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.

Ex Input:
Methods ::: Baselines ::: BiGRU s with attention:
This is very similar to Sum-QE but now $\mathcal {E}$ is a stack of BiGRU s with self-attention BIBREF21, instead of a BERT instance. The final summary representation ($h$) is the sum of the resulting context-aware token embeddings ($h = \sum _i a_i h_i$) weighted by their self-attention scores ($a_i$). We again have three flavors: one single-task (BiGRU-ATT-S-1) and two multi-task (BiGRU-ATT-M-1 and BiGRU-ATT-M-5).

Methods ::: Baselines ::: ROUGE:
This baseline is the ROUGE version that performs best on each dataset, among the versions considered by BIBREF13. Although ROUGE focuses on surface similarities between peer and reference summaries, we would expect properties like grammaticality, referential clarity and coherence to be captured to some extent by ROUGE versions based on long $n$-grams or longest common subsequences.

Methods ::: Baselines ::: Language model (LM):
For a peer summary, a reasonable estimate of $\mathcal {Q}1$ (Grammaticality) is the perplexity returned by a pre-trained language model. We experiment with the pre-trained GPT-2 model BIBREF22, and with the probability estimates that BERT can produce for each token when the token is treated as masked (BERT-FR-LM). Given that the grammaticality of a summary can be corrupted by just a few bad tokens, we compute the perplexity by considering only the $k$ worst (lowest LM probability) tokens of the peer summary, where $k$ is a tuned hyper-parameter.

Methods ::: Baselines ::: Next sentence prediction:
BERT training relies on two tasks: predicting masked tokens and next sentence prediction. The latter seems to be aligned with the definitions of $\mathcal {Q}3$ (Referential Clarity), $\mathcal {Q}4$ (Focus) and $\mathcal {Q}5$ (Structure & Coherence). Intuitively, when a sentence follows another with high probability, it should involve clear referential expressions and preserve the focus and local coherence of the text. We, therefore, use a pre-trained BERT model (BERT-FR-NS) to calculate the sentence-level perplexity of each summary:

where $p(s_i|s_{i-1})$ is the probability that BERT assigns to the sequence of sentences $\left< s_{i-1}, s \right>$, and $n$ is the number of sentences in the peer summary.

Ex Output:
What simpler models do they look at?


Ex Input:
The experiment dataset comes from Microsoft Research (MSR) . It contains three domains: movie, taxi, and restaurant. The total count of dialogues per domain and train/valid/test split is reported in Table TABREF11. At every turn both user and agent acts are annotated, we use only the agent side as targets in our experiment. The acts are ordered in the dataset (each output sentence aligns with one act).

Ex Output:
What datasets are used for training/testing models? 


Ex Input:
The word intrusion test is expensive to apply since it requires manual evaluations by human observers separately for each embedding dimension. Furthermore, the word intrusion test does not quantify the interpretability levels of the embedding dimensions, instead it yields a binary decision as to whether a dimension is interpretable or not. However, using continuous values is more adequate than making binary evaluations since interpretability levels may vary gradually across dimensions.

Ex Output:

What advantages does their proposed method of quantifying interpretability have over the human-in-the-loop evaluation they compare to?