^{\mathcal{T}} \simeq {\bm w}^{\mathcal{S}} + \delta {\bm w}$ would hold
with a small correction $\delta {\bm w}$.
Thus, we consider the readout from the ESN as
$\hat{v}(k) = \sum_{i=1}^N ( w^{\mathcal{S}}_i  + \delta w_i ) r_i(k)$
with the weight ${\bm w}^{\mathcal{S}}$ already trained by Eq.~(\ref{RCformula}).
The correction weight $\delta {\bm w}$ is determined
so as to minimize the following function:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(\delta {\bm w}) = \Bigg< \Big( v'(t) - \sum_{i=1}^N (w^\mathcal{S}_i + \delta w_i) r'_i(t) \Big)^2 \Bigg>_{T'_L} + \mu \| \delta {\bm w} \|^2_2,
\end{equation}
where $\| \delta {\bm w} \|^2_2 =  \sum_{i=1}^N \delta {w}_i^2$.
The variables with primes, such as $v'$, denote variables in the target domain.
We refer to the parameter $\mu ~\in[0, \infty]$ as the {\it transfer rate}.
Calculating $\frac{\partial}{\partial \delta w_j} \mathcal{E}(\delta {\bm w}) = 0 ~ (j=1,\cdots,N)$,
the correction weight is given by
\begin{equation}
\delta {\bm w} = [R'+ \mu I]^{-1} {\bm q}',
\label{TLformula}
\end{equation}
where
$R'_{ij} := \langle r'_i r'_j \rangle_{T'_L}$, $I$ is the identity matrix and
${\bm q}' := \langle v' {\bm r}' \rangle_{T'_L} - R' {\bm w}^\mathcal{S}$.

The transfer rate $\mu$, which is similar to $l_2$ regularization,
controls the amount of knowledge transferred from the source domain to the target domain.
If the transfer rate is zero, $\mu = 0$, the above formula is reduced to the conventional RC method
which is supervised learning by using the target data $\mathcal{D_T}$ only, i.e., transferring no knowledge from the source domain.
On the other hand, in the limit of the large transfer rate, $\mu \to \infty$,
we have $\|  \delta {\bm w} \|_2 \to 0$ (see Appendix \ref{proofs} for proof).
Namely, in this limit, the above formula is reduced to a method that simply reuses the weight ${\bm w}^\mathcal{S}$,
i.e., no learning in the target domain.
The above-mentioned formula for transfer learning constitutes a one-parameter family of learning methods,
which connects the conventional RC ($\mu = 0$) and the simple transfer method ($\mu \to \infty$).

\section{Transfer learning\\
for Lorenz chaos}
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method,
we use the Lorenz equations:
$dx/dt= \sigma (y-x),~ dy/dt= x(\rho-z)-y,~ dz/dt= xy-bz$.
We fix the parameters $\sigma, b$ to $\sigma = 10, b=8/3$
and change the parameter $\rho$ (Fig.~\ref{concept_TL}).
The task is to infer $z(t)$ from the sequence of $x(t)$ \cite{Lu2017}.
For RC, the continuous time-series $x(t)$ and $z(t)$ are sampled with a period $\tau=0.01$, and used for the input and output signal, respectively.
We assume that a sufficient amount of the training data, $\mathcal{D_S} = \{ x(t), z(t) \}_{0 \le t \le T_L}$,
is available for $\rho_{\mathcal S}=28$.
We show that our method utilizes knowledge learned from $\mathcal{D_S}$ to realize the inference in
the target domains $\rho_{\mathcal T}= 32$ and $\rho_{\mathcal T}= 40$.

Fig.~\ref{Lorenz_MSE_vs_mu} (a) shows the MSE of the inference by the proposed method.
The source domain is  $\rho_{\mathcal S}= 28$ and the target domain is $\rho_{\mathcal T}= 32$.
To evaluate the inference accuracy by the proposed method statistically,
we perform the following training-testing procedure of the transfer learning:
\begin{algorithm}[H]
  \caption{Training-testing procedure}
   \begin{algorithmic}[1]
   \State Train ${\bm w}^{\mathcal S}$ by Eq.~(\ref{RCformula})
with $\mathcal{D_S}$
   \State Fix the transfer rate $\mu \in[0, \infty]$
   \For{$j=1,\cdots M$}
   \State Train $\delta {\bm w}^{(j)}$ by Eq.~(\ref{TLformula}) with $\mathcal{D_T}^{(j)}$
   \State Test with ${\bm w}^{\mathcal{S}} + \delta {\bm w}^{(j)}$ and output the $j$-th MSE
   \EndFor
   \end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

The length of the training data $\mathcal{D_S}$ in the source domain is $T_L = 10^4$.
In the above procedure, $M$ denotes the number of samples in the training data, $\mathcal{D_T}^{(j)} = \{ x^j(t), z^j(t)  \}_{0 \le t \le T'_L} ~~(j=1,\cdots,M)$, in the target domain.
We use $M=100$ and $T'_L = 5~ (\ll T_L)$.
Each training data sample only includes less than ten cycles around the fixed points of the Lorenz attractor.
Figs.~\ref{concept_TL} (c) and (c') present examples of the training data.
The MSE is the generalization error with common test data in the target domain,
which differ from the training data,
with the length $T_{\text{test}} = 5 \times 10^3$.
The median MSE over $M=100$ samples of training data, indicated by the red circle,
is plotted for each value of $\mu$.
The blue shaded area indicates the range of the MSE from the first to the third quartile, which characterizes the statistical dispersion of the MSE.
In the inset,
we show the same result for the MSE, plotted using the logarithmic values,
and the dashed (solid) line represents the median MSE in the case of $\mu=0$ ($\mu=\infty$).
At each end, the proposed method is reduced to the conventional and simple transfer methods, respectively.
In the case of $\mu = \infty$, we set $\delta {\bm w}={\bm 0}$.

\begin{figure}[hb]
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{compare_ts_hit.eps
\caption{Normalized time-series of the energy $K(t)$ and energy dissipation rate $\epsilon(t)$ at (a) $R_\lambda \simeq 35$ and (b) $R_\lambda \simeq 120$.
The gray solid line and red broken line represent $K(t)$ and $\epsilon(t)$, respectively.}
\label{hit_ts}
\end{figure}

In the case of $\rho_{\mathcal T} = 32$, the attractor is expected to be similar to that at $\rho_{\mathcal S}=28$,
and thus, transfer learning is effective.
In fact, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Lorenz_MSE_vs_mu} (a),
if we conduct the transfer learning with the optimal transfer rate $\mu \simeq 10^{-8}$,
the median of the MSEs decreases drastically
and it becomes smaller than, by an order of magnitude,
that of the conventional method ($\mu=0$).
Note that the statistical dispersions are also reduced.

