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: With the purpose of comparing the proposed model with a popular state-of-the-art approach for image classification, for the LabelMe dataset, the following baseline was introduced:

Bosch 2006 (mv): This baseline is similar to one in BIBREF33 . The authors propose the use of pLSA to extract the latent topics, and the use of k-nearest neighbor (kNN) classifier using the documents' topics distributions. For this baseline, unsupervised LDA is used instead of pLSA, and the labels from the different annotators for kNN (with INLINEFORM0 ) are aggregated using majority voting (mv).

The results obtained by the different approaches for the LabelMe data are shown in Fig. FIGREF94 , where the svi version is using mini-batches of 200 documents.

Analyzing the results for the Reuters-21578 and LabelMe data, we can observe that MA-sLDAc outperforms all the baselines, with slightly better accuracies for the batch version, especially in the Reuters data. Interestingly, the second best results are consistently obtained by the multi-annotator approaches, which highlights the need for accounting for the noise and biases of the answers of the different annotators. Both the batch and the stochastic variational inference (svi) versions of the proposed model (MA-sLDAc) are compared with the following baselines:

[itemsep=0.02cm]

LDA + LogReg (mv): This baseline corresponds to applying unsupervised LDA to the data, and learning a logistic regression classifier on the inferred topics distributions of the documents. The labels from the different annotators were aggregated using majority voting (mv). Notice that, when there is a single annotator label per instance, majority voting is equivalent to using that label for training. This is the case of the 20-Newsgroups' simulated annotators, but the same does not apply for the experiments in Section UID89 .

LDA + Raykar: For this baseline, the model of BIBREF21 was applied using the documents' topic distributions inferred by LDA as features.

LDA + Rodrigues: This baseline is similar to the previous one, but uses the model of BIBREF9 instead.

Blei 2003 (mv): The idea of this baseline is to replicate a popular state-of-the-art approach for document classification. Hence, the approach of BIBREF0 was used. It consists of applying LDA to extract the documents' topics distributions, which are then used to train a SVM. Similarly to the previous approach, the labels from the different annotators were aggregated using majority voting (mv).

sLDA (mv): This corresponds to using the classification version of sLDA BIBREF2 with the labels obtained by performing majority voting (mv) on the annotators' answers.
Output: 



Output: what are the state of the art approaches?