\section{Conclusion}
We addressed the problem of answering $8^{th}$ grade science questions using textbooks, domain specific dictionaries and semi-structured tables. We posed the task as an extension to textual entailment and proposed a solution that learns latent structures that align question answer pairs with appropriate snippets in the textbooks. Using domain specific dictionaries and semi-structured tables, we further refined the structures. The task required handling a variety of question types so we extended our technique to multi-task setting.
Our technique showed improvements over a number of baselines. Finally, we also used a set of associated review questions, which were used to gain further improvements.

\section{Experiments}
{\bf Dataset:}
We used a set of $8^{th}$ grade science questions released as the training set in the Allen AI Science Challenge\footnote{\href{https://www.kaggle.com/c/the-allen-ai-science-challenge/}{https://www.kaggle.com/c/the-allen-ai-science-challenge/}} for training and evaluating our model. The dataset comprises of 2500 questions. Each question has 4 answer candidates, of which exactly one is correct. We used questions 1-1500 for training, questions 1500-2000 for development and questions 2000-2500 for testing. We also used publicly available $8^{th}$ grade science textbooks available through $\href{http://www.ck12.org}{ck12.org}$. The science curriculum consists of seven textbooks on Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science and Life Science. Each textbook on an average has 18 chapters, and each chapter in turn is divided into 12 sections on an average.
Also, as described before, each section, on an average, is followed by 3-4 multiple choice review questions (total 1369 review questions).
We collected a number of domain specific science dictionaries, study guides, flash cards and semi-structured tables (Simple English Wiktionary and Aristo Tablestore) available online and create triples and equivalences used as external knowledge.
\\
{\bf Baselines:}
\begin{table}[t!]
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
{\bf Question Category} & {\bf Example} \\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|m{1.93cm}|}{Questions without context:} & \multicolumn{1}{m{5.65cm}|}{Which example describes a learned behavior in a dog?} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|m{1.93cm}|}{Questions with context:} & \multicolumn{1}{m{5.65cm}|}{When athletes begin to exercise, their heart rates and respiration rates increase. At what level of organization does the human body coordinate these functions?} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|m{1.93cm}|}{Negation Questions:}&\multicolumn{1}{m{5.65cm}|}{A teacher builds a model of a hydrogen atom. A red golf ball is used for a proton, and a green golf ball is used for an electron. Which is not accurate concerning the model?}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\footnotesize{Example questions for \textit{Qtype} classification}}
\label{table:qclass}
\end{table}
We compare our framework with ten baselines.
The first two baselines (\textit{Lucene} and \textit{PMI}) are taken from \newcite{Clark:2016}. The \textit{Lucene} baseline scores each answer candidate $a_i$ by searching for the combination of the question $q$ and answer candidate $a_i$ in a lucene-based search engine and returns the highest scoring answer candidate. The \textit{PMI} baseline similarly scores each answer candidate $a_i$ by computing the point-wise mutual information to measure the strength of the association between parts of the question-answer candidate combine and parts of the CK12 curriculum.
The next three baselines, inspired from \newcite{richardson:2013}, retrieve the top two CK12 sections querying $q+a_i$ in \textit{Lucene} and score the answer candidates using these documents. The \textit{SW} and \textit{SW+D} baselines match bag of words constructed from the question and the answer answer candidate to the retrieved document.
The \textit{RTE} baseline uses textual entailment \cite{stern:2012} to score answer candidates as the likelihood of being entailed by the retrieved document.
Then we also tried other approaches such as the \textit{RNN} approach described in \newcite{Clark:2016}, \textit{Jacana aligner} \cite{Yaox:2013} and two neural network approaches, \textit{LSTM} \cite{hochreiter:1997} and \textit{QANTA} \cite{Iyyer:2014}
They form our next four baselines.
To test if our approach indeed benefits from jointly learning the retrieval and the answer selection modules, our final baseline \textit{Lucene+LSSVM Alignment}
retrieves the top section by querying $q+a_i$ in \textit{Lucene} and then learns the remaining answer-entailment structure (alignment part of the answer-entailing structure in Figure \ref{structure-fig}) using a LSSVM.
\\
{\bf Task Classification for Multitask Learning:}
We explore two simple question classification schemes. The first classification scheme classifies questions based on the question word (what, why, etc.). We call this \textit{Qword} classification.
The second scheme is based on the type of the question asked and classifies questions into three coarser categories: (a) questions without context, (b) questions with context and (c) negation questions. This classification is based on the observation that many questions lay down some context and then ask a science concept based on this context. However, other questions are framed without any context and directly ask for the science concept itself. Then there is a smaller, yet, important subset of questions that involve negation that also needs to be handled separately. Table \ref{table:qclass} gives examples of this classification. We call this classification \textit{Qtype} classification\footnote{We wrote a set of question matching rules (similar to the rules used to convert question answer pairs to hypotheses) to achieve this classification}.
\\
{\bf Results:}
We compare variants of our method\footnote{We tune the SVM regularization parameter $C$ on the development set. We use Stanford CoreNLP, the HILDA parser \cite{feng-hirst:2014}, and jMWE \cite{kulkarni:2011} for linguistic preprocessing} where we consider our modification for negation or not and multi-task LSSVMs. We consider both kinds of task classification strategies and joint training (JT). Finally, we compare our methods against the baselines described above. We report accuracy (proportion of questions correctly answered) in our results.
Figure \ref{result-fig} shows the results.
First, we can immediately observe that all the LSSVM models have a better performance than all the baselines. We also found an improvement when we handle negation using the heuristic described above\footnote{We found that the accuracy over test questions tagged by our heuristic as negation questions went up from 33.64 percent to 42.52 percent and the accuracy over test questions not tagged as negation did not decrease significantly}. MTLSSVMs showed a boost over single task LSSVM. \textit{Qtype} classification scheme was found to work better than \textit{Qword} classification which simply classifies questions based on the question word.
The multi-task learner could benefit even more if we can learn a better separation between the various strategies needed to answer science questions.
We found that joint training with review questions helped improve accuracy as well.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.27]{LSSVM_kaggle.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize{Variations of our method vs several baselines on the Science QA dataset. Differences between the baselines and { LSSVM} s, the improvement due to negation, the improvements due to multi-task learning and joint-learning are significant ($p<0.05$) using the two-tailed paired T-test.}\label{result-fig}}\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\\
{\bf Feature Ablation:}
As described before, our feature set comprises of five parts, where each part corresponds to a part of the answer-entailing structure -- textbook (${\bf z}_1$), chapter (${\bf z}_2$), section (${\bf z}_3$), snippets (${\bf z}_4$), and alignment (${\bf z}_5$).
It is interesting to know the relative importance of these parts in our model. Hence, we perform feature ablation on our best performing model - \textit{MTLSSVM(QWord, JT)} where we remove the five feature parts one by one and measure the loss in accuracy. Figure \ref{ablation-fig} shows that the choice of section and alignment are important components of our model. Yet, all components are important and removing any of them will result in a loss of accuracy. Finally, in order to understand the value of external knowledge resources (K), we removed the component that induces and aligns the hypothesis with knowledge bits. This results in significant loss in performance, estabishing the efficacy of adding in external knowledge via our approach.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.28]{feature_ablation.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize{Ablation on \textit{MTLSSVM(Qword, JT) model}}\label{ablation-fig}}
\end{figure}

\section{Introduction}

We propose an approach for answering multiple-choice elementary science tests \cite{Clark:2015}
using the science curriculum of the student and other domain specific knowledge resources. Our approach learns latent \textit{answer-entailing structures} that align question-answers with appropriate snippets in the curriculum.
The student curriculum usually comprises of a set of textbooks. Each textbook, in-turn comprises of a set of chapters, each chapter is further divided into sections -- each discussing a particular science concept. Hence, the answer-entailing structure consists of selecting a particular textbook from the curriculum, picking a chapter in the textbook, picking a section in the chapter, picking a few sentences in the section and then aligning words/multi-word expressions (mwe's) in the hypothesis (formed by combining the question and an answer candidate) to a words/mwe's in the picked sentences. The answer-entailing structures are further refined using external domain-specific knowledge resources such as science dictionaries, study guides and semi-structured tables (see Figure \ref{structure-fig}). These domain-specific knowledge resources can be very useful forms of knowledge representation as shown in previous works \cite{Clark:2016}.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.6\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{answer-entailing-structure.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.395\textwidth}
\caption{\footnotesize{An example \textit{answer-entailing structure}. The answer-entailing structure consists of selecting a particular textbook from the curriculum, picking a chapter in the textbook, picking a section in the chapter, picking sentences in the section and then aligning words/mwe's in the hypothesis (formed by combining the question and an answer candidate) to words/mwe's in the picked sentences or some related ``knowledge'' appropriately chosen from additional knowledge stores. In this case, the relation (greenhouse gases, cause, greenhouse effect) and the equivalences (e.g. carbon dioxide = $CO_2$) -- shown in violet -- are hypothesized using external knowledge resources. The dashed red lines show the word/mwe alignments from the hypothesis to the sentences (some word/mwe are not aligned, in which case the alignments are not shown), the solid black lines show coreference links in the text and the RST relation (elaboration) between the two sentences. The picked sentences do not have to be contiguous sentences in the text. All mwe's are shown in green.}} \label{structure-fig}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}

Alignment is a common technique in many NLP applications such as MT \cite{blunsom:2006}, RTE \cite{Sammons:09,maccartney:2008,Yaox:2013,Sultan:14}, QA \cite{Berant:13,Yih:2013,Yao:2014,sachan:2015}, etc.
Yet, there are three key differences between our approach and alignment based approaches for QA in the literature: (i) We incorporate the curriculum hierarchy (i.e. the book, chapter, section bifurcation) into the latent structure. This helps us jointly learn the retrieval and answer selection modules of a QA system. Retrieval and answer selection are usually designed as isolated or loosely connected components in QA systems \cite{ferrucci:2012} leading to loss in performance -- our approach mitigates this shortcoming.
(ii) Modern textbooks typically provide a set of review questions after each section to help students understand the material better. We make use of these review problems to further improve our model. These review problems have additional value as part of the latent structure is known for these questions.
(ii) We utilize domain-specific knowledge sources such as study guides, science dictionaries or semi-structured knowledge tables within our model.

