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

Positive Example 1 -
Input: Questions are gathered from anonymized, aggregated queries to the Google search engine. Queries that are likely to be yes/no questions are heuristically identified: we found selecting queries where the first word is in a manually constructed set of indicator words and are of sufficient length, to be effective.

Questions are only kept if a Wikipedia page is returned as one of the first five results, in which case the question and Wikipedia page are given to a human annotator for further processing.

Annotators label question/article pairs in a three-step process. First, they decide if the question is good, meaning it is comprehensible, unambiguous, and requesting factual information. This judgment is made before the annotator sees the Wikipedia page. Next, for good questions, annotators find a passage within the document that contains enough information to answer the question. Annotators can mark questions as “not answerable" if the Wikipedia article does not contain the requested information. Finally, annotators mark whether the question's answer is “yes" or “no". Annotating data in this manner is quite expensive since annotators need to search entire Wikipedia documents for relevant evidence and read the text carefully.
Output: how was the dataset built?

Positive Example 2 -
Input: Using this annotation model, we create a new large publicly available dataset of English tweets.
Output: In what language are the tweets?

Negative Example 1 -
Input: Using this annotation model, we create a new large publicly available dataset of English tweets.
Output: In what language is tweets?

Negative Example 2 -
Input: Questions are gathered from anonymized, aggregated queries to the Google search engine. Queries that are likely to be yes/no questions are heuristically identified: we found selecting queries where the first word is in a manually constructed set of indicator words and are of sufficient length, to be effective.

Questions are only kept if a Wikipedia page is returned as one of the first five results, in which case the question and Wikipedia page are given to a human annotator for further processing.

Annotators label question/article pairs in a three-step process. First, they decide if the question is good, meaning it is comprehensible, unambiguous, and requesting factual information. This judgment is made before the annotator sees the Wikipedia page. Next, for good questions, annotators find a passage within the document that contains enough information to answer the question. Annotators can mark questions as “not answerable" if the Wikipedia article does not contain the requested information. Finally, annotators mark whether the question's answer is “yes" or “no". Annotating data in this manner is quite expensive since annotators need to search entire Wikipedia documents for relevant evidence and read the text carefully.
Output: What is the size of the dataset?

Now complete the following example -
Input: We characterize the evaluation of Emotionally-Aware Chatbot into two different parts, qualitative and quantitative assessment. Qualitative assessment will focus on assessing the functionality of the software, while quantitative more focus on measure the chatbots' performance with a number. Based on our investigation of several previous studies, we found that most of the works utilized ISO 9241 to assess chatbots' quality by focusing on the usability aspect. This aspect can be grouped into three focuses, including efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction, concerning systems' performance to achieve the specified goals. In automatic evaluation, some studies focus on evaluating the system at emotion level BIBREF15 , BIBREF28 . Therefore, some common metrics such as precision, recall, and accuracy are used to measure system performance, compared to the gold label. This evaluation is similar to emotion classification tasks such as previous SemEval 2018 BIBREF32 and SemEval 2019 . Other studies also proposed to use perplexity to evaluate the model at the content level (to determine whether the content is relevant and grammatical) BIBREF14 , BIBREF39 , BIBREF28 . This evaluation metric is widely used to evaluate dialogue-based systems which rely on probabilistic approach BIBREF61 . Another work by BIBREF14 used BLEU to evaluate the machine response and compare against the gold response (the actual response), although using BLEU to measure conversation generation task is not recommended by BIBREF62 due to its low correlation with human judgment. This evaluation involves human judgement to measure the chatbots' performance, based on several criteria. BIBREF15 used three annotators to rate chatbots' response in two criteria, content (scale 0,1,2) and emotion (scale 0,1). Content is focused on measuring whether the response is natural acceptable and could plausible produced by a human. This metric measurement is already adopted and recommended by researchers and conversation challenging tasks, as proposed in BIBREF38 .
Output: 



Output: How are EAC evaluated?