In practice, we must find the optimal parameter with a small amount of data.
Even in such a situation,
i.e., $M$ is small and the length of the test data $T_{\text{test}}$ is short,
the above procedure gives an estimation of the optimal transfer rate as will be discussed in \S \ref{optimization}.

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=17.2cm]{MSE_vs_mu_hit_TL50_inset.eps
\caption{(a) Generalization error
(mean square error, MSE) as a function of the transfer rate $\mu$.
Similar plots to Fig.~3 but for the inference of the energy dissipation rate of
the Navier-Stokes turbulence at $R_\lambda \simeq 120$.
The red circles represent the median MSE. The blue shaded area indicates the range of MSEs from the first to the third quartile.
Inset: the logarithmic graph of the same MSE data.
The broken and solid lines represent the median MSE in the cases of $\mu=0$ and $\mu=\infty$, respectively.
(b) The blue lines are the inferred values
$\hat{\epsilon}^{(j)}(t)~~ (j=1,\cdots, 20)$ at $R_\lambda \simeq 120$
by the conventional method ($\mu=0$, upper panel) and the proposed transfer learning ($\mu=1$, lower panel).
The red broken lines represent the answer data $\epsilon (t)$.
}
\label{hit_MSE}
\end{figure*}

The time-series of the values $\hat{z}(t)$ inferred by the conventional method
and transfer learning at the optimal transfer rate
are shown in the upper and lower panels in Fig.~\ref{Lorenz_MSE_vs_mu} (b), respectively.
In the figure,
the solid blue lines of the inferred $\hat{z}^{(j)}(t)$ correspond to the each training data sample, $\mathcal{D_T}^{(j)} ~ (j=1,\cdots,100)$,
and the broken red line represents the answer data $z(t)$.
When we use the conventional method,
the inferred time-series significantly differs from the true time-series.
On the other hand, the transfer learning method enables
the time-series of $z(t)$ to be inferred with a smaller error and less statistical dispersion.

Even in the case of $\rho_{\mathcal T} = 40$, which is far from the source domain,
transfer learning can reduce the median MSE and the statistical dispersion
compared with the conventional method (see Appendix \ref{lorenz_28to40}).

\section{Transfer learning\\
for Fluid Turbulence}
We tackle a critical problem associated with turbulence: the inference of the energy dissipation rate $\epsilon(t)$.
Although the energy dissipation rate plays an important role in statistical turbulence theory and turbulence modeling,
the direct measurement of $\epsilon(t)$ is difficult.
As an easily measurable quantity,
we use the kinetic energy $K(t)$ of the turbulent flow.
The task is to infer $\epsilon(t)$ from $K(t)$.

As described before, the ML-based turbulence modeling requires training data of high-Reynolds-number turbulence,
such as $\{ K(t), \epsilon(t) \}$,
collected over a long period of time.
However, such turbulence data are not available in practice.
On the other hand, the calculation of turbulence at {\it low} Reynolds number is much easier.
Since the energy cascade dynamics is insensitive to variation in the Reynolds numbers (see \cite{goto_inubushi} for the details),
we expect that there is a similarity of turbulence attractors over a wide range of the Reynolds numbers.
Hence, the knowledge learned from turbulent data at a low Reynolds number
to be useful for the same task at a high Reynolds number.
This gives a reason why transfer learning is effective.

We conducted direct numerical simulations of the Navier-Stokes equations with a steady forcing term in a periodic box,
using the Fourier spectral method.
For the temporal integration,
the fourth-order Runge--Kutta--Gill scheme was used (see Appendix \ref{dns} for details).

Here we use the time-series of the spatial average of the energy and the energy dissipation rate at $R_\lambda \simeq 35$
as the training data $\mathcal{D_S} = \{ K(t), \epsilon(t)\}_{0 \le t \le T_L}$ in the source domain,
and those at $R_\lambda \simeq 120$ as the training data $\mathcal{D_T} = \{ K(t), \epsilon(t)\}_{0 \le t \le T'_L}$ in the target domain,
where $R_\lambda$ is the Taylor micro-scale Reynolds number
and it plays the role of $\rho$.
We emphasize that the integral-scale Reynolds number $R$ in the target domain is approximately an order of magnitude higher than that in the source domain, since $R \propto R_\lambda^2$ \cite{frisch1995}.

Fig.~\ref{hit_ts} shows the normalized time-series of the energy $K(t)$ and energy dissipation rate $\epsilon(t)$ at (a) $R_\lambda \simeq 35$ and (b) $R_\lambda \simeq 120$.
The gray solid line and red broken line represent $K(t)$ and $\epsilon(t)$, respectively.
The mean turnover time of the largest eddies, defined by $\braket{T} = \braket{L/\sqrt{2K/3}}$
with $L$ being the integral length,
are $\braket{T} \simeq 0.7$ at $R_\lambda \simeq 35$ and $\braket{T} \simeq 0.5$ at $R_\lambda \simeq 120$.
The energy dissipation rate $\epsilon(t)$ at $R_\lambda \simeq 35$ changes in time following the energy $K(t)$ with a delay
owing to the energy cascade.
At $R_\lambda \simeq 120$, the time delay is still found in the relation between $K(t)$ and $\epsilon(t)$;
however, the relation becomes more than merely a delay.