The joint model is trained in max-margin fashion using a latent structural SVM (LSSVM) where the answer-entailing structures are latent.
We train and evaluate our models on a set of $8^{th}$ grade science problems, science textbooks and multiple domain-specific knowledge resources. We achieve superior performance vs.\ a number of baselines.

\section{Method}
{\bf Science QA as Textual Entailment:}
First, we consider the case when review questions are not used. For each question $q_i \in Q$, let $A_i = \{ a_{i1}, \ldots, a_{im}\}$ be the set of candidate answers to the question
\footnote{Candidate answers may be pre-defined, as in multiple-choice QA, or may be undefined but easy to extract with a degree of confidence (e.g., by using a pre-existing system)}.
We cast the science QA problem as a textual entailment problem by converting each question-answer candidate pair $(q_i, a_{i,j})$ into a hypothesis statement $h_{ij}$ (see Figure \ref{structure-fig}
\footnote{We use a set of question matching/rewriting rules to achieve this transformation. The rules match each question into one of a large set of pre-defined templates and applies a unique transformation to the question \& answer candidate to achieve the hypothesis. Code provided in the supplementary.}. For each question $q_i$, the science QA task thereby reduces to picking the hypothesis $\hat h_i$ that has the highest likelihood of being entailed by the curriculum among the set of hypotheses ${\bf h}_i = \{h_{i1},\ldots,h_{im}\}$ generated for that question. Let $h^{*}_{i} \in {\bf h}_i$ be the correct hypothesis corresponding to the correct answer.
\\
{\bf Latent Answer-Entailing Structures}
help the model in providing evidence for the correct hypothesis.
As described before, the structure depends on: (a) snippet from the curriculum hierarchy chosen to be aligned to the hypothesis, (b) external knowledge relevant for this entailment, and (c) the word/mwe alignment. The snippet from the curriculum to be aligned to the hypothesis is determined by walking down the curriculum hierarchy and then picking a set of sentences from the section chosen. Then, a subset of relevant external knowledge in the form of triples and equivalences (called knowledge bits) is selected from our reservoir of external knowledge (science dictionaries, cheat sheets, semi-structured tables, etc). Finally, words/mwe's in the hypothesis are aligned to words/mwe's in the snippet or knowledge bits. Learning these alignment edges helps the model determine which semantic constituents should be compared to each other. These alignments are also used to generate more effective features.
The choice of snippets, choice of the relevant external knowledge and the alignments in conjunction form the latent answer-entailing structure. Let ${\bf z}_{ij}$ represent the latent structure for the question-answer candidate pair $(q_i, a_{i,j})$.
\\
{\bf Max-Margin Approach:}
We treat science QA as a structured prediction problem of ranking the hypothesis set ${\bf h}_i$ such that the correct hypothesis is at the top of this ranking.
We learn a scoring function $S_{{\bf w}}(h,{\bf z})$ with parameter ${\bf w}$ such that the score of the correct hypothesis $h_i^*$ and the corresponding best latent structure ${\bf z}_i^*$ is higher than the score of the other hypotheses and their corresponding best latent structures. In fact, in a max-margin fashion, we want that $ S_{{\bf w}}(h_i^*,{\bf z}_i^*) > S(h_{ij},{\bf z}_{ij}) + 1 - \xi_i$ for all $h_j \in {\bf h}\setminus h^*$ for some slack $\xi_i$. Writing the relaxed max margin formulation:

{\small
\begin{eqnarray*}
\min_{||{\bf w}||} \frac{1}{2}||{\bf w}||^2_2 +
C \sum_i \max\limits_{{\bf z}_{ij}, h_{ij} \in {\bf h}_i \setminus h_i^*} S_{{\bf w}}(h_{ij},{\bf z}_{ij}) + \Delta(h_i^*, h_{ij}) \\
- C \sum_i S_{{\bf w}}(h_i^*,{\bf z}_i^*)\quad\quad\quad (1)\hspace{2.36cm}
\end{eqnarray*}
}
We use 0-1 cost, i.e. $\Delta(h_i^*, h_{ij}) = \mathbbm{1}(h_i^* \neq h_{ij})$
If the scoring function is convex then this objective is in concave-convex form and hence can be solved by the concave-convex programming procedure (CCCP) \cite{Yuille:2003}. We assume the scoring function to be linear:$
S_{{\bf w}}(h,{\bf z}) = {{\bf w}}^T\psi(h,{\bf z})$.
Here, $\psi(h,{\bf z})$ is a feature map discussed later.
The CCCP algorithm essentially alternates between solving for ${\bf z}_i^*$, ${\bf z}_{ij}\ \forall j$ s.t. $ h_{ij} \in {\bf h}_i \setminus h_i^*$ and ${\bf w}$ to achieve a local minima. In the absence of information regarding the latent structure ${\bf z}$ we pick the structure that gives the best score for a given hypothesis i.e. $\arg \max_{z} S_{{\bf w}}(h,z)$.
The complete procedure is given in the supplementary.\\
{\bf Inference and knowledge selection:} We use beam search with a fixed beam size (5) for inference. We infer the textbook, chapter, section, snippet and alignments one by one in this order. In each step, we only expand the five most promising (given by the current score) substructure candidates so far. During inference, we select top 5 knowledge bits (triples, equivalences, etc.) from the knowledge resources that could be relevant for this question-answer. This is done heuristically by picking knowledge bits that explain parts of the hypothesis not explained by the chosen snippets.
\\
{\bf Incorporating partially known structures:} Now, we describe how review questions can be incorporated.
As described earlier, modern textbooks often provide review problems at the end of each section.
These review problems have value as part of the answer-entailing structure (textbook, chapter and section) is known for these problems.
In this case, we use the formulation (equation 1) except that the max over ${\bf z}$ for the review questions is only taken over the unknown part of the latent structure.
\\
{\bf Multi-task Learning:} Question analysis is a key component of QA systems. Incoming questions are often of different types (counting, negation, entity queries, descriptive questions, etc.). Different types of questions usually require different processing strategies.
Hence, we also extend of our LSSVM model to a multi-task setting where each question $q_i$ now also has a pre-defined associated type $t_i$ and each question-type is treated as a separate task. Yet, parameters are shared across tasks,which allows the model to exploit the commonality among tasks when required.
We use the MTLSSVM formulation from
\newcite{Evgeniou:2004} which was also used in a reading comprehension setting by \newcite{sachan:2015}.
In a nutshell, the approach redefines the LSSVM feature map and shows that the MTLSSVM objective takes the same form as equation 1 with a kernel corresponding to the feature map. Hence, one can simply redefine the feature map and reuse LSSVM algorithm to solve the \textit{MTLSSVM}.
\\
{\bf Features:}
Our feature vector $\psi (h ,{\bf z})$ decomposes into five parts, where each part corresponds to a part of the answer-entailing structure.
For the first part, we index all the textbooks and score the top retrieved textbook by querying the hypothesis statement. We use tf-idf and BM25 scorers resulting in two features. Then, we find the jaccard similarity of bigrams and trigrams in the hypothesis and the textbook to get two more features for the first part. Similarly, for the second part we index all the textbook chapters and compute the tf-idf, BM25 and bigram, trigram features. For the third part we index all the sections instead.
The fourth part has features based on the text snippet part of the answer-entailing structure. Here we do a deeper linguistic analysis and include features for matching local neighborhoods in the snippet and the hypothesis: features for matching bigrams, trigrams, dependencies, semantic roles, predicate-argument structure as well as the global syntactic structure: a tree kernel for matching dependency parse trees of entire sentences \cite{srivastava:13}. If a text snippet contains the answer to the question, it should intuitively be similar to the question as well as to the answer. Hence, we add features that are the element-wise product of features for the text-question match and text-answer match.
Finally, we also have features corresponding to the RST \cite{mann:1988} and coreference links to enable inference across sentences. RST tells us that sentences with discourse relations are related to each other and can help us answer certain kinds of questions \cite{Jansen:2014}.
For example, the ``cause'' relation between sentences in the text can often give cues that can help us answer ``why'' or ``how'' questions.
Hence, we add additional features - conjunction of the rhetorical structure label from a RST parser and the question word - to our feature vector. Similarly, the entity and event co-reference relations allow us to reason about repeating entities or events. Hence, we replace an entity/event mention with their first mentions if that results into a greater score.
For the alignment part, we induce features based on word/mwe level similarity of aligned words: (a) Surface-form match (Edit-distance), and (b) Semantic word match (cosine similarity using SENNA word vectors \cite{collobert:2011} and ``Antonymy'' `Class-Inclusion' or `Is-A' relations using Wordnet). Distributional vectors for mwe's are obtained by adding the vector representations of comprising words \cite{Mitchell:2008}. To account for the hypothesized knowledge bits, whenever we have the case that a word/mwe in the hypothesis can be aligned to a word/mwe in a hypothesized knowledge bit to produce a greater score, then we keep the features for the alignment with the knowledge bit instead.
\\
{\bf Negation}
Negation is a concern for our approach as facts usually align well with their negated versions.
To overcome this, we use a simple heuristic. During training, if we detect negation using a set of simple rules that test for the presence of negation words (``not'', ``n't'', etc.), we flip the partial order adding constraints that require that the correct hypothesis to be ranked below all the incorrect ones. During test phase if we detect negation, we predict the answer corresponding to the hypothesis with the lowest score.

\section{Related Work}
Recently, researchers have proposed standardised tests as drivers for progress in AI \cite{Clark:2016mag}. Some example standardised tests are reading comprehensions \cite{richardson:2013}, algebra word problems \cite{kushman:2014}, geometry problems \cite{seo:2014}, entrance exam tests \cite{fujita:2014,arai:2014}, etc. These tests are usually in the form of question-answers and focus on elementary school learning. Our work focuses on $8^{th}$ grade science QA which is also a standardised test.

