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.

Input: Consider Input: Experiments ::: Baselines
We evaluate MPAD against multiple state-of-the-art baseline models, including hierarchical ones, to enable fair comparison with the hierarchical MPAD variants.

doc2vec BIBREF37. Doc2vec (or paragraph vector) is an extension of word2vec that learns vectors for documents in a fully unsupervised manner. Document embeddings are then fed to a logistic regression classifier.

CNN BIBREF38. The convolutional neural network architecture, well-known in computer vision, is applied to text. There is one spatial dimension and the word embeddings are used as channels (depth dimensions).

DAN BIBREF39. The Deep Averaging Network passes the unweighted average of the embeddings of the input words through multiple dense layers and a final softmax.

Tree-LSTM BIBREF40 is a generalization of the standard LSTM architecture to constituency and dependency parse trees.

DRNN BIBREF41. Recursive neural networks are stacked and applied to parse trees.

LSTMN BIBREF42 is an extension of the LSTM model where the memory cell is replaced by a memory network which stores word representations.

C-LSTM BIBREF43 combines convolutional and recurrent neural networks. The region embeddings provided by a CNN are fed to a LSTM.

SPGK BIBREF44 also models documents as word co-occurrence networks. It computes a graph kernel that compares shortest paths extracted from the word co-occurrence networks and then uses a SVM to categorize documents.

WMD BIBREF45 is an application of the well-known Earth Mover's Distance to text. A k-nearest neighbor classifier is used.

S-WMD BIBREF46 is a supervised extension of the Word Mover's Distance.

Semantic-CNN BIBREF47. Here, a CNN is applied to semantic units obtained by clustering words in the embedding space.

LSTM-GRNN BIBREF26 is a hierarchical model where sentence embeddings are obtained with a CNN and a GRU-RNN is fed the sentence representations to obtain a document vector.

HN-ATT BIBREF27 is another hierarchical model, where the same encoder architecture (a bidirectional GRU-RNN) is used for both sentences and documents, with different parameters. A self-attention mechanism is applied to the RNN annotations at each level.

Output: What is the state-of-the-art system?


Input: Consider Input:  In almost all genres, DenseNMT models are significantly better than the baselines.

Output: did they outperform previous methods?


Input: Consider Input: On another note, we apply our formalization to evaluate multilingual $\textsc {bert} $'s syntax knowledge on a set of six typologically diverse languages. Although it does encode a large amount of information about syntax (more than $81\%$ in all languages), it only encodes at most $5\%$ more information than some trivial baseline knowledge (a type-level representation). This indicates that the task of POS labeling (word-level POS tagging) is not an ideal task for contemplating the syntactic understanding of contextual word embeddings. We see that—in all analysed languages—type level embeddings can already capture most of the uncertainty in POS tagging. We also see that BERT only shares a small amount of extra information with the task, having small (or even negative) gains in all languages. Finally, when put into perspective, multilingual $\textsc {bert} $'s representations do not seem to encode much more information about syntax than a trivial baseline. $\textsc {bert} $ only improves upon fastText in three of the six analysed languages—and even in those, it encodes at most (in English) $5\%$ additional information.


Output: Was any variation in results observed based on language typology?