In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question based on the context. You have to classify the questions into "Extractive", "Abstractive", or "Yes-no" questions. Extractive questions can be answered by concatenating extracts taken from a context into a summary while answering abstractive questions involves paraphrasing the context using novel sentences. Yes-no question is a question whose expected answer is one of two choices, one that affirms the question and one that denies the question. Typically, the choices are either yes or no.

Our video question answering task is novel and to our knowledge, no model has been designed specifically for this task. As a first step towards solving this problem, we evaluated the performance of state-of-the-art models developed for other QA tasks, including a sentence-level prediction task and two segment retrieval tasks. Baselines ::: Baseline1: Sentence-level prediction
Given a transcript (a sequence of sentences) and a question, Baseline1 predicts (starting sentence index, ending sentence index). The model is based on RaSor BIBREF13, which has been developed for the SQuAD QA task BIBREF6. RaSor concatenates the embedding vectors of the starting and the ending words to represent a span. Following this idea, Baseline1 represents a span of sentences by concatenating the vectors of the starting and ending sentences. The left diagram in Fig. FIGREF15 illustrates the Baseline1 model.

Model. The model takes two inputs, a transcript, $\lbrace s_1, s_2, ... s_n\rbrace $ where $s_i$ are individual sentences and a question, $q$. The output is the span scores, $y$, the scores over all possible spans. GLoVe BIBREF14 is used for the word representations in the transcript and the questions. We use two bi-LSTMs BIBREF15 to encode the transcript.

where n is the number of sentences . The output of Passage-level Encoding, $p$, is a sequence of vector, $p_i$, which represents the latent meaning of each sentence. Then, the model combines each pair of sentence embeddings ($p_i$, $p_j$) to generate a span embedding.

where [$\cdot $,$\cdot $] indicates the concatenation. Finally, we use a one-layer feed forward network to compute a score between each span and a question.

In training, we use cross-entropy as an objective function. In testing, the span with the highest score is picked as an answer. Baselines ::: Baseline2: Segment retrieval
We also considered a simpler task by casting our problem as a retrieval task. Specifically, in addition to a plain transcript, we also provided the model with the segmentation information which was created during the data collection phrase (See Section. SECREF3). Note that each segments corresponds to a candidate answer. Then, the task is to pick the best segment for given a query. This task is easier than Baseline1's task in that the segmentation information is provided to the model. Unlike Baseline1, however, it is unable to return an answer span at various granularities. Baseline2 is based on the attentive LSTM BIBREF17, which has been developed for the InsuranceQA task. The right diagram in Fig. FIGREF15 illustrates the Baseline2 model.

Model. The two inputs, $s$ and $q$ represent the segment text and a question. The model first encodes the two inputs.

$h^s$ is then re-weighted using attention weights.

where $\odot $ denotes the element-wise multiplication operation. The final score is computed using a one-layer feed-forward network.

During training, the model requires negative samples. For each positive example, (question, ground-truth segment), all the other segments in the same transcript are used as negative samples. Cross entropy is used as an objective function.

 Baselines ::: Baseline3: Pipeline Segment retrieval
We construct a pipelined approach through another segment retrieval task, calculating the cosine similarities between the segment and question embeddings. In this task however, we want to test the accuracy of retrieving the segments given that we first retrieve the correct video from our 76 videos. First, we generate the TF-IDF embeddings for the whole video transcripts and questions. The next step involves retrieving the videos which have the lowest cosine distance between the video transcripts and question. We then filter and store the top ten videos, reducing the number of computations required in the next step. Finally, we calculate the cosine distances between the question and the segments which belong to the filtered top 10 videos, marking it as correct if found in these videos. While the task is less computationally expensive than the previous baseline, we do not learn the segment representations, as this task is a simple retrieval task based on TF-IDF embeddings.

Model. The first two inputs are are the question, q, and video transcript, v, encoded by their TF-IDF vectors: BIBREF18:

We then filter the top 10 video transcripts(out of 76) with the minimum cosine distance, and further compute the TF-IDF vectors for their segments, Stop10n, where n = 10. We repeat the process for the corresponding segments:

selecting the segment with the minimal cosine distance distance to the query. 
 Question: What baseline algorithms were presented?
Abstractive

Our novelties include:

Using self-play learning for the neural response ranker (described in detail below).

Optimizing neural models for specific metrics (e.g. diversity, coherence) in our ensemble setup.

Training a separate dialog model for each user, personalizing our socialbot and making it more consistent.

Using a response classification predictor and a response classifier to predict and control aspects of responses such as sentiment, topic, offensiveness, diversity etc.

Using a model predictor to predict the best responding model, before the response candidates are generated, reducing computational expenses.

Using our entropy-based filtering technique to filter all dialog datasets, obtaining higher quality training data BIBREF3.

Building big, pre-trained, hierarchical BERT and GPT dialog models BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8.

Constantly monitoring the user input through our automatic metrics, ensuring that the user stays engaged. 
 Question: What is novel in author's approach?
Abstractive

At the same time, some information about inflected word forms in the context can be useful, but it is lost during lemmatization, and this leads to the decreased score. Arguably, this means that lemmatization brings along both advantages and disadvantages for WSD with ELMo.  
 Question: Do the authors mention any downside of lemmatizing input before training ELMo?

Yes-no