In this paper, we take an alignment-based approach for science QA. This is a common technique across many NLP applications. Examples include word or phrase alignment for bitexts in MT \cite{blunsom:2006}, text-hypothesis alignment in RTE \cite{Sammons:09,maccartney:2008,Yaox:2013,Sultan:14}, question-answer alignment in QA \cite{Berant:13,Yih:2013,Yao:2014}, question answer-passage alignment in reading comprehensions \cite{sachan:2015}, etc. All of these approaches align local parts of the input to local parts of the output. In this work, we extended the word alignment formalism to align the question-answer pair to a snippet of the students’ curriculum. To do this, we incorporated the structure of the curriculum and the document structure (namely, rhetorical structures \cite{mann:1988} and co-reference information) to perform reliable approximate inference over such a large curriculum. We note that there have been recent works \cite{Jansen:2014,Narasimhan:2015} that have emphasised the value of rhetorical structures in QA.
Our use of rhetorical structures is in similar spirit. \newcite{Yih:2013} and \newcite{sachan:2015} model QA by automatically defining some kind of alignment between the question and answer snippets and use a similar structured input-output model. The alignment structure in \newcite{Yih:2013} is limited to single sentence answers. \newcite{sachan:2015} use rhetorical structures to bridge multi-sentence answers but do not have any retrieval component in the answer entailing structure.

QA has had a long history of using pipeline models \cite{moldovan:2003,ferrucci:2012} that extract a limited number of high-level features from induced representations of question-answer pairs, and then built a classifier using some labelled corpora. On the other hand we learnt these structures and answered questions jointly through a unified max-margin framework.
A significant contribution of our work is the unified model for retrieval and answer selection. While this issue has often been raised before \cite{yao:2013}, yet, no unified solutions have been proposed. \newcite{yao:2013} combines answer selection and retrieval by merely sharing features across components. However, in our approach, the latent structure serves as a way to combine the retrieval and alignment model that is not seen in any of the previous works.

Finally, there has been a rich vein of work in multi-task learning for SVMs in the ML community. \newcite{Evgeniou:2004} proposed an extremely simple multi-task SVM formulation assuming that the multi-task predictor factorizes as the sum of a shared and a task-specific component. We used the same idea for our MTLSSVM extension. \newcite{sachan:2015} also use this idea of multi-task learning to solve reading comprehensions. However, they are solving a different task and they do not have a retrieval component in their problem as the passage corresponding to each question is already known. Our approach integrates retrieval with question specific analysis as well as answer selection.

\section{Conclusion}
We addressed the problem of answering $8^{th}$ grade science questions using textbooks, domain specific dictionaries and semi-structured tables. We posed the task as an extension to textual entailment and proposed a solution that learns latent structures that align question answer pairs with appropriate snippets in the textbooks. Using domain specific dictionaries and semi-structured tables, we further refined the structures. The task required handling a variety of question types so we extended our technique to multi-task setting.
Our technique showed improvements over a number of baselines. Finally, we also used a set of associated review questions, which were used to gain further improvements.

\section{Experiments}
{\bf Dataset:}
We used a set of $8^{th}$ grade science questions released as the training set in the Allen AI Science Challenge\footnote{\href{https://www.kaggle.com/c/the-allen-ai-science-challenge/}{https://www.kaggle.com/c/the-allen-ai-science-challenge/}} for training and evaluating our model. The dataset comprises of 2500 questions. Each question has 4 answer candidates, of which exactly one is correct. We used questions 1-1500 for training, questions 1500-2000 for development and questions 2000-2500 for testing. We also used publicly available $8^{th}$ grade science textbooks available through $\href{http://www.ck12.org}{ck12.org}$. The science curriculum consists of seven textbooks on Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science and Life Science. Each textbook on an average has 18 chapters, and each chapter in turn is divided into 12 sections on an average.
Also, as described before, each section, on an average, is followed by 3-4 multiple choice review questions (total 1369 review questions).
We collected a number of domain specific science dictionaries, study guides, flash cards and semi-structured tables (Simple English Wiktionary and Aristo Tablestore) available online and create triples and equivalences used as external knowledge.
\\
{\bf Baselines:}
\begin{table}[t!]
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
{\bf Question Category} & {\bf Example} \\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|m{1.93cm}|}{Questions without context:} & \multicolumn{1}{m{5.65cm}|}{Which example describes a learned behavior in a dog?} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|m{1.93cm}|}{Questions with context:} & \multicolumn{1}{m{5.65cm}|}{When athletes begin to exercise, their heart rates and respiration rates increase. At what level of organization does the human body coordinate these functions?} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|m{1.93cm}|}{Negation Questions:}&\multicolumn{1}{m{5.65cm}|}{A teacher builds a model of a hydrogen atom. A red golf ball is used for a proton, and a green golf ball is used for an electron. Which is not accurate concerning the model?}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\footnotesize{Example questions for \textit{Qtype} classification}}
\label{table:qclass}
\end{table}
We compare our framework with ten baselines.
The first two baselines (\textit{Lucene} and \textit{PMI}) are taken from \newcite{Clark:2016}. The \textit{Lucene} baseline scores each answer candidate $a_i$ by searching for the combination of the question $q$ and answer candidate $a_i$ in a lucene-based search engine and returns the highest scoring answer candidate. The \textit{PMI} baseline similarly scores each answer candidate $a_i$ by computing the point-wise mutual information to measure the strength of the association between parts of the question-answer candidate combine and parts of the CK12 curriculum.
The next three baselines, inspired from \newcite{richardson:2013}, retrieve the top two CK12 sections querying $q+a_i$ in \textit{Lucene} and score the answer candidates using these documents. The \textit{SW} and \textit{SW+D} baselines match bag of words constructed from the question and the answer answer candidate to the retrieved document.
The \textit{RTE} baseline uses textual entailment \cite{stern:2012} to score answer candidates as the likelihood of being entailed by the retrieved document.
Then we also tried other approaches such as the \textit{RNN} approach described in \newcite{Clark:2016}, \textit{Jacana aligner} \cite{Yaox:2013} and two neural network approaches, \textit{LSTM} \cite{hochreiter:1997} and \textit{QANTA} \cite{Iyyer:2014}
They form our next four baselines.
To test if our approach indeed benefits from jointly learning the retrieval and the answer selection modules, our final baseline \textit{Lucene+LSSVM Alignment}
retrieves the top section by querying $q+a_i$ in \textit{Lucene} and then learns the remaining answer-entailment structure (alignment part of the answer-entailing structure in Figure \ref{structure-fig}) using a LSSVM.
\\
{\bf Task Classification for Multitask Learning:}
We explore two simple question classification schemes. The first classification scheme classifies questions based on the question word (what, why, etc.). We call this \textit{Qword} classification.
The second scheme is based on the type of the question asked and classifies questions into three coarser categories: (a) questions without context, (b) questions with context and (c) negation questions. This classification is based on the observation that many questions lay down some context and then ask a science concept based on this context. However, other questions are framed without any context and directly ask for the science concept itself. Then there is a smaller, yet, important subset of questions that involve negation that also needs to be handled separately. Table \ref{table:qclass} gives examples of this classification. We call this classification \textit{Qtype} classification\footnote{We wrote a set of question matching rules (similar to the rules used to convert question answer pairs to hypotheses) to achieve this classification}.
\\
{\bf Results:}
We compare variants of our method\footnote{We tune the SVM regularization parameter $C$ on the development set. We use Stanford CoreNLP, the HILDA parser \cite{feng-hirst:2014}, and jMWE \cite{kulkarni:2011} for linguistic preprocessing} where we consider our modification for negation or not and multi-task LSSVMs. We consider both kinds of task classification strategies and joint training (JT). Finally, we compare our methods against the baselines described above. We report accuracy (proportion of questions correctly answered) in our results.
Figure \ref{result-fig} shows the results.
First, we can immediately observe that all the LSSVM models have a better performance than all the baselines. We also found an improvement when we handle negation using the heuristic described above\footnote{We found that the accuracy over test questions tagged by our heuristic as negation questions went up from 33.64 percent to 42.52 percent and the accuracy over test questions not tagged as negation did not decrease significantly}. MTLSSVMs showed a boost over single task LSSVM. \textit{Qtype} classification scheme was found to work better than \textit{Qword} classification which simply classifies questions based on the question word.
The multi-task learner could benefit even more if we can learn a better separation between the various strategies needed to answer science questions.
We found that joint training with review questions helped improve accuracy as well.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.27]{LSSVM_kaggle.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize{Variations of our method vs several baselines on the Science QA dataset. Differences between the baselines and { LSSVM} s, the improvement due to negation, the improvements due to multi-task learning and joint-learning are significant ($p<0.05$) using the two-tailed paired T-test.}\label{result-fig}}\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\\
{\bf Feature Ablation:}
As described before, our feature set comprises of five parts, where each part corresponds to a part of the answer-entailing structure -- textbook (${\bf z}_1$), chapter (${\bf z}_2$), section (${\bf z}_3$), snippets (${\bf z}_4$), and alignment (${\bf z}_5$).
It is interesting to know the relative importance of these parts in our model. Hence, we perform feature ablation on our best performing model - \textit{MTLSSVM(QWord, JT)} where we remove the five feature parts one by one and measure the loss in accuracy. Figure \ref{ablation-fig} shows that the choice of section and alignment are important components of our model. Yet, all components are important and removing any of them will result in a loss of accuracy. Finally, in order to understand the value of external knowledge resources (K), we removed the component that induces and aligns the hypothesis with knowledge bits. This results in significant loss in performance, estabishing the efficacy of adding in external knowledge via our approach.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.28]{feature_ablation.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize{Ablation on \textit{MTLSSVM(Qword, JT) model}}\label{ablation-fig}}
\end{figure}

\section{Introduction}

We propose an approach for answering multiple-choice elementary science tests \cite{Clark:2015}
using the science curriculum of the student and other domain specific knowledge resources. Our approach learns latent \textit{answer-entailing structures} that align question-answers with appropriate snippets in the curriculum.
The student curriculum usually comprises of a set of textbooks. Each textbook, in-turn comprises of a set of chapters, each chapter is further divided into sections -- each discussing a particular science concept. Hence, the answer-entailing structure consists of selecting a particular textbook from the curriculum, picking a chapter in the textbook, picking a section in the chapter, picking a few sentences in the section and then aligning words/multi-word expressions (mwe's) in the hypothesis (formed by combining the question and an answer candidate) to a words/mwe's in the picked sentences. The answer-entailing structures are further refined using external domain-specific knowledge resources such as science dictionaries, study guides and semi-structured tables (see Figure \ref{structure-fig}). These domain-specific knowledge resources can be very useful forms of knowledge representation as shown in previous works \cite{Clark:2016}.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.6\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{answer-entailing-structure.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.395\textwidth}
\caption{\footnotesize{An example \textit{answer-entailing structure}. The answer-entailing structure consists of selecting a particular textbook from the curriculum, picking a chapter in the textbook, picking a section in the chapter, picking sentences in the section and then aligning words/mwe's in the hypothesis (formed by combining the question and an answer candidate) to words/mwe's in the picked sentences or some related ``knowledge'' appropriately chosen from additional knowledge stores. In this case, the relation (greenhouse gases, cause, greenhouse effect) and the equivalences (e.g. carbon dioxide = $CO_2$) -- shown in violet -- are hypothesized using external knowledge resources. The dashed red lines show the word/mwe alignments from the hypothesis to the sentences (some word/mwe are not aligned, in which case the alignments are not shown), the solid black lines show coreference links in the text and the RST relation (elaboration) between the two sentences. The picked sentences do not have to be contiguous sentences in the text. All mwe's are shown in green.}} \label{structure-fig}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}