Training data collected for a sufficiently long time $\mathcal{D_S}$ with $T_L=3.0 \times 10^3$ are used to obtain ${\bm w}^\mathcal{S}$ at $R_\lambda \simeq 35$.
We assume that the amount of available training data is highly limited for the calculation of $\delta {\bm w}$ at the target domain, $R_\lambda \simeq 120$.
The length of the each training data of $\mathcal{D_T}^{(j)} ~ (j=1,\cdots,M)$ is $T'_L = 50 ~(\ll T_L)$,
which includes roughly ten quasi-periodic cycles of the energy cascade events \cite{goto_2016}.
The number of samples of training data is $M=20$.
The length of the test data is $T_{\text{test}}=2.0 \times 10^3$.
For RC, the continuous time-series $K(t)$ and $\epsilon(t)$ are sampled with a period $\tau = 0.2$, and used for the input and output signal, respectively.

Fig.~\ref{hit_MSE} (a),
which uses the same symbols and lines as in Fig.~\ref{Lorenz_MSE_vs_mu},
shows the dependency of the inference MSE on the transfer rate $\mu$.
The most accurate inference (the smallest MSE) is achieved by the proposed transfer learning method with $\mu \simeq 1$,
which implies that
the ESN learned from the low-Reynolds-number turbulence data
requires only slight corrections by the high-Reynolds-number turbulence data.
Compared with the conventional method ($\mu=0$),
transfer learning effectively reduces the inference errors and the statistical dispersion.
As mentioned above, there is the similarity between the training data $\mathcal{D_S}$ and $\mathcal{D_T}$ for this particular task,
which is explained by the energy cascade dynamics of turbulence \cite{goto_inubushi}.

The corresponding time-series of the inferred value $\hat{\epsilon}(t)$ in the target domain, $R_\lambda \simeq 120$,
by the conventional method and transfer learning with the optimal transfer rate ($\mu=1$)
are shown in the upper and lower panels in Fig.~\ref{hit_MSE} (b), respectively.
In each panel, the solid blue lines represent the inferred $\hat{\epsilon}^{(j)}(t)  ~ (j=1,\cdots,M)$,
corresponding to each training data sample $\mathcal{D_T}^{(j)}$,
and the broken red line represents the answer time-series $\epsilon(t)$.

The conventional method produces a large inference error and considerable statistical dispersion.
On the other hand, the transfer learning method
achieves almost perfect inference of the energy dissipation rate.

\section{Estimation of optimal transfer rate with a small amount of data}
\label{optimization}

In the previous sections, we used a large amount of data, e.g., a large number of samples of training data and a sufficiently long test data, in order to statistically verify the performance of the transfer learning method.
However, in practice, we need to estimate the optimal transfer rate from a small amount of data.

In order to investigate the optimization with a small amount of data,
we conduct numerical experiments in both cases of the Lorenz equations and the Navier-Stokes equations.
The target domain of the Lorenz case is $\rho_{\mathcal{T}}=32$.
Here
we assume that we can use a single sample of data, i.e., $M=1$, in the target domain with the length of $3 T'_L$,
and divide it into three.
The first one ($0 \le t < T'_L$) is used to obtain the reservoir state being synchronized with the input signal,
the second one ($T'_L \le t < 2 T'_L$) is used for training,
and the third one ($2T'_L \le t < 3 T'_L$) is used for testing.
The other settings of the experiments including the values of $T'_L$ for the Lorenz and Navier-Stokes equations are the same as in the previous sections.

Figures~\ref{opt}(a) and (b) show the MSE of the inference task for the Lorenz equations
and for the Navier-Stokes equations, respectively.
For the Lorenz equations,
while the inset of Fig.~2(a) shows the optimal transfer rate is in the range $10^{-9} \le \mu \le 10^{-6}$,
Fig.~\ref{opt}(a) shows it is in the range $10^{-11} \le \mu \le 10^{-8}$.
For the Navier-Stokes equations,
while the inset of Fig.~4(a) shows the optimal transfer rate is in the range $10^{-2} \le \mu \le 1$,
Fig.~\ref{opt}(b) shows it is in the range $10^{-4} \le \mu \le 10^{-1}$.
These demonstrations suggest that we can estimate the optimal transfer rate from such a small amount of data,
in particular, for the turbulence case,
the data for at most $15$-fold of the correlation time \cite{Goto2016} is sufficient for the optimization.

\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{SM_additional.eps
\caption{
MSE (red circles) of the inference task for (a) the Lorenz equations
and (b) the Navier-Stokes equations,
as a function of the transfer rate $\mu$.
The target domain of the Lorenz case is $\rho_{\mathcal{T}}=32$.
The MSE is estimated with a short test data $T_{\text{test}} = T'_L$ and $M=1$.
The broken and solid lines represent the MSE in the cases of $\mu=0$ and $\mu=\infty$, respectively.}
\label{opt}
\end{figure*}

\color{black}
\section{Conclusions}
We have developed the transfer learning method of RC,
and shown that the optimization of the transfer rate is essential
for the inference problem of the Lorenz chaos.
Furthermore,
if we choose a suitable physical quantity for learning, as shown in the successful inference of the energy dissipation rate of turbulence,
the amount of learning in the target domain can be drastically reduced.

In this paper, we showed in a statistically reliable manner
that there exists an optimal transfer rate
by using a large amount of data.
However, in practice,
we must find an optimal transfer rate with a small amount of data, i.e.,
$M$ is small and the length of the test data $T_{\text{test}}$ is short.
As demonstrated in \S \ref{optimization},
the transfer learning method gives an estimation of the optimal transfer rate
even when only a small amount of data is available.
To improve the accuracy of the estimation,
it will be useful to employ ML-techniques such as the cross-validation
or the quantification of
similarity between attractors in the source and target domains.

We implemented transfer learning for parameter changes of the dynamical systems.
Once we train a reservoir computer for a dynamical system with a certain parameter,
the proposed method can eliminate most of the computational cost of training for the same dynamical system with different parameters.
The applications of the proposed method are not restricted to the parameter change;
for instance, it is possible to train a reservoir computer with numerical simulations,
and then utilize it in predictions for physical experiments via the proposed transfer learning.
Although the present study focused on the nonlinear dynamics,
transfer learning for RC is a model-free flexible ML-method, and hence, can be applied to any other physical system.
Physical RC, physical implementations of RC using physical devices such as lasers,
is highly active research topic \cite{Sunada2019, PhysRevApplied.12.034058, Tanaka2019},
and the transfer learning is also useful to realize the physical RC.

