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 Q]: Our experiments are run using the English$\rightarrow $Italian/German portions of the MuST-C corpus BIBREF25, which is extracted from TED talks, using the same train/validation/test split as provided with the corpus (see Table TABREF18). As additional data, we use a mix of public and proprietary data for about 16 million sentence pairs for English-Italian (En-It) and $4.4$ million WMT14 sentence pairs for the English-German (En-De). 
 Question: What dataset do they use for experiments?
[EX A]: English$\rightarrow $Italian/German portions of the MuST-C corpus As additional data, we use a mix of public and proprietary data for about 16 million sentence pairs for English-Italian (En-It) and $4.4$ million WMT14 sentence pairs for the English-German (En-De)

[EX Q]: The results indicate that most performance gains come from words embeddings, style, and morality features. Other features (emotion and sentiment) show lower importance: nevertheless, they still improve the overall system performance (on average 0.35% Macro-F$_1$ improvement) 
 Question: Based on this paper, what is the more predictive set of features to detect fake news?
[EX A]: words embeddings, style, and morality features

[EX Q]: Human Judgments
Following BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 and the vast amount of previous work on semantic similarity, we ask nine undergraduate subjects to assess the similarity of 360 pairs of relations from a subset of Wikidata BIBREF8 that are chosen to cover from high to low levels of similarity. In our experiment, subjects were asked to rate an integer similarity score from 0 (no similarity) to 4 (perfectly the same) for each pair.  
 Question: How do they gather human judgements for similarity between relations?
[EX A]:
By assessing similarity of 360 pairs of relations from a subset of Wikidata using an integer similarity score from 0 to 4