Alignment is a common technique in many NLP applications such as MT \cite{blunsom:2006}, RTE \cite{Sammons:09,maccartney:2008,Yaox:2013,Sultan:14}, QA \cite{Berant:13,Yih:2013,Yao:2014,sachan:2015}, etc.
Yet, there are three key differences between our approach and alignment based approaches for QA in the literature: (i) We incorporate the curriculum hierarchy (i.e. the book, chapter, section bifurcation) into the latent structure. This helps us jointly learn the retrieval and answer selection modules of a QA system. Retrieval and answer selection are usually designed as isolated or loosely connected components in QA systems \cite{ferrucci:2012} leading to loss in performance -- our approach mitigates this shortcoming.
(ii) Modern textbooks typically provide a set of review questions after each section to help students understand the material better. We make use of these review problems to further improve our model. These review problems have additional value as part of the latent structure is known for these questions.
(ii) We utilize domain-specific knowledge sources such as study guides, science dictionaries or semi-structured knowledge tables within our model.

The joint model is trained in max-margin fashion using a latent structural SVM (LSSVM) where the answer-entailing structures are latent.
We train and evaluate our models on a set of $8^{th}$ grade science problems, science textbooks and multiple domain-specific knowledge resources. We achieve superior performance vs.\ a number of baselines.

\section{Method}
{\bf Science QA as Textual Entailment:}
First, we consider the case when review questions are not used. For each question $q_i \in Q$, let $A_i = \{ a_{i1}, \ldots, a_{im}\}$ be the set of candidate answers to the question
\footnote{Candidate answers may be pre-defined, as in multiple-choice QA, or may be undefined but easy to extract with a degree of confidence (e.g., by using a pre-existing system)}.
We cast the science QA problem as a textual entailment problem by converting each question-answer candidate pair $(q_i, a_{i,j})$ into a hypothesis statement $h_{ij}$ (see Figure \ref{structure-fig}
\footnote{We use a set of question matching/rewriting rules to achieve this transformation. The rules match each question into one of a large set of pre-defined templates and applies a unique transformation to the question \& answer candidate to achieve the hypothesis. Code provided in the supplementary.}. For each question $q_i$, the science QA task thereby reduces to picking the hypothesis $\hat h_i$ that has the highest likelihood of being entailed by the curriculum among the set of hypotheses ${\bf h}_i = \{h_{i1},\ldots,h_{im}\}$ generated for that question. Let $h^{*}_{i} \in {\bf h}_i$ be the correct hypothesis corresponding to the correct answer.
\\
{\bf Latent Answer-Entailing Structures}
help the model in providing evidence for the correct hypothesis.
As described before, the structure depends on: (a) snippet from the curriculum hierarchy chosen to be aligned to the hypothesis, (b) external knowledge relevant for this entailment, and (c) the word/mwe alignment. The snippet from the curriculum to be aligned to the hypothesis is determined by walking down the curriculum hierarchy and then picking a set of sentences from the section chosen. Then, a subset of relevant external knowledge in the form of triples and equivalences (called knowledge bits) is selected from our reservoir of external knowledge (science dictionaries, cheat sheets, semi-structured tables, etc). Finally, words/mwe's in the hypothesis are aligned to words/mwe's in the snippet or knowledge bits. Learning these alignment edges helps the model determine which semantic constituents should be compared to each other. These alignments are also used to generate more effective features.
The choice of snippets, choice of the relevant external knowledge and the alignments in conjunction form the latent answer-entailing structure. Let ${\bf z}_{ij}$ represent the latent structure for the question-answer candidate pair $(q_i, a_{i,j})$.
\\
{\bf Max-Margin Approach:}
We treat science QA as a structured prediction problem of ranking the hypothesis set ${\bf h}_i$ such that the correct hypothesis is at the top of this ranking.
We learn a scoring function $S_{{\bf w}}(h,{\bf z})$ with parameter ${\bf w}$ such that the score of the correct hypothesis $h_i^*$ and the corresponding best latent structure ${\bf z}_i^*$ is higher than the score of the other hypotheses and their corresponding best latent structures. In fact, in a max-margin fashion, we want that $ S_{{\bf w}}(h_i^*,{\bf z}_i^*) > S(h_{ij},{\bf z}_{ij}) + 1 - \xi_i$ for all $h_j \in {\bf h}\setminus h^*$ for some slack $\xi_i$. Writing the relaxed max margin formulation:

{\small
\begin{eqnarray*}
\min_{||{\bf w}||} \frac{1}{2}||{\bf w}||^2_2 +
C \sum_i \max\limits_{{\bf z}_{ij}, h_{ij} \in {\bf h}_i \setminus h_i^*} S_{{\bf w}}(h_{ij},{\bf z}_{ij}) + \Delta(h_i^*, h_{ij}) \\
- C \sum_i S_{{\bf w}}(h_i^*,{\bf z}_i^*)\quad\quad\quad (1)\hspace{2.36cm}
\end{eqnarray*}
}
We use 0-1 cost, i.e. $\Delta(h_i^*, h_{ij}) = \mathbbm{1}(h_i^* \neq h_{ij})$
If the scoring function is convex then this objective is in concave-convex form and hence can be solved by the concave-convex programming procedure (CCCP) \cite{Yuille:2003}. We assume the scoring function to be linear:$
S_{{\bf w}}(h,{\bf z}) = {{\bf w}}^T\psi(h,{\bf z})$.
Here, $\psi(h,{\bf z})$ is a feature map discussed later.
The CCCP algorithm essentially alternates between solving for ${\bf z}_i^*$, ${\bf z}_{ij}\ \forall j$ s.t. $ h_{ij} \in {\bf h}_i \setminus h_i^*$ and ${\bf w}$ to achieve a local minima. In the absence of information regarding the latent structure ${\bf z}$ we pick the structure that gives the best score for a given hypothesis i.e. $\arg \max_{z} S_{{\bf w}}(h,z)$.
The complete procedure is given in the supplementary.\\
{\bf Inference and knowledge selection:} We use beam search with a fixed beam size (5) for inference. We infer the textbook, chapter, section, snippet and alignments one by one in this order. In each step, we only expand the five most promising (given by the current score) substructure candidates so far. During inference, we select top 5 knowledge bits (triples, equivalences, etc.) from the knowledge resources that could be relevant for this question-answer. This is done heuristically by picking knowledge bits that explain parts of the hypothesis not explained by the chosen snippets.
\\
{\bf Incorporating partially known structures:} Now, we describe how review questions can be incorporated.
As described earlier, modern textbooks often provide review problems at the end of each section.
These review problems have value as part of the answer-entailing structure (textbook, chapter and section) is known for these problems.
In this case, we use the formulation (equation 1) except that the max over ${\bf z}$ for the review questions is only taken over the unknown part of the latent structure.
\\
{\bf Multi-task Learning:} Question analysis is a key component of QA systems. Incoming questions are often of different types (counting, negation, entity queries, descriptive questions, etc.). Different types of questions usually require different processing strategies.
Hence, we also extend of our LSSVM model to a multi-task setting where each question $q_i$ now also has a pre-defined associated type $t_i$ and each question-type is treated as a separate task. Yet, parameters are shared across tasks,which allows the model to exploit the commonality among tasks when required.
We use the MTLSSVM formulation from
\newcite{Evgeniou:2004} which was also used in a reading comprehension setting by \newcite{sachan:2015}.
In a nutshell, the approach redefines the LSSVM feature map and shows that the MTLSSVM objective takes the same form as equation 1 with a kernel corresponding to the feature map. Hence, one can simply redefine the feature map and reuse LSSVM algorithm to solve the \textit{MTLSSVM}.
\\
{\bf Features:}
Our feature vector $\psi (h ,{\bf z})$ decomposes into five parts, where each part corresponds to a part of the answer-entailing structure.
For the first part, we index all the textbooks and score the top retrieved textbook by querying the hypothesis statement. We use tf-idf and BM25 scorers resulting in two features. Then, we find the jaccard similarity of bigrams and trigrams in the hypothesis and the textbook to get two more features for the first part. Similarly, for the second part we index all the textbook chapters and compute the tf-idf, BM25 and bigram, trigram features. For the third part we index all the sections instead.
The fourth part has features based on the text snippet part of the answer-entailing structure. Here we do a deeper linguistic analysis and include features for matching local neighborhoods in the snippet and the hypothesis: features for matching bigrams, trigrams, dependencies, semantic roles, predicate-argument structure as well as the global syntactic structure: a tree kernel for matching dependency parse trees of entire sentences \cite{srivastava:13}. If a text snippet contains the answer to the question, it should intuitively be similar to the question as well as to the answer. Hence, we add features that are the element-wise product of features for the text-question match and text-answer match.
Finally, we also have features corresponding to the RST \cite{mann:1988} and coreference links to enable inference across sentences. RST tells us that sentences with discourse relations are related to each other and can help us answer certain kinds of questions \cite{Jansen:2014}.
For example, the ``cause'' relation between sentences in the text can often give cues that can help us answer ``why'' or ``how'' questions.
Hence, we add additional features - conjunction of the rhetorical structure label from a RST parser and the question word - to our feature vector. Similarly, the entity and event co-reference relations allow us to reason about repeating entities or events. Hence, we replace an entity/event mention with their first mentions if that results into a greater score.
For the alignment part, we induce features based on word/mwe level similarity of aligned words: (a) Surface-form match (Edit-distance), and (b) Semantic word match (cosine similarity using SENNA word vectors \cite{collobert:2011} and ``Antonymy'' `Class-Inclusion' or `Is-A' relations using Wordnet). Distributional vectors for mwe's are obtained by adding the vector representations of comprising words \cite{Mitchell:2008}. To account for the hypothesized knowledge bits, whenever we have the case that a word/mwe in the hypothesis can be aligned to a word/mwe in a hypothesized knowledge bit to produce a greater score, then we keep the features for the alignment with the knowledge bit instead.
\\
{\bf Negation}
Negation is a concern for our approach as facts usually align well with their negated versions.
To overcome this, we use a simple heuristic. During training, if we detect negation using a set of simple rules that test for the presence of negation words (``not'', ``n't'', etc.), we flip the partial order adding constraints that require that the correct hypothesis to be ranked below all the incorrect ones. During test phase if we detect negation, we predict the answer corresponding to the hypothesis with the lowest score.