We hope that the proposed method
will open up new possibilities of ML methods for nonlinear dynamics, and
will be an effective tool for the long-standing problems in physics.
In particular,
we expect
the present study
to be a crucial step toward the development of the ML-based turbulence modeling that
utilizes the attractor similarity associated with the universality of the small-scale statistics of turbulence.


\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusions}

We study differences between community FAQs and organizational FAQs, propose a new dataset to unleash research in the field, and show its usefulness on a new task for different domains. For future work, we plan to use this dataset on more tasks, such as question answering, and look into the properties of FAQ answers.

\subsection{Generation for a new Domain: the COVID-19 Use Case}
\label{covid}

Here, we present a use-case that utilizes the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset for a new domain, showing its usefulness.
\subsubsection{Setting}
The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic was first identified in December 2019, and quickly affected millions of people all over the globe: hence, information has become a critical aspect of the pandemic. People were frantically seeking information, ranging from ``what is the covid-19 virus?'' to ``can pets get the coronavirus?'', and more. People posted questions in different public social media channels such as Twitter, Quora, Reddit, etc. In addition, new dedicated channels (using emails, forms, etc.) were created by different organizations such as countries, municipalities, universities and companies. People were encouraged to use those channels for asking questions. For example, the city of Hillsboro, Oregon, USA provided a form to ask questions about the Covid-19\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/y9ftbpbs}}.
Practically, those organizations used questions from different channels in order to create and update their COVID-19 FAQs pages.
An FAQ-Generator, as described in section~\ref{experiment}, can help automating this process and reduce human effort. Given the lack of a sufficiently large training data, we explored the benefit of utilizing a pre-trained model trained on a different domain, such as FAQ-Generator trained on the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset, as a starting point for further training on a small COVID-19 dataset.

\subsubsection{Questions Collection}

As before, the inputs to the FAQ-Generator should be user questions clustered by similar topics.
In order to create such clusters, and given the limited number of publicly available user questions, our approach was to define topics, and to use COVID-19 dedicated social media sources, namely Quora ``Shared knowledge and experiences'' about COVID-19\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/ybnm4b5k}} and, Kaggle Coronavirus (covid19) Tweets dataset\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/yb5znxcr}}, to find user questions which are relevant for each topic. In addition, we asked colleagues to write additional relevant user questions.
In total, we created a set of 57 topics, and an average of 13.7 user questions per topic. Finally, we created ground-truth labels for each topic by searching FAQs in official websites like the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/vwxtxpp}}, WHO (World Health Organization)\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/y8674r39}} and more. An average of 4.3 FAQs were collected per topic.
Table~\ref{tab:covid-topic-example} shows an example of collected questions on the topic ``Blood donation''.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{User questions}
& I'm not sick with coronavirus can donate? \\
& is it okay to donate blood \\
& are the any evidences of virus transmission thru blood \\
& can COVID19 be transmitted thru blood\\ \hline
FAQ questions & Can covid-19 be transmitted by blood donation? \\
& Can covid-19 be transmitted by blood transfusion? \\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{An example of ``Blood donation'' topic, with four user questions and two ground-truth FAQs.}
\label{tab:covid-topic-example}
\end{table}

\subsubsection{COVID-19 FAQ Generation}
Out of our collected COVID-19 data, we prepare data for FAQ-Generator training, similarly as described in section~\ref{experiment}. Again, each training sample consists of a set of up to 10 user questions as input, and an organizational FAQ as target. A topic with $n$ user questions and $k$ FAQ questions contributes $k$ training samples, each with $min(n,10)$ user questions (in case $n>10$, we randomly select 10 user questions for each training sample). For ROUGE evaluation, all $k$ FAQ questions of a topic from the test set, serve as ground-truth references of the corresponding test sample. Thus, a rather small dataset of 245 samples is obtained out of the 57 topics. Splitting to training (80\%), validation (10\%) and test (10\%) sets was done at the topic level, to avoid same user questions appearing in both training and test (or validation) sets. Same neural network architecture and hyper-parameters were used as described in section~\ref{experiment}. The validation set was used for early stopping. As before, the reported ROUGE results are mean results over ten experimental rounds.

Here we would like to explore the benefit of leveraging a pre-trained model trained on the Jobs domain, given the insufficiently large COVID-19 dataset which we were able to collect. Hence, we compare the performance of two models: one trained solely on the COVID-19 data, while the other is initialized with the parameters of a model pre-trained on the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset, and fine-tuned on the COVID-19 data. We additionally evaluate a model trained solely on the \textsc{orgFAQ} data, without fine-tuning, and a baseline method which randomly selects one of the input user questions. The results, shown in Table~\ref{tab:CovidRougeResults}, demonstrate the usefulness of our \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset. While the COVID-19 dataset by itself is too small to obtain a better model than the baseline, pre-training on the Jobs data significantly improves performance.
It implies that some of the knowledge learnt by the Jobs pre-trained model is generalizable to other domains.
However, pure transfer learning was not sufficient, and the fine-tuning stage was needed for obtaining improved results. Table~\ref{tab:CovidGenerationExample} shows examples of generated FAQs by the fine-tuned model. The first one, (A), exemplifies a concise and accurate output FAQ, in spite of some noise and irrelevant details in some of the input user questions. In the second example, (B), the generated FAQ is of lower quality, due to wrong polarity of the verb.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
Method & ROUGE-1 & ROUGE-2 & ROUGE-L \\ \hline \hline
Baseline & 0.33 & 0.14 & 0.31 \\ \hline
FAQ-Generator - \textsc{orgFAQ} only & 0.29 & 0.11 & 0.27 \\ \hline
FAQ-Generator - COVID-19 only & 0.27 & 0.08 & 0.26 \\ \hline
FAQ-Generator - COVID-19 fine-tuned & \textbf{0.37} & \textbf{0.17} & \textbf{0.36} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Mean ROUGE $F_1$ scores of FAQ-Generator pre-trained on the \textsc{orgFAQ} data and fine-tuned on the COVID-19 data, versus alternative models which lack pre-training or fine-tuninig. The baseline method randomly selects one of the input user questions.}
\label{tab:CovidRougeResults}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{User questions}
& where can i get tested in alabama \\
& i live in austin , where can i get tested for coronavirus \\
& where can i get tested in new mexico \\
& i live in ontario , where can i get tested ? \\
& how do i get a coronavirus test ? \\
& where can i go to get tested for coronavirus ? \\
& where i can get tested \\
& how do i get screened ? \\
& i need to be checked for coronavirus . \\
& how can i get a coronavirus test \\
\hline
Generated FAQ & how can i get tested ? \\
\hline
Target FAQ & where can i go to get tested ? \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{(A) High-Quality Generation } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{User questions}
& why are there no masks and respirators in pharmacies ? \\
& how is it possible that the state does not have enough masks and respirators ? \\
& why can't i get or find a mask or a respirator anywhere ? \\
& when will masks be available ? \\
& why aren't there respirators ? \\
& why are no masks or respirators available anywhere ? \\
& i'd like a respirator \\
& where can i get masks ? \\
& where do people get protective masks or disinfectants ? \\
& when can i buy a mask at a pharmacy ? \\
\hline
Generated FAQ & why can i buy a mask ? \\
\hline
Target FAQ & is there a shortage of masks ? \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{(B)  Low-Quality Generation } \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Examples of FAQs generated by the COVID-19 fine-tuned model, given sets of input user questions. Also shown are the targets (ground-truth FAQs).}
\label{tab:CovidGenerationExample}
\end{table}

