TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: As a first experiment, we compare the quality of fastText embeddings trained on (high-quality) curated data and (low-quality) massively extracted data for Twi and Yorùbá languages. The huge ambiguity in the written Twi language motivates the exploration of different approaches to word embedding estimations. In this work, we compare the standard fastText methodology to include sub-word information with the character-enhanced approach with position-based clustered embeddings (CWE-LP as introduced in Section SECREF17). 
 Question: What two architectures are used?

SOLUTION: fastText CWE-LP

PROBLEM: For training data, 3 million webpages from this corpus were processed with a CCG parser to produce logical forms BIBREF10 . We also used the test set created by Krishnamurthy and Mitchell, which contains 220 queries generated in the same fashion as the training data from a separate section of ClueWeb. However, as they did not release a development set with their data, we used this set as a development set. This final test set contains 307 queries. 
 Question: How big is their dataset?

SOLUTION: 3 million webpages processed with a CCG parser for training, 220 queries for development, and 307 queries for testing

PROBLEM: Table TABREF21 shows results for Korean INLINEFORM0 English, using the same configurations (1, 2 and 8) as for German–English. Our results confirm that the techniques we apply are successful across datasets, and result in stronger systems than previously reported on this dataset, achieving 10.37 BLEU as compared to 5.97 BLEU reported by gu-EtAl:2018:EMNLP1. 
 Question: what are the methods they compare with in the korean-english dataset?

SOLUTION:
gu-EtAl:2018:EMNLP1