\section{Related Work}
Recently, researchers have proposed standardised tests as drivers for progress in AI \cite{Clark:2016mag}. Some example standardised tests are reading comprehensions \cite{richardson:2013}, algebra word problems \cite{kushman:2014}, geometry problems \cite{seo:2014}, entrance exam tests \cite{fujita:2014,arai:2014}, etc. These tests are usually in the form of question-answers and focus on elementary school learning. Our work focuses on $8^{th}$ grade science QA which is also a standardised test.

In this paper, we take an alignment-based approach for science QA. This is a common technique across many NLP applications. Examples include word or phrase alignment for bitexts in MT \cite{blunsom:2006}, text-hypothesis alignment in RTE \cite{Sammons:09,maccartney:2008,Yaox:2013,Sultan:14}, question-answer alignment in QA \cite{Berant:13,Yih:2013,Yao:2014}, question answer-passage alignment in reading comprehensions \cite{sachan:2015}, etc. All of these approaches align local parts of the input to local parts of the output. In this work, we extended the word alignment formalism to align the question-answer pair to a snippet of the students’ curriculum. To do this, we incorporated the structure of the curriculum and the document structure (namely, rhetorical structures \cite{mann:1988} and co-reference information) to perform reliable approximate inference over such a large curriculum. We note that there have been recent works \cite{Jansen:2014,Narasimhan:2015} that have emphasised the value of rhetorical structures in QA.
Our use of rhetorical structures is in similar spirit. \newcite{Yih:2013} and \newcite{sachan:2015} model QA by automatically defining some kind of alignment between the question and answer snippets and use a similar structured input-output model. The alignment structure in \newcite{Yih:2013} is limited to single sentence answers. \newcite{sachan:2015} use rhetorical structures to bridge multi-sentence answers but do not have any retrieval component in the answer entailing structure.

QA has had a long history of using pipeline models \cite{moldovan:2003,ferrucci:2012} that extract a limited number of high-level features from induced representations of question-answer pairs, and then built a classifier using some labelled corpora. On the other hand we learnt these structures and answered questions jointly through a unified max-margin framework.
A significant contribution of our work is the unified model for retrieval and answer selection. While this issue has often been raised before \cite{yao:2013}, yet, no unified solutions have been proposed. \newcite{yao:2013} combines answer selection and retrieval by merely sharing features across components. However, in our approach, the latent structure serves as a way to combine the retrieval and alignment model that is not seen in any of the previous works.

Finally, there has been a rich vein of work in multi-task learning for SVMs in the ML community. \newcite{Evgeniou:2004} proposed an extremely simple multi-task SVM formulation assuming that the multi-task predictor factorizes as the sum of a shared and a task-specific component. We used the same idea for our MTLSSVM extension. \newcite{sachan:2015} also use this idea of multi-task learning to solve reading comprehensions. However, they are solving a different task and they do not have a retrieval component in their problem as the passage corresponding to each question is already known. Our approach integrates retrieval with question specific analysis as well as answer selection.


\section{Introduction}
\label{Sect:intro}

The $\phi$ meson is a particularly interesting hadron for a variety of reasons.
It is a non-strange particle composed of a $\text{s}\bar{\text{s}}$ pair of quarks,
and is characterized by the narrow mass distribution
centered at $m_{\phi} = 1.0195$~GeV/$c^2$, and decay width
$\Gamma = 4.27$~MeV~\cite{PDG}.
Its suppressed decay modes have accompanied the discovery of the
Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) rule~\cite{OZI}.
An enhancement of its production in the ultra-relativistic heavy-ion (AA)
collisions has been interpreted as the result of fragmentation of gluons
into q$\bar{\text{q}}$ pairs in the Quark-Gluon Plasma~\cite{Koch90}.
Calculations in the frame of the transport BUU code suggest that $\phi$ mesons
from the heavy-ion collisions at energies below threshold in a free
nucleon-nucleon (NN) collision may be produced on average even earlier
than kaons, and due to relatively weak absorption and rescattering
cross sections, a majority of $\phi$'s may survive the collision.
Therefore, $\phi$ mesons may be a good probe of earlier stages of
the heavy-ion collision~\cite{Scha10}.

In the proton-proton (pp) collisions, the ratio of $\phi$ to $\omega$
cross sections obtained near $\phi$ meson threshold was found
to violate the OZI rule by about an order of magnitude~\cite{Bale01,Hart06}.
Studies of near-threshold $\phi$ meson production in pA collisions
revealed the target mass dependence of A$^{0.56(3)}$~\cite{Taba06},
and pointed to the momentum-dependent widening of the $\phi$ width
in the nuclear medium, from where the $\phi$N absorption cross
section of about 15--20~mb was estimated~\cite{Hart12}.

In the domain of heavy-ion collisions data on the subthreshold $\phi$ meson
production is quite scarce. In the first measurement only $23 \pm 7$
events were found in the K$^+$K$^-$ channel
and the reconstructed yield per event varied by the \mbox{factor 4}
depending on the value of temperature parameter of the $\phi$
meson source assumed for the efficiency evaluation~\cite{Mang03}.
Recently, three samples of about \mbox{110--170} $\phi$ mesons were measured
at quite similar values of the average number of participant nucleons
($\langle A_{\text{part}} \rangle_{\text{b}}$ = \mbox{35--50}),
and beam kinetic energies in the range of 1.75--1.9A GeV
~\cite{Agak09,Lore10,Pias15,Gasi16}. Production yields per triggered event
were found to be $2.5 \text{--} 4.5 \times 10^{-4}$.
Taking into account that the branching ratio equals
$\text{BR} (\phi \rightarrow \text{K}^+\text{K}^-$) = 48.9 \%~\cite{PDG},
and comparing to the corresponding production yields of K$^-$,
it was inferred that $\phi$ mesons were the source of about
\mbox{15--20~\%} of negatively charged kaons.
A determination of the size of this contribution,
and tracing its dependency on the beam energy and collision centrality
is important in the context of the investigation of in-medium modifications
of K$^-$ mesons from their emission patterns~\cite{Fuch06,Lutz04,Hart11,Wisn00,Fors07}.
As the mean decay path of $\phi$ meson is 46~fm, it decays
mostly outside the collision zone, and therefore the majority of
daughter kaons are not produced in the medium.
Phase space distribution of negative kaons is thus composed
of two contributions, and the extraction procedure of
the kaon potential inside the medium should take into account
the side feeding from $\phi$ meson decays.

In recent years there has been a considerable development
on the side of transport models.
Earlier calculations in the frame of the BUU code
performed for the collisions of central Ni+Ni at 1.93A GeV,
and Ru+Ru at 1.69A GeV
favored the dominance of meson-baryon production channels
($\text{MB} \rightarrow \phi \text{B}$, M = [$\rho$,~$\pi$],
B = [N,~$\Delta$])~\cite{Barz02}.
However, further BUU calculations employing the new effective
parameterization of the
$\text{pN} \rightarrow \text{pN} \phi$ channels (N = [p,n]),
performed for the central Ni (1.93A GeV) + Ni and semi-central
Ar (1.756A GeV) + KCl collisions
suggested the BB production channels to be of equal strength as MB.
An interesting study of $\phi$ meson production in Ca (1.76A GeV) + Ca
collisions in the frame of the UrQMD model has been recently published~\cite{Stei16}.
Within this approach the decays of massive resonances
[$N^*(1990) ~...~ N^*(2250)$] have been pointed out as a
dominant source of $\phi$ mesons (cf. Fig.~6 therein).
In both types of calculations the \mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$}
ratio was predicted to be similar to the experimental findings
in the Ar+KCl and Ni+Ni systems.
The BUU model gave detailed predictions on the composition of production channels
as a function of impact parameter, distribution of production times
and kinematic variables, while the UrQMD calculations predicted a specific
profile of the excitation function of \mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$} ratio
with a maximum around the threshold energy,
evolving around the AGS beam energy region into the constant, lower value.
Thermal models also deliver predictions of the $\phi$ meson
production yields in an event.
In Ref.~\cite{Cley99} the \mbox{$\phi\slash\pi^+$} ratio is predicted
to be centrality independent,
and correlated only with the temperature of the system.
Calculations of the \mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$} ratio shown in Fig.~13 of
Ref.~\cite{Agak09} predict the strong enhancement around the threshold,
sensitive to the suppression of the volume in which the open strangeness
is produced ($R_{\text{C}}$ parameter).

However, there seems to be a strong disparity between the variety
of predictions of subthreshold $\phi$ meson production
and the scarcity of available experimental data.

In our work we address this gap by analysing $\phi$ mesons produced
in the central Ni+Ni collisions at the beam kinetic energy of 1.93A GeV,
and decaying in the dominant K$^+$K$^-$ channel.
While, as mentioned above, these mesons were already investigated
within the similar centrality class,
a relatively low number of $4.7 \times 10^6$ acquired events
in the experiment reported in~\cite{Mang03}
resulted in only $23 \pm 7$ events attributed to $\phi$ mesons.
In the experiment described in this paper, about 17 times more events
were acquired for the central trigger (defined in Sect.~\ref{Sect:exp}),
giving a good chance to measure $\phi$ mesons at considerably
better significance level.

As data on $\phi$ meson production at 1.9A GeV was also published
for the less central Ni+Ni collisions, as well as central Al+Al collisions,
our investigation allows for the first time to gain insight into
the centrality dependence of the subthreshold $\phi$ meson production
in heavy-ion collisions.