\section{The \textsc{orgFAQ} Dataset}
\label{data}

\subsection{Data Collection}
\textsc{orgFAQ} is composed of organizational FAQs and user questions.
Collecting FAQs from organization websites that have enough corresponding user questions in community sources is a major challenge.
Since organizational FAQs are usually focused on a specific services or products, it is very difficult to find corresponding user questions, as communities typically focus only on a small set of very popular products. Interestingly, many organizations maintain an FAQ page that focuses on Jobs.
Such FAQ pages include questions which are general and common across organizations, e.g.: ``What should I expect in my interview?''.
This makes the Jobs domain an appropriate source from which a sufficiently large dataset can be drawn.
Thus, we collected job-related FAQs from $170$ organizations' websites, yielding a total of $1688$ FAQ questions and answers.
In parallel,
we found two relevant sub-reddits ``/r/jobs/'' and ``/r/careerguidance/'' where users discuss
related recruitment issues.
In total, around $134K$ user questions were collected.
All organization names appearing in the obtained data were replaced by a special ``ORG\_NAME'' token.

\subsection{Dataset Creation}
Given the sets of collected organizational FAQs and user questions, our goal was to create a high-quality dataset in which each organizational FAQ is associated with one or more corresponding user questions. Note that not each organizational FAQ in the collected data had necessarily a matching user question, and vice versa. Thus, we created the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset in two main stages, namely automatic annotation followed by human annotation, as described in the following sub-sections.

\subsubsection{Automatic Annotation}
We created automatically-labeled data by associating each of the collected FAQs with three user questions. This was done as follows: \newline
\textbf{Step 1.} The entire set of $134K$ user questions was indexed in a full-text index. For each organizational FAQ, up to 10 best-matching user questions were retrieved from this index. The FAQ question itself served as the query, and the BM25 \cite{robertson2009probabilistic} metric was used for the retrieval. \newline
\textbf{Step 2.} We wrote a simple software tool for manually labeling the data. The tool presents to the labeler a series of organizational FAQs, each with the (up to 10) best-matching candidate user questions, according to the BM25 metric. Now, the human labeler annotates each candidate user questions as matching or not. This way, the authors of this paper manually labeled 1521 pairs, out of which, 268 pairs were labeled as matching. \newline
\textbf{Step 3.} Using the labeled data obtained in the previous step, we fine-tuned a pre-trained BERT model \cite{devlin2018bert}, for the task of classifying whether a pair of an organizational FAQ and a user question conveys the same meaning or not. \newline
\textbf{Step 4.} Finally, the fine-tuned BERT model was used for drawing the top-ranked user questions, per organizational FAQ. Due to running time considerations, we first used BM25 to retrieve the top-ranked 1000 user questions, for each organizational FAQ. We then re-ranked the retrieved user questions using the fine-tuned BERT model, and selected the top-three questions.

\subsubsection{Human Annotation}

The automatically-labeled data created at the previous step might be noisy. To ensure the quality of the dataset, we defined the following crowdsourcing task: each organizational FAQ was presented to a crowd annotator along with the three retrieved candidate user questions associated with it at the previous step.
For each candidate pair of FAQ and user question, the annotators had to decide whether they convey the same meaning, and if not, they had to rewrite the user question with minimal changes, so that it will match the FAQ. Asking the annotators to rephrase the user question, rather than writing a new one, carries a few benefits: writing requires more creativity than rephrasing, and hence, might result in sentences of low diversity, or very simple ones~\cite{jiang-etal-2017-understanding}. In addition, we wanted to retain the language style of the original user question (including syntax, typos, grammar, etc.) as much as possible.
Each pair of FAQ and user question was annotated by three crowd annotators. We used the Appen platform\footnote{\url{https://appen.com/}}, and in order to ensure high quality data, we required only English native speakers who belong to the Highest Quality group (smallest group of most experienced, highest accuracy contributors). The inter-rater reliability, measured by Fleiss's Kappa,
was $0.76$, indicating a high level of agreement. In addition, we randomly sampled $10\%$ of the pairs to be evaluated by two of the authors of this paper. The authors have found $88\%$ of the sentences to be valid, verifying the high quality of the data. In total, $6988$ pairs were created, and the number of user questions mapped to the same FAQ varies between $1$ and $10$, with an average of $4.4$.

\subsection{Dataset Analysis}
Analysis of the organizational FAQs and user questions in the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:statFAQinc} and Table~\ref{tab:CorFAQresults}.

