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: Methodology ::: US dataset
We collected tweets associated to a dozen US mainstream news websites, i.e. most trusted sources described in BIBREF18, with the Streaming API, and we referred to Hoaxy API BIBREF16 for what concerns tweets containing links to 100+ US disinformation outlets.  Methodology ::: Italian dataset
For what concerns the Italian scenario we first collected tweets with the Streaming API in a 3-week period (April 19th, 2019-May 5th, 2019), filtering those containing URLs pointing to Italian official newspapers websites as described in BIBREF22; these correspond to the list provided by the association for the verification of newspaper circulation in Italy (Accertamenti Diffusione Stampa). We instead referred to the dataset provided by BIBREF23 to obtain a set of tweets, collected continuously since January 2019 using the same Twitter endpoint, which contain URLs to 60+ Italian disinformation websites.

Answer: What are the two large-scale datasets used?


Question: The proposed Multimodal Differential Network (MDN) consists of a representation module and a joint mixture module. We use a triplet network BIBREF41 , BIBREF42 in our representation module. The triplet network consists of three sub-parts: target, supporting, and contrasting networks. All three networks share the same parameters. The Mixture module brings the image and caption embeddings to a joint feature embedding space.

Answer: How do the authors define a differential network?


Question: With the purpose of comparing the proposed model with a popular state-of-the-art approach for image classification, for the LabelMe dataset, the following baseline was introduced:

Bosch 2006 (mv): This baseline is similar to one in BIBREF33 . The authors propose the use of pLSA to extract the latent topics, and the use of k-nearest neighbor (kNN) classifier using the documents' topics distributions. For this baseline, unsupervised LDA is used instead of pLSA, and the labels from the different annotators for kNN (with INLINEFORM0 ) are aggregated using majority voting (mv).

The results obtained by the different approaches for the LabelMe data are shown in Fig. FIGREF94 , where the svi version is using mini-batches of 200 documents.

Analyzing the results for the Reuters-21578 and LabelMe data, we can observe that MA-sLDAc outperforms all the baselines, with slightly better accuracies for the batch version, especially in the Reuters data. Interestingly, the second best results are consistently obtained by the multi-annotator approaches, which highlights the need for accounting for the noise and biases of the answers of the different annotators. Both the batch and the stochastic variational inference (svi) versions of the proposed model (MA-sLDAc) are compared with the following baselines:

[itemsep=0.02cm]

LDA + LogReg (mv): This baseline corresponds to applying unsupervised LDA to the data, and learning a logistic regression classifier on the inferred topics distributions of the documents. The labels from the different annotators were aggregated using majority voting (mv). Notice that, when there is a single annotator label per instance, majority voting is equivalent to using that label for training. This is the case of the 20-Newsgroups' simulated annotators, but the same does not apply for the experiments in Section UID89 .

LDA + Raykar: For this baseline, the model of BIBREF21 was applied using the documents' topic distributions inferred by LDA as features.

LDA + Rodrigues: This baseline is similar to the previous one, but uses the model of BIBREF9 instead.

Blei 2003 (mv): The idea of this baseline is to replicate a popular state-of-the-art approach for document classification. Hence, the approach of BIBREF0 was used. It consists of applying LDA to extract the documents' topics distributions, which are then used to train a SVM. Similarly to the previous approach, the labels from the different annotators were aggregated using majority voting (mv).

sLDA (mv): This corresponds to using the classification version of sLDA BIBREF2 with the labels obtained by performing majority voting (mv) on the annotators' answers.

Answer:
what are the state of the art approaches?