\section{Experiment}
\label{Sect:exp}

The S261 experiment was performed at the SIS--18 synchrotron in the GSI, Darmstadt.
$^{58}$Ni ions were accelerated to the kinetic energy of 1.93A GeV,
and were incident on the $^{58}$Ni target of the FOPI modular spectrometer
with the average intensity of $4\text{--}5 \times 10^5$ ions per spill.
The target had thickness of 360 mg/cm$^2$
corresponding to 1.0\% interaction probability.

The innermost detector of the FOPI setup is the
Central Drift Chamber (CDC) covering the wide range
of polar angles ($27^\circ < \theta_{\text{lab}} < 113^\circ$,
\footnote{The angles are given with respect to the target position
in the S261 experiment.}),
and subdivided azimuthally into 16 identical sectors.
The CDC was surrounded by the Time-of-Flight (ToF) detector named
Plastic Scintillation Barrel (PSB), which
covered the polar angles of $26.5^\circ < \theta_{\text{lab}} < 56^\circ$.
Both detectors were mounted inside the magnet solenoid,
which generated the field of 0.6~T. The Plastic scintillation
Wall (PlaWa) was placed downstream of the CDC.
More information on the geometry and performance of the FOPI apparatus
can be found in~\cite{FOPI}.

The on-line "central" trigger was based on the large number of hits
in the PlaWa.
After an additional off-line removal of events with vertex position
outside the target, about $79\times 10^6$ events were selected,
amounting to $(22 \pm 1)$\% of the total reaction cross-section.
Assuming the sharp cut-off approximation between
the total reaction cross section and maximum impact parameter,
and the geometrical model of interpenetrating spheres,
the number of participant nucleons averaged over the impact parameter
was estimated to be $\langle A_{\text{part}} \rangle_{\text{b}} = 74 \pm 2$.

\section{Data analysis}
\label{Sect:ana}

Charged particles passing through the CDC detector
activate the nearest sense wires,
represented within the data acquisition scheme as "hits".
An off-line tracking routine collects them into "tracks",
and reconstructs the emission angles and specific energy loss of particles.
For these particles which additionally generate hits in the PSB detector,
the ToF information is also obtained.
A reconstruction of the collision vertex allows for the elimination of
events not originating from the target.

To preselect the tracks with good reconstruction quality,
these composed of few hits were rejected.
The tracks with too large distance of closest
approach to the vertex were also eliminated.
The candidates for K$^+$ and K$^-$ mesons were searched
from the tracks matched with hits in the ToF barrel.
For a good quality of matching, the extrapolation of the
CDC track was required to pass close to the hit candidate
in the PSB detector.
To minimize the edge effects, the range of accepted polar angles
was trimmed down to $30^\circ < \theta_{\text{lab}} < 53^\circ$,
and K$^+$ (K$^-$) candidates were required to have the transverse
momentum $p_{\text{T}}$ of at least 0.18 (0.14) GeV/$c$.
A motivation for these cuts will be also discussed in Sect.~\ref{Sect:eff}.

\begin{figure}[tbh]
 \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{s261_mcdc-mpsb.eps}
 \caption{\label{fig:kpkmmass}(Color online)
  Identification of charged kaons on the
  two-dimensional map of FOPI mass parameters: $m_{\text{CDC}}$
  (obtained from the CDC) versus $m_{\text{PSB}}$
  (from the combination of CDC-PSB data). Rectangles in dashed lines
  delineate the cuts imposed for the selection of K$^+$ and K$^-$ candidates.}
\end{figure}

Within the basic identification technique of charged particles in
FOPI the information from a drift chamber (here: the CDC) is used.
A sign of electric charge is inferred from the direction
of the track curvature on the transverse plane.
Subsequently, the momentum and specific energy loss inside the chamber
is substituted to the Bethe-Bloch formula, and the mass parameter
is extracted (dubbed here $m_{\text{CDC}}$).
However, the resolution of the specific energy loss is too weak for
the identification of kaons in a reasonable momentum range.
Therefore, an additional identification technique is applied:
the mass is reconstructed by substituting the momentum and velocity
to the relativistic formula $p = m \gamma v$. The mass parameter
obtained in this method is dubbed $m_{\text{PSB}}$.
For the present analysis both methods were applied together.
In order to reject most of the pion and baryon events, the gates
were imposed on the abovementioned mass parameters,
shown as dashed rectangles in Fig.~\ref{fig:kpkmmass}.

The $\phi$ mesons in the K$^+$K$^-$ decay channel were investigated
in the invariant mass ($M_{\text{inv}}$) distribution of kaon pairs.
As the resolutions of $m_{\text{CDC}}$ and $m_{\text{PSB}}$ distributions
in FOPI are well known to deteriorate with momentum,
to limit the influence of particles with neighbouring masses
(pions and protons), the maximum momentum was set to 0.65~GeV/$c$.
In the FOPI analyses aiming at the selection of K$^+$ and/or K$^-$
using PSB, a reasonable level of signal to background
(S/B) ratio was usually kept if particles were limited to lower
maximum momenta: about 0.55~GeV/$c$ for K$^+$,
and 0.38~GeV/$c$ for K$^-$~\cite{Wisn00,Ziny14,Pias15,Gasi16}.
However, for the $\phi$ meson reconstruction analysis an unambiguous
selection of kaons is not so critical, as some admixture of misidentified
particles is not expected to create a correlation around $m_{\phi}$.
To minimize possible distortions arising for the kaon pair candidates with
small relative angles, pairs were required not to intersect in the active
region of the CDC.
The background of uncorrelated pairs was reconstructed using
the mixed events method, where K$^+$ and K$^-$ tracks from different
events were matched. The events from where two kaons were paired
had to be attributed to the same centrality class,
determined by the multiplicity of tracks in the CDC.
To prevent from smearing out of possible flow pattern of kaons
by matching events with randomly oriented reaction planes,
the parent events were rotated azimuthally to align these planes.
Finally, the background was normalized to the true pair distribution
in the region $1.05 < M_{\text{inv}} < 1.18$~GeV/$c^2$.

\begin{figure}[tbh]
 \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{s261_phi_minv.eps}
 \caption{\label{fig:phiminv}(Color online)
   (a) Invariant mass plot of true (solid line),
   and mixed (scattered points) K$^+$K$^-$ pairs. The normalisation window
   for the spectrum of mixed pairs is indicated with the arrow.
   (b) $\phi$ meson signal obtained after the background subtraction.
   The solid curve shows the Gaussian distribution fitted within
   $1.00 < M_{\text{inv}} < 1.04$~GeV/$c^2$.
   (c) A comparison of profiles of experimental (points) and simulated
   (solid line) $\phi$ meson signals.}
\end{figure}

The distribution of true and mixed pairs is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phiminv}(a). The $\phi$ meson signal obtained
by the subtraction of background from the spectrum of true pairs is
presented in panel (b) and exhibits some excess of counts in the region
$M_{\text{inv}} < 1.01$~GeV/$c^2$. To check if this excess
is generated by true $\phi$ meson events or if it is a side effect,
the experimental signal was compared to the profile obtained
in the simulation of $\phi$ meson production and detection,
shown by the solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:phiminv}(c).
Here we only report the final result of this simulation,
as it will be described in details further in Sect.~\ref{Sect:eff}.
As both distributions exhibit the abovementioned excess,
the $\phi$ meson signal was interpreted as the total
number of signal counts in the range $0.98 < M_{\text{inv}} < 1.05$~GeV/$c^2$.
Within the set of cuts described above,
the number of identified $\phi$ mesons was found to be $110 \pm 19$.
In addition, a Gaussian distribution was fitted to the signal
in the range of $1.00 < M_{\text{inv}} < 1.04$~GeV/$c^2$,
yielding the $\sigma$ parameter of 6~MeV/$c^2$
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:phiminv}(b)).
The peak maximum was found to be $1.0211(13)$~GeV/$c^2$,
about 1 standard deviation away from the nominal value in vacuum.
Within the range of $\pm ~ 2\sigma$ the signal to background ratio
was found to be 0.4, and the significance 5.0.
The number of reconstructed $\phi$ mesons and the other
characteristics of $M_{\text{inv}}$ distribution depend on the choice
of cuts applied to the track quality parameters, mass parameters,
maximum momenta, binning, and windows for integration and normalization.
This issue is further discussed in Appendix~\ref{Sect:detaSystErr}.

\section{Efficiency determination}
\label{Sect:eff}

The calculation of efficiency was performed using the GEANT3-based
environment~\cite{GEANT}, where the modeled detectors were
positioned as in the S261 experiment. \mbox{$\phi$ mesons} were sampled
from the relativistic Breit-Wigner mass profile with the nominal mass
and decay constant~\cite{PDG}, and the phase space was populated
according to the Boltzmann function multiplied by the
simple anisotropy term:
\begin{equation}
 \label{EQ:phigeantmodel}
 \frac{d^2N}{dEd\theta} \sim ~pE~ \exp (-E\slash T_{\text{s}})  \cdot \left(1 + a_2 \cos^2 \theta\right) ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $T_{\text{s}}$ is the temperature of the source,
and $a_2$ is the anisotropy parameter. Little is known about
the characteristics of the $\phi$ meson distribution in phase space.
The inverse slopes for the collisions at 1.9A GeV, and lower
$\langle A_{\text{part}} \rangle_{\text{b}}$, were found to be
between 70 and 130 MeV~\cite{Pias15,Gasi16}.
As for baryons and K$^\pm$ mesons more central collisions translate
into somewhat higher inverse slopes~\cite{Hong97,Fors07},
one may cautiously apply this trend to $\phi$ mesons.
Thus, for the determination of the efficiency in the present analysis
$T_{\text{s}}$ was varied between 80 and 140 MeV.
Regarding the polar anisotropy of $\phi$ meson emission,
no data is known so far.
Therefore, as roughly expected from the systematics for other strange
particles produced in the studied beam energy range and collision
centrality~\cite{Fors07}, $a_2$ was varied between 0 and 1.
The generated $\phi$ mesons were boosted to the laboratory frame,
and all of them were allowed to decay into K$^+$K$^-$ pairs
(the BR factor was accounted for in the calculation of the efficiency).
Particles were subsequently added to the events
of Ni+Ni collisions generated by the IQMD transport code~\cite{IQMD},
which aims at providing the realistic set of particles emitted
from the heavy-ion collisions. However, kaons emitted directly from the
collision zone were not produced by this code.