Table~\ref{tab:statFAQinc} provides statistics about the dataset w.r.t vocabulary, length, etc. The first row captures the question type distribution, by showing the first word distribution for words with frequency above 2\% (for example, 20.5\% of the FAQs start with 'how'), which sums up to 91.7\%, and 71.2\% for the organizational FAQs, and user questions, respectively. This can indicate a more coherent and focused language style used in the organizational FAQs. In addition, while the mean question length is higher for the organizational FAQs, the vocabulary size is smaller, which also supports the indication above.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
 & Organizational FAQs & User questions \\ \hline \hline
 \multirow{7}{*}{First word distribution} & 'how':20.5   & 'how':21.5 \\
 &'what':18.9 &'what':15.6 \\
 &'i':12.0 &'should':8.1\\
 &'can':9.0 &'is': 6.8\\
 {(above 2\%, in\%)}&'do':7.5 & 'can': 5.7\\
 &'is':3.9& 'i': 5.1 \\
 &'will':3.6 &'do': 3.2 \\
 &'when':3.0 &'when': 2.9 \\
 & 'does':3.0 & 'where': 2.3\\
 & 'where': 2.7 & \\
 &'if': 2.5& \\
 &'why': 2.1& \\
 &'are': 2.1 &\\\hdashline
 Total (above 2\%, in\%) & 91.7& 71.2\\\hline
Vocabulary size (unique words) & 1805 & 2538 \\\hline
Mean question length (words) & 11.99 & 10.08 \\
\hline
 \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Statistics of \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset.}
\label{tab:statFAQinc}
\end{table}

Table~\ref{tab:CorFAQresults} shows evaluation of the dataset using the metrics described in section~\ref{community_vs_organizational}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
Metric & Organizational FAQs & User questions \\ \hline \hline
Organizational FAQ Percent & \textbf{79} & 60  \\
Formal Percent & \textbf{90} & 74 \\
Grammar Errors (mean) & \textbf{0.08} & 0.30 \\
Readability F-K Grade (mean) &\textbf{8.2} & 6.62 \\
\hline
 \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Descriptive metrics for \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset.}
\label{tab:CorFAQresults}
\end{table}
Collecting FAQs from organizations' FAQ pages resulted in a high percentage ($79\%$) of FAQs classified as organizational FAQs\footnote{To avoid
exposure to the Jobs domain, FAQ pages whose URLs included words such as jobs, career, etc. were excluded from the training set of the \textsc{Question-type} classifier.}.
The organizations' attention in creating their FAQs is reflected in a high formality percentage (90\%) and a very low grammar error rate (0.08). In addition, their average readability level ($8.2$) is significantly higher than the ones of \textsc{FAQIR} and \textsc{StackFAQ}. Such readability level corresponds to experts' recommendation for business content to be higher than 8\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/y9mtysnb}}.

Finally, the user questions in our dataset are shown to be of lower quality than the FAQs in all metrics, as expected.

 \subsection{Dataset Samples}

Table~\ref{fig:examples} shows some representative examples from our dataset.
Note that several user questions could be mapped into the same FAQ question. For example, in the first row, there are four different user questions mapped to a single FAQ. We provide the FAQ answers (although it is out of this papers' scope, and is left for future work) for the completeness of the dataset.

\begin{table}[t]
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ |p{4cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}| }
\hline
\textbf{User questions} &
\textbf{FAQ question} &
\textbf{FAQ answer}
\\\hline

\begin{itemize}[label={-},after=\strut]
\item how to apply for position on your website that is not currently available
\item am still really being considered for the position posted on your website
\item still waiting on an interview for a position posted on your website
\item how to know if a position is still available?
\end{itemize} &
How do I know if a position posted on your website is still available? &
We post all open positions on our website. We remove those positions once they are filled, canceled or put on hold.
\\\hline
\begin{itemize}[label={-},after=\strut]
\item what is the minimum age to work in the company?
\item what minimum age should i have to apply?
\item minimum age to work
\item what is the minimum age to get the job?
\end{itemize}&
What’s the minimum age requirement to work at ORG\_NAME? &
The minimum age to be eligible for employment at ORG\_NAME is 18 years old. However, many positions require a 21-year-old minimum.
\\ \hline
\begin{itemize}[label={-},after=\strut]
\item should apply again after being rejected
\item i can run again, i was previously rejected
\end{itemize} &
I have applied before and was rejected. Should I try again? &

ORG\_NAME recruits on a post-by-post basis, so your application will only have been for the particular post advertised. This means you are free to apply again.
\\\hline
\end{tabular}}
  \caption{Examples from the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset.}~\label{fig:examples}

\end{table}

\section{Experiments}

In this section, we show how the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset can be used through the task of ``Organizational FAQ Generation from User Questions'': given a set of user questions with similar meaning, the goal is to produce a corresponding organizational FAQ. With such a capability, an organization can gather user questions on the web, assign them to clusters (e.g. by semantic similarity), and generate an appropriate FAQ for each cluster. We first show how \textsc{orgFAQ} can be used for this task in the domain of jobs, and then how this can be generalized to another domain.

\subsection{Organizational FAQ Generation for the Jobs Domain}
\label{experiment}

Naturally, we can use the \textsc{orgFAQ} dataset for training an FAQ generator in the jobs domain. To do so, we used the abstractor neural network of~\newcite{fast2018chen}, a sequence-to-sequence model with attention and copy mechanism. A training sample consists of a set of up to 10 user questions (4.4 on average) as the input, and the organizational FAQ as the target. The user questions were concatenated into a single sequence of tokens, with a special token separator.
We split a total of 1579 samples into training (85\%), validation (5\%) and test (10\%) sets. Default training hyper-parameters were used, and the validation set was used for early stopping.
Using ROUGE metrics~\cite{lin2004rouge}, we compare our model's performance against a baseline method which randomly selects one of the input user questions. The results, shown in Table~\ref{tab:RougeResults}, are mean results over ten experimental rounds. On each round, a generation model was trained and evaluated using a different random training/validation/test split. Table~\ref{tab:GenerationExample} shows examples of a generated FAQs, given input user questions. The first example, (A), shows a high-quality output - it demonstrates the ability of the model to convert several user questions with different kinds of errors (grammatical errors, missing question mark, ``when'' instead of ``where'') into a properly-phrased question which can form an adequate organizational FAQ. The second example, (B), shows a lower-quality output FAQ, where the subject of the sentence is wrong.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
Method & ROUGE-1 & ROUGE-2 & ROUGE-L \\ \hline \hline
Baseline & 0.46 & 0.25 & 0.43 \\ \hline
FAQ-Generator & \textbf{0.53} & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{0.50} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Mean ROUGE $F_1$ scores of our FAQ-Generator vs. a baseline method which randomly selects one of the input user questions.}
\label{tab:RougeResults}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{User questions}
& when are you located ? \\
& where is the job \\
& how do answer where are you located \\
& where should located \\
& where they are \\
\hline
Generated FAQ & where are you located ? \\ \hline
Target FAQ & where are you located ? \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{(A) High-Quality Generation } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{User questions}
& can i ask how the salary is paid ? \\
& is it okay to ask how the salary is paid ? \\
& how do you pay your salaries ? \\
& how do i talk about mode of pyment of salary ? \\
\hline
Generated FAQ & how do i pay your salaries ? \\ \hline
Target FAQ & how is salary paid ? \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{(B)  Low-Quality Generation } \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Examples of FAQs generated by the model, given input user questions. Also shown are the targets (ground-truth FAQs).}
\label{tab:GenerationExample}
\end{table}

