Question: What is the authors' hypothesis in this paper?
Evidence: Language variety identification aims at labelling texts in a native language (e.g. Spanish, Portuguese, English) with their specific variation (e.g. Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Spain; Brazil, Portugal; UK, US). Although at first sight language variety identification may seem a classical text classification problem, cultural idiosyncrasies may influence the way users construct their discourse, the kind of sentences they build, the expressions they use or their particular choice of words. Due to that, we can consider language variety identification as a double problem of text classification and author profiling, where information about how language is shared by people may help to discriminate among classes of authors depending on their language variety.
This task is specially important in social media. Despite the vastness and accessibility of the Internet destroyed frontiers among regions or traits, companies are still very interested in author profiling segmentation. For example, when a new product is launched to the market, knowing the geographical distribution of opinions may help to improve marketing campaigns. Or given a security threat, knowing the possible cultural idiosyncrasies of the author may help to better understand who could have written the message.
Language variety identification is a popular research topic of natural language processing. In the last years, several tasks and workshops have been organized: the Workshop on Language Technology for Closely Related Languages and Language Variants @ EMNLP 2014; the VarDial Workshop @ COLING 2014 - Applying NLP Tools to Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects; and the LT4VarDial - Joint Workshop on Language Technology for Closely Related Languages, Varieties and Dialect @ RANLP BIBREF0 BIBREF1 . We can find also several works focused on the task. In BIBREF2 the authors addressed the problem of identifying Arabic varieties in blogs and social fora. They used character $n$ -gram features to discriminate between six different varieties and obtained accuracies between 70%-80%. Similarly, BIBREF3 collected 1,000 news articles of two varieties of Portuguese. They applied different features such as word and character $n$ -grams and reported accuracies over 90%. With respect to the Spanish language, BIBREF4 focused on varieties from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Spain in Twitter. They used meta-learning and combined four types of features: i) character $n$ -gram frequency profiles, ii) character $n$ -gram language models, iii) Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression and iv) syllable-based language models. They obtained an interesting 60%-70% accuracy of classification.
We are interested in discovering which kind of features capture higher differences among varieties. Our hypothesis is that language varieties differ mainly in lexicographic clues. We show an example in Table 1 .
 In this work we focus on the Spanish language variety identification. We differentiate from the previous works as follows: i) instead of $n$ -gram based representations, we propose a low dimensionality representation that is helpful when dealing with big data in social media; ii) in order to reduce the possible over-fitting, our training and test partitions do not share any author of instance between them; and iii) in contrast to the Twitter dataset of BIBREF4 , we will make available our dataset to the research community.
We are interested in discovering which kind of features capture higher differences among varieties. Our hypothesis is that language varieties differ mainly in lexicographic clues.
Answer: The hypothesis is that language varieties differ mainly in lexicographic clues.