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.

Q: We then show the tweet text and image and we ask them to classify it in one of 6 categories: No attacks to any community, racist, sexist, homophobic, religion based attacks or attacks to other communities.

A: What annotations are available in the dataset - tweat used hate speach or not?
****
Q: GPT-2 achieves the highest score and the $n$-gram the lowest. Transformer-XL and the LSTM LM perform in the middle, and at roughly the same level as each other. We report the 12-category accuracy results for all models and human evaluation in Table TABREF14.

A: What is the performance of the models on the tasks?
****
Q: We illustrate the concept by discussing some instantiations that we have recently experimented with. The design also provides for a clear “relevance place” at which an opportunity arises for semantic negotiation, namely, before the final decision is made. An example of this is shown in the example below.   As SECREF12 shows, even in cases where a decision can be reached quickly, there can be an explicit mutual confirmation step, before the (silent) decision signal is sent. A third setting that we have explored BIBREF19 brings conceptual negotiation more clearly into the foreground. In that game, the players are presented with images of birds of particular species and are tasked with coming up with a description of common properties. Again, the final answer has to be approved by both participants. As SECREF13 shows, this can lead to an explicit negotiation of conceptual content.

A:
Do the authors perform experiments using their proposed method?
****