\section{FAQ Analysis}
\label{faqs}

\subsection{User question vs. Organizational FAQ}
\label{user-corporate}
To study the differences between organizational FAQs and user questions, and since there is no publicly available dataset of organizational FAQs, we collected a large dataset of the two classes. To do so, we made use of the FAQPage schema\footnote{\url{https://schema.org/FAQPage}} defined by the Schema.org community,
that publishes standard schemas for structured data on the web.
This schema is used by organization experts to specify FAQs and answers in their
websites, and thus,
can be treated as ground-truth organizational FAQs.
We collected $19474$
FAQs from $2514$ organization websites.
For the user question class, we used existing datasets that include user questions from either forums or search logs. Those questions were all written by users, not representing any organization, and thus represent ground-truth for user questions. In order to create a balanced dataset, we randomly selected around $3200$ questions from Quora\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/yx2o2uo3}}, Yahoo! Answers L5\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/thtjgpf}}, Reddit\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/sl2uq38}}, forums including Ubuntu, Stackoverflow, Stats and Unix~\cite{ecir2019-1}, and WikiQA~\cite{wikiqa-emnlp} datasets. The data collection process ensures that both classes contain questions from various domains.

We train a \textsc{Question-type} classifier as follows:
we split the collected data into training (60\%), validation (20\%) and test (20\%) sets, and train an RNN model as in~\cite{howard-ruder-2018-universal}, using a pre-trained, 300-dimensional GloVe word embedding~\cite{pennington2014glove}. The hyper-parameters of the training are: RNN hidden layer size is 256, dropout is not applied, Adam optimizer is used with learning rate of 3e-5 and batch size is 256.
This classifier's accuracy on the test set is $91.8\%$, implying that there is indeed an inherent difference between the two classes: organizational FAQs and user questions.

\subsection{Community FAQ vs. Organizational FAQ}
\label{community_vs_organizational}

Given that we are able to detect organizational FAQs, we next try to evaluate whether community FAQs indeed differ from organizational FAQs.
Existing FAQ datasets contain FAQs, to which related user questions are matched.
\textsc{FAQIR} is composed of $4313$ FAQs and $1233$ additional user questions in the ``maintenance \& repair'' domain, taken from Yahoo! Answers. \textsc{StackFAQ} is composed of $719$ FAQs and $1250$ user questions in the ``web app'' domain, taken from the StackExchange website.
In both datasets, the sources of all FAQs are web forums. Hence, these are community FAQs.
We evaluate these community FAQs using the following metrics: \newline
\textbf{Organizational FAQ Percent.}
Using our \textsc{Question-type} classifier
, we predicted how many of the FAQs in the two datasets were likely to be organizational FAQs, and report the percentage of them. \newline
\textbf{Formal Percent.}
We trained an RNN classifier (with same hyper-parameters as described for the \textsc{Question-type} classifier) on the \textsc{Squinky} dataset~\cite{lahiri2015squinky}, which includes sentences labeled by their formality level, and used it to classify the FAQs in each dataset\footnote{Similarly to~\cite{pavlick2016empirical}, we consider sentences with formality level $> 3.75$ as ``formal'', and those with formality level $< 3.25$ as ``informal''.}. We report the percentage of FAQs classified as ``formal''. \newline
\textbf{Grammar Errors.}
Following~\newcite{kantor2019learning}, we used the Grammarly\footnote{\url{app.grammarly.com}} grammatical error correction system in order to count the number of errors per FAQ. We report the average number of grammatical errors. \newline
\textbf{Readability.}
We used textstat\footnote{\url{https://pypi.org/project/textstat/}} implementation for Flesch-Kincaid grade level (F-K grade)~\cite{kincaid1975derivation} to assess readability of the FAQs, and report mean grade. The common wisdom for web content is average F-K grade of up to 7\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/we6om8c}}, and on social media it is reported to be lower (4 on BuzzFeed, and 2.5 on Facebook)\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/qnl5naa}}. \newline

\begin{table}[thpb]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
Metric & \textsc{FAQIR} & \textsc{StackFAQ} \\ \hline \hline
Organizational FAQ Percent & 7 & 39 \\
Formal Percent & 44 & 86 \\
Grammar Errors (mean) & 1.70 & 0.17 \\
Readability F-K Grade (mean) & 6 & 4.86 \\
\hline
 \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Descriptive metrics for community FAQs.}
\label{tab:CommunityFAQresults}
\end{table}

Table~\ref{tab:CommunityFAQresults} summarizes the evaluation of \textsc{FAQIR} and \textsc{StackFAQ} datasets. In both, a low percentage of community FAQs were classified as organizational FAQs.
In \textsc{FAQIR} the majority of questions are not formal, and grammar error rate is high. Both datasets, especially \textsc{StackFAQ}, suffer from poor FAQ readability.
This analysis emphasizes the need of a new dataset that better models a professional user-support setting: users pose questions in their own words, and such questions should be matched against organizational FAQs in order to find appropriate answers and, on the other hand, frequent user-questions can be gathered and used to generate organizational FAQs.

