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: The DeepMine database consists of three parts. The first one contains fixed common phrases to perform text-dependent speaker verification. The second part consists of random sequences of words useful for text-prompted speaker verification, and the last part includes phrases with word- and phoneme-level transcription, useful for text-independent speaker verification using a random phrase (similar to Part4 of RedDots). DeepMine Database Parts ::: Part1 - Text-dependent (TD)
This part contains a set of fixed phrases which are used to verify speakers in text-dependent mode. Each speaker utters 5 Persian phrases, and if the speaker can read English, 5 phrases selected from Part1 of the RedDots database are also recorded.

We have created three experimental setups with different numbers of speakers in the evaluation set. Similar to the text-dependent case, three experimental setups with different number of speaker in the evaluation set are defined (corresponding to the rows in Table TABREF16). However, different strategy is used for defining trials: Depending on the enrollment condition (1- to 3-sess), trials are enrolled on utterances of all words from 1 to 3 different sessions (i.e. 3 to 9 utterances). Further, we consider two conditions for test utterances: seq test utterance with only 3 or 4 words and full test utterances with all words (i.e. same words as in enrollment but in different order). Based on the recording sessions, we created two experimental setups for speaker verification. In the first one, respondents with at least 17 recording sessions are included to the evaluation set, respondents with 16 sessions to the development and the rest of respondents to the background set (can be used as training data). In the second setup, respondents with at least 8 sessions are included to the evaluation set, respondents with 6 or 7 sessions to the development and the rest of respondents to the background set.  two experimental setups for speaker verification
Output: 



Output: what evaluation protocols are provided?