Definition: In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.

Positive Example 1 -
Input: We evaluate the proposed approach on the Chinese social media text summarization task, based on the sequence-to-sequence model. Large-Scale Chinese Short Text Summarization Dataset (LCSTS) is constructed by BIBREF1 . The dataset consists of more than 2.4 million text-summary pairs in total, constructed from a famous Chinese social media microblogging service Weibo.  
 Question: Are results reported only for English data?
Output: No

Positive Example 2 -
Input: Since INLINEFORM0 is constant, we only need to minimize INLINEFORM1 , therefore the loss function becomes: DISPLAYFORM0 
 Question: How is the expectation regularization loss defined?
Output: DISPLAYFORM0

Negative Example 1 -
Input: The minimal change operation substantially changed the meaning of the sentence, and yet the embedding of the transformation lies very closely to the original sentence (average similarity of 0.930). 
 Question: Do they do any analysis of of how the modifications changed the starting set of sentences?
Output: No

Negative Example 2 -
Input: Looking at the current WinoGrande leaderboard, it appears that the previous state of the art is based on RoBERTa BIBREF2, which can be characterized as an encoder-only transformer architecture. 
 Question: What is the previous state of the art?
Output: GPT-3

Now complete the following example -
Input: Experiment 1 directly tested the hypothesis that speakers increase their specificity in contexts with asymmetry in visual access. We found that speakers are not only context-sensitive in choosing referring expressions that distinguish target from distractors in a shared context, but are occlusion-sensitive, adaptively compensating for uncertainty. These results strongly suggest that the speaker's informativity influences listener accuracy. In support of this hypothesis, we found a strong negative correlation between informativity and error rates across items and conditions: listeners make fewer errors when utterances are a better fit for the target relative to the distractor ( $\rho = -0.81$ , bootstrapped 95% CI $= [-0.9, -0.7]$ ; Fig. 6 B). This result suggests that listener behavior is driven by an expectation of speaker informativity: listeners interpret utterances proportionally to how well they fit objects in context. Our Rational Speech Act (RSA) formalization of cooperative reasoning in this context predicts that speakers (directors) naturally increase the informativity of their referring expressions to hedge against the increased risk of misunderstanding; Exp. 1 presents direct evidence in support of this hypothesis. Exp. 2 is consistent with this hypothesis; when directors used underinformative scripted instructions (taken from prior work), listeners made significantly more errors than when speakers were allowed to provide referring expressions at their natural level of informativity, and speaker informativeness strongly modulated listener error rates. 
 Question: Did participants behave unexpectedly?
Output: 



Answer: No