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: Methods ::: Baselines ::: BiGRU s with attention:
This is very similar to Sum-QE but now $\mathcal {E}$ is a stack of BiGRU s with self-attention BIBREF21, instead of a BERT instance. The final summary representation ($h$) is the sum of the resulting context-aware token embeddings ($h = \sum _i a_i h_i$) weighted by their self-attention scores ($a_i$). We again have three flavors: one single-task (BiGRU-ATT-S-1) and two multi-task (BiGRU-ATT-M-1 and BiGRU-ATT-M-5).

Methods ::: Baselines ::: ROUGE:
This baseline is the ROUGE version that performs best on each dataset, among the versions considered by BIBREF13. Although ROUGE focuses on surface similarities between peer and reference summaries, we would expect properties like grammaticality, referential clarity and coherence to be captured to some extent by ROUGE versions based on long $n$-grams or longest common subsequences.

Methods ::: Baselines ::: Language model (LM):
For a peer summary, a reasonable estimate of $\mathcal {Q}1$ (Grammaticality) is the perplexity returned by a pre-trained language model. We experiment with the pre-trained GPT-2 model BIBREF22, and with the probability estimates that BERT can produce for each token when the token is treated as masked (BERT-FR-LM). Given that the grammaticality of a summary can be corrupted by just a few bad tokens, we compute the perplexity by considering only the $k$ worst (lowest LM probability) tokens of the peer summary, where $k$ is a tuned hyper-parameter.

Methods ::: Baselines ::: Next sentence prediction:
BERT training relies on two tasks: predicting masked tokens and next sentence prediction. The latter seems to be aligned with the definitions of $\mathcal {Q}3$ (Referential Clarity), $\mathcal {Q}4$ (Focus) and $\mathcal {Q}5$ (Structure & Coherence). Intuitively, when a sentence follows another with high probability, it should involve clear referential expressions and preserve the focus and local coherence of the text. We, therefore, use a pre-trained BERT model (BERT-FR-NS) to calculate the sentence-level perplexity of each summary:

where $p(s_i|s_{i-1})$ is the probability that BERT assigns to the sequence of sentences $\left< s_{i-1}, s \right>$, and $n$ is the number of sentences in the peer summary.
Output: 



Output: What simpler models do they look at?