\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
FAQs are used by organizations (e.g., enterprises, governments, educational institutions) in several scenarios, e.g., to answer user questions in websites or bots interactions. On the other hand, the content of FAQs is affected by user questions by definition.
In customer support scenarios, FAQs help reduce support agents workload, improve user experience and more. In fact, FAQ pages are used by $73\%$ of users\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/uk9qwv2}}.

FAQs are usually formalized by organizations' experts and reflect the organizational voice. They are well-written
and focused. We refer to those FAQs as {\it organizational FAQs}, i.e. organizational questions and answers.

Questions written by users w.r.t. services and products appear on the web in various contexts: questions are being sent to search-engines and bots, posted on web forums and sent by email. We refer to those questions as {\it user questions}.
Specifically, in web forums, such as Yahoo! Answers and Reddit, user questions are answered by other users or, sometimes, by organizations' representatives. Selected questions and answers from these forums constitute {\it community FAQs} (community questions and answers), as opposed to the official organizational FAQs. Note that the community questions are a subset of user questions.

\begin{figure}[t]
  {\footnotesize
	\setlength{\fboxsep}{4pt}
	\fbox{
		\parbox{0.95\columnwidth}{

     \textbf{User question:} \textit{Oh no! I’ve spilled wine over my favourite rug and the stain is not coming off! What should I do?}

     \textbf{Community question:} \textit{how do i remove a red wine spillage on our new carpet?!! thanx?}

     \textbf{Organizational question:} \textit{How to remove a wine stain from carpet?}
    	}}
  }
  \caption{Examples of user question, community FAQ, and an organizational FAQ, on ``wine stain removal'' issue.}
	\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}

Several research FAQ datasets exist, based on data extracted from web forums. Older datasets like \textsc{Usenet} FAQ\footnote{\url{https://tinyurl.com/wsywgpg}}, and Game FAQ\footnote{\url{www.gamefaqs.com/}}
only contain FAQs (questions and answers). Recent datasets as \textsc{FAQIR}~\cite{FAQIR} and \textsc{StackFAQ}~\cite{stackFAQ} associate FAQ questions with additional user questions having similar meaning. Those user questions are either extracted from forums or created using crowdsourcing. Those richer datasets can be used
for different tasks like question answering, text generation and more.

Figure~\ref{fig:example} shows a user question and a related community FAQ\footnote{For clarity, in this paper, the term {\it{FAQ}} refers only to the question, while the answer is explicitly referred to as the \it{FAQ answer}.}, both from
the \textsc{FAQIR} dataset, along with a relevant organizational FAQ from a cleaning-products company.
The community FAQ contains uncommon terminology (``wine spillage'' vs. ``wine stain''),
extra information (``new carpet'' vs. ``carpet''), grammatical errors (``on'' vs. ``from''), etc.

We argue that the language used in community FAQs and user questions is different from the language of organizational FAQs. Hence, existing FAQ datasets, which are based on community FAQs, are unsuitable for some tasks: for example, question answering using organizational FAQs, or updating organizations' FAQ pages so they are in tune with users' current questions. In those cases, the language mismatch between user questions and organizational FAQs is an issue not addressed by current datasets.

Hence, our main contributions are as follows: (1) we study the difference between organizational FAQs, community FAQs and user questions; (2) we create and publish a new dataset, \textsc{orgFAQ} (acronym for organizational FAQ)
, containing $6988$ user questions
mapped to $1579$ organizational FAQs from the
Jobs domain\footnote{Data will be available upon paper acceptance.}; (3) we demonstrate the usefulness of this dataset by automatically generating organizational FAQs given user questions, and evaluating the results for the Jobs domain as well as for the urging COVID-19 pandemic domain.
To our knowledge, this is the first work that studies these important aspects of organizational FAQs.

\section{Related Work}
\label{related}

Many works on FAQs focus on the question answering task,
usually given user queries. Early works~\cite{faqfinder,faqfinder1} use semantic features to match questions and answers.
\newcite{sigir2019bert} presents a method for using
question similarity and BERT-based
question-answer relevance in FAQ retrieval.
\newcite{xie2019faqbased} uses a knowledge graph-based Q\&A framework to improve questions understanding and answers retrieval, and evaluates it on a new community FAQ dataset\footnote{Not available yet.}.
Some recent works explore customer use of FAQs in the context of e-commerce\footnote{Not publicly available.}: \newcite{cui-etal-2017-superagent} shows how to search for customer questions in existing FAQ pairs.~\newcite{Kulkarni:2019} focuses on deep learning-based ranking model and ontology-based matching to answer question on products. All these previous works use community FAQ datasets (either public or not), whereas our work focuses on organizational FAQs, and differences between them and user questions.

Most relevant to our work is~\newcite{faq-nfaq} which studies community FAQs and user questions. They collected around 3000 questions from forums into FAQ and non-FAQ classes. Then, they analyzed different features, and found that named entities and personal pronouns are good discriminators between the classes.
The main difference with our work is that they focused on community FAQs, while we focus on organizational FAQs, and we further study the differences between community and organizational FAQs.

The task of FAQs generation was studied in previous works~\cite{Auto-FAQ-Gen,FAQtor}. Those works aim at generating community FAQs from online forum whereas we target organizational FAQs.

Evaluation of different aspects of pragmatics are explored in several other works. ~\newcite{rao-tetreault-2018-dear} studies differences between formal and informal questions.
Aspects such as informativeness and implicatures are presented in~\newcite{SQUINKY,Lahiri:2011}.

Recently, it is worth noting some relevant questions datasets related to the COVID-19 pandemic. CovidQA~\cite{tang2020rapidly} comprises 124 questions associated with answers from scientific articles, and the task is to identify the answer passage within the article. The questions were created by medical experts (epidemiologists, medical doctors, and medical students), and were curated from scientific articles.
In COVID-Q~\cite{wei2020people} the authors present a set of 1690 questions about COVID-19 from different sources and clustered into various categories. Most of their questions are extracted from FAQ pages. Some questions were extracted from Quora, as well as by keyword search on search engines. Although some of their question sources are similar to ours, the focus of their work is different.