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.

Ex Input:
In total around 500 different workers were involved in the annotation. about 500 
 Question: How many people participated in their evaluation study of table-to-text models?

Ex Output:
about 500


Ex Input:
The grammar induction method works on the premise of curriculum learning BIBREF7 , where the parser first learns to parse simple sentences, then proceeds to learn more complex ones. The induction method is iterative, semi-automatic and based on frequent patterns. A context-free grammar (CFG) is induced from the text, which is represented by several layers of semantic annotations. 
 Question: How did they induce the CFG?

Ex Output:
the parser first learns to parse simple sentences, then proceeds to learn more complex ones. The induction method is iterative, semi-automatic and based on frequent patterns


Ex Input:
The respondents in our MTurk survey had most difficulties recognizing reviews of category $(b=0.3, \lambda=-5)$, where true positive rate was $40.4\%$, while the true negative rate of the real class was $62.7\%$. The precision were $16\%$ and $86\%$, respectively. The class-averaged F-score is $47.6\%$, which is close to random. Detailed classification reports are shown in Table~\ref{table:MTurk_sub} in Appendix. Our MTurk-study shows that \emph{our NMT-Fake reviews pose a significant threat to review systems}, since \emph{ordinary native English-speakers have very big difficulties in separating real reviews from fake reviews}. We use the review category $(b=0.3, \lambda=-5)$ for future user tests in this paper, since MTurk participants had most difficulties detecting these reviews. We refer to this category as NMT-Fake* in this paper. The classifier is very effective in detecting reviews that humans have difficulties detecting. For example, the fake reviews MTurk users had most difficulty detecting ($b=0.3, \lambda=-5$) are detected with an excellent 97\% F-score. 
 Question: Does their detection tool work better than human detection?

Ex Output:

Yes