In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.

Motivated by this, we introduce resolution mode variables $\Pi = \lbrace \pi _1, \ldots , \pi _n\rbrace $ , where for each mention $j$ the variable $\pi _j \in \lbrace str, prec, attr\rbrace $ indicates in which mode the mention should be resolved. In our model, we define three resolution modes — string-matching (str), precise-construct (prec), and attribute-matching (attr) — and $\Pi $ is deterministic when $D$ is given (i.e. $P(\Pi |D)$ is a point distribution). We determine $\pi _j$ for each mention $m_j$ in the following way:

$\pi _j = str$ , if there exists a mention $m_i, i < j$ such that the two mentions satisfy the String Match sieve, the Relaxed String Match sieve, or the Strict Head Match A sieve in the Stanford multi-sieve system BIBREF1 .

$\pi _j = prec$ , if there exists a mention $m_i, i < j$ such that the two mentions satisfy the Speaker Identification sieve, or the Precise Constructs sieve.

$\pi _j = attr$ , if there is no mention $m_i, i < j$ satisfies the above two conditions. 
 Question: Are resolution mode variables hand crafted?
No

At each training step, we train the model with a batch of original examples along with adversarial examples with balanced labels. The adversarial examples account for around 10% in a batch. During training, we generate adversarial examples with the current model as the target and update the model parameters with the hybrid batch iteratively. 
 Question: What is discriminator in this generative adversarial setup?
 current model

Participants who were shown the definition were more likely to suggest to ban the tweet. In fact, participants in group one very rarely gave different answers to questions one and two (18 of 500 instances or 3.6%). This suggests that participants in that group aligned their own opinion with the definition. 
 Question: How did the authors demonstrate that showing a hate speech definition caused annotators to partially align their own opinion with the definition?

participants in group one very rarely gave different answers to questions one and two (18 of 500 instances or 3.6%)