After the propagation and digitization stages performed by the GEANT routines,
events were processed using the same tracking, matching and
correlation routines, as for the experimental data.
Distributions of the quality parameters for the experimental and simulated
tracks were found to mostly overlap. To account for minor discrepancies,
the cut values for the simulated tracks were tuned such that
a given cut filtered out the same fraction of tracks in the
generated sample, and in the true (measured) one.
However, the distributions of mass parameters for the
tracks in the simulation were found to be narrower
than these from the experiment.
To tackle this problem, in the first step
for the experimental tracks of K$^+$ and K$^-$ candidates
the two-dimensional distributions of $m_{\text{CDC}}$ versus $m_{\text{PSB}}$
were inspected for consecutive slices of momentum,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:kpkmmass}.
In the next step, two-dimensional Gaussian functions were fitted
to these distributions within regions not influenced
by other particles (pions and/or protons).
A comparison of the extracted Gaussian distribution
to the rectangular cuts applied on the $m_{\text{CDC}}-m_{\text{PSB}}$
plane (see dashed rectangles in the abovementioned Figure)
allowed to find the fraction $f(p)$ of kaons
rejected by these cuts. Depending on momentum and particle sign,
$f(p)$ ranged from 0.01 to 0.15.
On the side of the simulation, the narrower mass spectra allowed to
select the sample of kaons nearly unambiguously. However, to reproduce
the abovementioned loss of kaons occuring for the experimental data,
a fraction $f(p)$ of simulated kaons was removed from the sample.

The obtained profile of the invariant mass spectrum of K$^+$K$^-$
pairs is shown as solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:phiminv}(c).
The \mbox{$\phi$ meson} reconstruction efficiency in the K$^+$K$^-$ decay channel,
calculated for the set of cuts described above, and for the source parameters
$T_{\text{s}} = 120$~MeV, and $a_2 = 0$ was found to be $3.5 \times 10^{-3}$.
It was also found that the efficiency obtained with $a_2 = 1.0$
was only 2\% lower, while variations due to different assumed values of
$T_{\text{s}}$ remained within $\pm 10 \%$ range.

In the next step we have checked whether the simulation reproduced
the efficiency of matching of tracks in the CDC with hits in the PSB.
As the statistics on kaons was too low for a reliable
study of this issue, the effect for negatively charged particles
was tested on $\pi^-$ tracks, and that for positively charged ones
-- on the sum of $\pi^+$ and protons.
In the first step the ratio of CDC tracks with associated
hit in the PSB to all the reconstructed CDC tracks was inspected
as a function of laboratory polar angle and transverse momentum.
This ratio was obtained independently for the experimental
and simulated data. Subsequently, the ratio obtained for
the experimental data was divided by that for the simulated data,
to yield the correction factor for the matching efficiency,

\begin{equation}
\varepsilon^{CDC-PSB} \left( \theta_{\text{lab}}, p_{\text{t}} \right)
 = \frac{N^{\text{PSB}}_{\text{exp}}}{N^{\text{CDC}}_{\text{exp}}}
   \slash
   \frac{N^{\text{PSB}}_{\text{sim}}}{N^{\text{CDC}}_{\text{sim}}} \quad .
\end{equation}

\noindent The meaning of this factor is:
if the matching efficiency for a particle is worse (better) in the experiment
than in the simulation, the factor is lower (higher) than 1.
The $\theta_{\text{lab}} \text{--} p_{\text{T}}$ distribution of
$\varepsilon^{CDC-PSB}$,
presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:bareff}, shows that discrepancies between the
simulated and experimental matching efficiencies remain
mostly within a $\pm 8\%$ range.
However, they arise at the detector edges and at low transverse momenta.
This finding was a motivation to limit the range of accepted
polar angles to $30^\circ < \theta_{\text{lab}} < 53^\circ$,
and set the minimum $p_{\text{T}}$ at 0.18 (0.14) GeV/$c$ for K$^+$ (K$^-$),
as mentioned above in Sect.~\ref{Sect:ana}.
Still, to correct for the remaining discrepancies,
the kaon candidates selected to build the experimental
$M_{\text{inv}}$ spectrum were weighted with the factor
\mbox{$1 \slash \varepsilon^{CDC-PSB} (\theta_{\text{lab}}, p_{\text{t}})$}.

More details on the estimation of systematic errors, conventions
applied and correction of the $\langle A_{\text{part}} \rangle_{\text{b}}$
value for the experiment presented in~\cite{Pias15} is reported in
Appendix \ref{Sect:deta}.

\begin{figure}[bt]
 \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{s261_bareff_pim-ppip.eps}
 \caption{\label{fig:bareff}Maps of correction factor for possible
unequal efficiencies of matching of CDC tracks with PSB hits between
the experimental and simulated data,
obtained for (a) $\pi^-$ tracks, and (b) sum of $\pi^+$ and proton tracks.
Regions in between dashed lines correspond to cuts applied in
the K$^+$K$^-$ analysis.}
\end{figure}

\section{Results}
\label{Sect:resu}

\begin{table}
 \caption{Available data on the centrality dependence of the $\phi$ meson
 production yield per triggered event at 1.9A GeV.
 Note, that some of published results were slightly adjusted
 according to the conventions defined in Appendix \ref{Sect:deta}.}
 \label{Tab:PhiYields}
 \begin{tabular}{cccc}
 \hline
 Reaction & $\langle A_{\text{part}} \rangle_{\text{b}}$ & Yield $\times 10^{-4}$ & Ref. \\
 \hline
  Al+Al   &   42.5 & $3.1 \pm 0.5 \text{(stat)} \pm 0.3 (\text{syst})$ & \cite{Gasi16} \\
  Ni+Ni   &   46.5 & $4.4 \pm 0.7 \text{(stat)} \pm 1.3 (\text{syst})$ & \cite{Pias15} \\
  Ni+Ni   &   74   & $8.6 \pm 1.6 \text{(stat)} \pm 1.5 (\text{syst})$ & This work \\
 \hline
  Ni+Ni (BUU) & 86 & 25. & \cite{Scha10} \\
 \hline
 \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[b]
 \includegraphics[width=8.4cm]{phi_Apart_fit.eps}
 \caption{\label{fig:phiApart}(Color online)
  $\phi$ meson yield per event at the beam energy of 1.9A GeV
  as a function of number of participant nucleons averaged
  over the impact parameters.
  Full circles: data measured at 1.9A GeV;
  open circle: data obtained at 1.756A GeV~\cite{Agak09}
  and scaled according to the systematics in~\cite{Meta93};
  Dotted curve: power function fit
  to the points marked by full circles. See text for details.
 }
\end{figure}

The production yield of $\phi$ mesons per triggered
collision of Ni+Ni ions was found to be:
\begin{equation}
 \rm{P(\phi) = [8.6 ~\pm~ 1.6 ~(\text{stat}) \pm 1.5 ~(\text{syst})]
     \times 10^{-4}}\quad .
 \label{eq:yield_phi}
\end{equation}

\noindent where the systematic error is given within the 68.3\%
confidence level (see Appendix~\ref{Sect:detaSystErr} for details).
For the consistency check we have verified that if the same
centrality cut is imposed on the events of Ni+Ni collisions
reported in~\cite{Pias15}, the $\phi$ meson yield extracted
from that data agrees within 1 standard deviation with the
abovementioned result.

A compilation of the yields per event obtained by FOPI at 1.9A GeV
is shown in Tab.~\ref{Tab:PhiYields}
and in Fig.~\ref{fig:phiApart} (full circles).
The multiplicity of $\phi$ mesons from Ar+KCl collisions at 1.756A GeV,
obtained by the HADES collaboration,
cannot be compared directly to this sample,
as due to the scarcity of data on subthreshold $\phi$ meson production
the excitation function is not known.
However, a common systematics of the excitation function of
$\pi^{0,-}$, K$^+$, $\eta$, and $\rho^0$ meson yields per participant
nucleon has been found, as shown in Fig.~6 of Ref.~\cite{Meta93}.
Interestingly, if the $\phi$ meson yield from Ar+KCl collisions
is scaled using this systematics, the ''adjusted'' value
shown as open circle in Fig.~\ref{fig:phiApart} falls well
in line with the FOPI data points obtained at 1.9A GeV.

We have fitted the FOPI data with the power function,
\mbox{$P (\phi) \sim A_{\text{part}}^\alpha$},
and obtained $\alpha = 1.8 \pm 0.6$.
For the purpose of fitting, the statistical and systematic errors
were added quadratically.
Within the thermal model approach without the strangeness undersaturation
effects the volume dependence of the $\phi$ meson multiplicity in an event
is predicted to be linear~\cite{Cley99}.
The measured $\alpha$ parameter is in agreement with this prediction
within 1.4 standard deviations.
According to the calculations in the frame of the BUU transport code
the $\phi$ meson yield in an event should be equal to $2.5 \times 10^{-3}$
for the class of 12\% most central Ni+Ni collisions
(corresponding to $\langle A_{\text{part}} \rangle_{\text{b}} = 86$
within the sharp cut-off approximation)~\cite{Scha10}.
The experimental data for this centrality class (see~\cite{Mang03})
is too scarce for a precise comparison with this prediction.
However, the BUU result appears to overpredict the abovementioned
power function, if the latter is slightly extrapolated beyond the region
of experimental data points.

The obtained centrality dependence of the $\phi$ meson production yield
can be compared to the $A_{\text{part}}$ scaling of the other mesons
produced at similar beam energies.
The pattern for $\pi^{+,-}$ mesons exhibits somewhat
sublinear dependence~\cite{Pelt97,Reis07}.
For K$^0_{\text{s}}$, $\alpha = 1.20 \pm 0.25$ was reported~\cite{Mers07}.
Turning to the charged kaons, the centrality dependence of their
multiplicity was not measured at 1.9A GeV,
but at 1.8A GeV the exponent was found to be
$\alpha = 1.65 \pm 0.15$ for K$^+$, and
$\alpha = 1.8 \pm 0.3$ for K$^-$~\cite{Bart97}.

