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.

Example Input: Our corpus comprises a total of 6,127 scientific entities, including 2,112 Process, 258 Method, 2,099 Material, and 1,658 Data entities. 
Example Output: How large is the dataset?

Example Input: Sentiment Classification
We first conduct a multi-task experiment on sentiment classification.

We use 16 different datasets from several popular review corpora used in BIBREF20 . These datasets consist of 14 product review datasets and two movie review datasets.

All the datasets in each task are partitioned randomly into training set, development set and testing set with the proportion of 70%, 10% and 20% respectively. Transferability of Shared Sentence Representation
With attention mechanism, the shared sentence encoder in our proposed models can generate more generic task-invariant representations, which can be considered as off-the-shelf knowledge and then be used for unseen new tasks. Introducing Sequence Labeling as Auxiliary Task
A good sentence representation should include its linguistic information. Therefore, we incorporate sequence labeling task (such as POS Tagging and Chunking) as an auxiliary task into the multi-task learning framework, which is trained jointly with the primary tasks (the above 16 tasks of sentiment classification).
Example Output: What tasks did they experiment with?

Example Input: As shown in Table TABREF39 , the proposed framework consistently obtains the best scores on all of the four datasets. Compared with the winning systems of SemEval ABSA, our framework achieves 5.0%, 1.6%, 1.4%, 1.3% absolute gains on INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 respectively.

Our framework can outperform RNCRF, a state-of-the-art model based on dependency parsing, on all datasets. We also notice that RNCRF does not perform well on INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 (3.7% and 3.9% inferior than ours). We find that INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 contain many informal reviews, thus RNCRF's performance degradation is probably due to the errors from the dependency parser when processing such informal texts.
Example Output:
By how much do they outperform state-of-the-art methods?