instruction:
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.
question:
We first describe our models individually and then the ensembling technique that we employ. In the following, MN denotes Memory Networks to encode conversational history, RCNN signify R-CNN for object level representations of an image, Wt represents additional linear layer in the decoder, and LF a late fusion mechanism as defined in BIBREF0.

Models ::: LF-RCNN
Late fusion encoder BIBREF0 with concatenated history. We use two-layered LSTMs with 512 hidden units for embedding questions and history. The object-level features are weighed using only question embeddings. The word embeddings from Glove vectors are frozen and are not fine-tuned. Figure FIGREF6 gives an overview of the architecture.

Models ::: MN-RCNN
Memory network encoder BIBREF0 with bi-directional GRUs and word embeddings fine-tuned. Object-level features are weighed by question and caption embedding. The rest of the scheme is same as above. (Figure FIGREF6)

Models ::: MN-RCNN-Wt
Same as above but with an additional linear layer applied to the dot product of candidate answer and encoder output, and gated using tanh function. Compare Figure FIGREF6 with Figure FIGREF6
answer:
Which three discriminative models did they use?


question:
Results in Table TABREF13 show ten probes. Again, we see the performance of baseline ELMo-transformer and mSynC are similar, with mSynC doing slightly worse on 7 out of 9 tasks. As we would expect, on the probe for predicting chunk tags, mSynC achieves 96.9 $F_1$ vs. 92.2 $F_1$ for ELMo-transformer, indicating that mSynC is indeed encoding shallow syntax. Overall, the results further confirm that explicit shallow syntax does not offer any benefits over ELMo-transformer.
answer:
What are improvements for these two approaches relative to ELMo-only baselines?


question:
In this experiment, we compute the correlation of the proposed NED measure with the patient-perceived emotional bond ratings. Since the proposed measure is asymmetric in nature, we compute the measures for both patient-to-therapist and therapist-to-patient entrainment. We report Pearson's correlation coefficients ( INLINEFORM0 ) for this experiment in Table TABREF26 along with their INLINEFORM1 -values. 
answer:

How do they correlate NED with emotional bond levels?