These observations can be interpreted by a mixture of different mechanisms.
At beam energies around 1.9A GeV charged pions are produced
abundantly far above the threshold in the free NN collision,
with considerable feeding from $\Delta$ resonance decays~\cite{Hong97}.
Their sublinear centrality dependence was interpreted
as the result of interplay between the surface ($\sim \text{A}^{2/3}$)
and volume ($\sim$A) contributions~\cite{Reis07}.
On the other hand the analysis of $\pi^+$ mesons emitted from
the collisions around \mbox{0.8--1.0A~GeV}
has shown that whereas for pions with energies allowed in the
free NN channel the $\alpha$ exponent is consistent \mbox{with 1},
for high energy pions it exceeds the unity. In the latter domain
the exponent rises with the pion energy,
as more and more additional energy is necessary to pass the
threshold in the NN channel (see Fig.~11 in Ref.~\cite{Muen97}).

The rise of $\alpha$ coefficient with probing more subthreshold energies
was also observed for the K$^+$ production~\cite{Bart97,Fors07}.
At the beam energies of 1--2A GeV these particles are produced
around the threshold in the $\text{NN} \rightarrow \text{NKY}$ channel,
which is energetically the lowest-lying channel
for the K$^+$ production in the free NN collision.
Therefore the multi-step channels involving the intermediate
$\Delta$ baryons or pions, which usually facilitate the subthreshold
production of particles, are the important competitors,
and -- according to the BUU and IQMD transport codes --
these channels are responsible for
over a half of the kaon production cross section~\cite{Scha10,Hart11}.
Interestingly, within the thermal model approach the strong rising trend
of K$^+$ yield in an event with number of participants
is explained by the associated production of a hyperon in the
$\text{NN} \rightarrow \text{NKY}$ channel, required
to conserve the strangeness~\cite{Cley99}.
Regarding the K$^-$ production, at beam energies between 1 and 2A GeV
they are produced quite deeply below the threshold in the free NN
collision, and the centrality dependence of K$^-$ multiplicity in an event
was found to be stronger than linear, repeating the case of K$^+$ and pions.
In addition, for a fixed energy the centrality dependence of K$^-$ yield
appeared to follow the pattern for K$^+$~\cite{Bart97,Fors07}.
The latter observation can be explained by noticing that the
strangeness-exchange channels ($\pi\text{Y} \rightarrow \text{BK}^-$ and
$\text{BY} \rightarrow \text{BBK}^-$),
which are expected to dominate the K$^-$ production
(cf.~\cite{Fuch06,Scha10,Hart11}), require the presence of a hyperon, while
the energetically lowest-lying channel leading to the hyperon production,
$\text{NN} \rightarrow \text{NYK}^{+,0}$, generates also the kaon.

Turning back to the $\phi$ meson production, the extracted value
of the exponent is characterized by the large uncertainty.
Therefore, at the present level of statistics, the production mechanism
cannot be judged from the comparison of $\alpha$ parameters
between $\phi$ and other mesons.
Interestingly, the state-of-the-art calculations in the
frame of the BUU and UrQMD models advocate the entirely different
mechanisms of the $\phi$ meson production~\cite{Scha10,Stei16}.

\begin{figure}[b]
 \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{phikm_phipip.eps}
 \caption{\label{fig:phikmpip}(Color online)
  (a) Centrality dependence of \mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$} ratio
      at the beam energy of 1.9A GeV.
      The horizontal line and the arrow mark the average value.
  (b) Centrality dependence of \mbox{$\phi\slash\pi^+$} ratio.
      The dotted line shows the fit of the constant function, and
      the dashed line -- the power function fit.
      The value of $\alpha$ exponent is the result of the latter fit.
      See text for details.
}
\end{figure}

Considering the ratio of \mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$} yields,
in case of the central Ni+Ni collisions,
we notice that the sample of negative kaons reported in~\cite{Menz00}
was measured within nearly the same centrality class as
$\phi$ mesons from the S261 experiment.
To obtain the production yield per event of these kaons,
we have integrated the rapidity distribution shown in Fig.~2 of
Ref.~\cite{Menz00}. It allowed us to find the ratio of yields:

\begin{equation}
 \rm{\frac{P(\phi)}{P(\text{K}^-)} = 0.41 \pm 0.08 (stat) \pm 0.08 (syst)
     \quad ,}
\end{equation}

\noindent where the systematic error is given within the 68.3\%
confidence level and includes the relevant uncertainties associated
to both the experiments. With this information
we have plotted the centrality dependence of the
\mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$} ratio, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phikmpip}(a).
No clear trend is observed. The average value of this ratio is
$0.36 \pm 0.05$. Taking into account the branching ratio of
the $\phi \rightarrow \text{K}^+\text{K}^-$ decay we conclude
that at the beam energy of 1.9A GeV,
$(18 \pm 3)$ \% of negative kaons originate from the decays
of $\phi$ mesons, in agreement with the previous analyses~\cite{Pias15,Gasi16}.
Interestingly, these results are the same as for the Ar+KCl case,
measured at the more subthreshold beam energy of 1.756A GeV~\cite{Agak09}.
Within the version of statistical model in which the canonical ensemble
is applied to particles with open strangeness, the studied ratio is
sensitive to the correlation length $R_{\text{C}}$,
which corresponds to the reduced volume where strangeness can be produced.
As shown in Fig.~13 of Ref.~\cite{Agak09}, this sensitivity becomes
particularly strong around the $\phi$ and K$^-$ threshold energies.
The value of \mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$}
ratio obtained in the present analysis, as well as from the abovementioned
Ar+KCl collisions fall within the range of $R_{\text{C}} \in (2.2, 3.2)$~fm.
Most recent calculations within the UrQMD model appear to reproduce the found
\mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$} ratio as well (cf. fig.~4a in~\cite{Stei16}).

Fig~\ref{fig:phikmpip}(b) shows the centrality dependence of the
\mbox{$\phi\slash\pi^+$} ratio (see Appendix~\ref{Sect:detaCenKmPi}
for more details).
We have fitted the data with the constant function
(shown as dotted line) and obtained the value
$(8.3 \pm 1.1) \times 10^{-5}$ at \mbox{$\chi^2\slash\text{NDF} = 1.3$}.
An alternative fit of the power function,
\mbox{$P (\phi) \slash P(\pi^+) \sim A_{\text{part}}^\alpha$},
yields $\alpha = 1.0 \pm 0.6 ^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$ at
\mbox{$\chi^2\slash\text{NDF}$}~=~0.3.
A minor systematic error accounts for some uncertainty of the
$\pi^+$ yield at $\langle A_{\text{part}} \rangle_{\text{b}} = 42.5$,
which is discussed in Appendix~\ref{Sect:detaCenKmPi}.

The statistical model predicts the \mbox{$\phi\slash\pi^+$} ratio to be
independent of the number of participant nucleons
(see Fig.~2 in~\cite{Cley99}).
On the other hand, according to the most recent calculations within
the UrQMD model, the predicted trend of the abovementioned ratio,
shown in fig.~4b in Ref.~\cite{Stei16}, is strongly rising with $A_{\text{part}}$.
Judging by the obtained values of $\chi^2\slash\text{NDF}$, both
scenarios are consistent with our data.
Within the latter model the \mbox{$\phi\slash\pi^+$}
ratio is predicted to be sensitive to the temperature of the collision zone,
which by comparison to the abovementioned figure in~\cite{Cley99},
would be estimated to be around 70~MeV.

\section{Summary}
We have investigated the $\phi$ meson production in the K$^+$K$^-$
decay channel in the 22\% most central collisions of Ni+Ni
at the beam kinetic energy of 1.93A GeV
and found the sample of $110 \pm 19$ mesons.
After the efficiency corrections the yield per triggered event was found to be
$[8.6 ~\pm~ 1.6 ~(\text{stat}) \pm 1.5 ~(\text{syst})] \times 10^{-4}$.
It allowed for the first time to gain insight into the centrality
dependence of the multiplicity of $\phi$ mesons produced
in the heavy-ion collisions below the NN threshold.
Its dependence can be described by a power law with the exponent
$\alpha$ of \mbox{$1.8 \pm 0.6$}.
The current BUU calculations seem to overpredict this trend.
The \mbox{$\phi\slash\text{K}^-$} ratio as a function of $A_{\text{part}}$
does not exhibit any trend within the available accuracy,
and the average value was found to be $0.36 \pm 0.05$.
We have also found that the \mbox{$\phi\slash\pi^+$} ratio
has an average value of $(8.3 \pm 1.1) \times 10^{-5}$.
A power function parameterization of the $A_{\text{part}}$ dependence
of this ratio yielded the exponent of $\alpha = 1.0 \pm 0.6 ^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$.
According to the values of $\chi^2\slash\text{NDF}$ for these fits,
both of them are consistent with the data.

\begin{table}
 \caption{Variations of the cut parameters used in the investigation of
          $\phi$ mesons in the central Ni (1.9A GeV) + Ni collisions}
 \label{Tab:Syst}
 \begin{ruledtabular}
  \begin{tabular}{p{1.7cm}|p{4.6cm}|p{3cm}}

Parameter
          & Meaning
          & Values \\
\hline
$T$ [MeV] & Temperature of $\phi$ meson source
          & 80,~100, ...,~140 \\
$a_2$     & Anisotropy parameter of $\phi$ meson source
          & {0.0 , 1.0} \\
$M_{\text{inv,norm}}^{\text{min}}$ [GeV/$c^2$]
          & Lower endpoint of range of normalisation of background to true pairs
          & 1.05, 1.10 \\
$M_{\text{inv,int}}^{[\text{min--max}]}$ [GeV/$c^2$]
          & Integration window of $\phi$ meson signal in the $M_{\text{inv}}$ spectrum
          & \mbox{[0.98~--~1.05]}, \mbox{[1.00~--~1.04]}, \mbox{[1.01~--~1.04]} \\
$N_{\text{bins}}$
          & No. of bins for $M_{\text{inv}}$ spectrum
          & {25, 35, ..., 65} \\
$hmul_{[\text{K}^+, \text{K}^-\!]}^{\text{min}}$
          & Minimum multiplicity of hits in the CDC for a kaon candidate
          & \mbox{[27, 27]}, \newline \mbox{[30, 31]} \\
$p_{\text{K}^-}^{\text{max}}$ [GeV/$c$]
          & Maximum momentum of K$^-$ candidate & 0.60, 0.65 \\

  \end{tabular}
 \end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}