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.

[Q]: We also did a qualitative study on the Starbucks (SBUX) stock movement during this event. Figure FIGREF12 is the daily percentage change of SBUX and NASDAQ index between April 11th and April 20th. SBUX did not follow the upward trend of the whole market before April 17th, and then its change on April 20th, INLINEFORM0 , is quite significant from historical norms. We collected the historical 52 week stock prices prior to this event and calculated the daily stock price change. The distribution of the daily price change of the previous 52 weeks is Figure FIGREF13 with a mean INLINEFORM1 and standard deviation INLINEFORM2 .  
 Question: How does the method measure the impact of the event on market prices?
[A]: We collected the historical 52 week stock prices prior to this event and calculated the daily stock price change. The distribution of the daily price change of the previous 52 weeks is Figure FIGREF13 with a mean INLINEFORM1 and standard deviation INLINEFORM2 . 


[Q]: Just as introduced in sec:introduction, it is intractable to compute similarity exactly, as involving INLINEFORM0 computation. Hence, we consider the monte-carlo approximation: DISPLAYFORM0

where INLINEFORM0 is a list of entity pairs sampled from INLINEFORM1 . We use sequential sampling to gain INLINEFORM6 , which means we first sample INLINEFORM7 given INLINEFORM8 from INLINEFORM9 , and then sample INLINEFORM10 given INLINEFORM11 and INLINEFORM12 from INLINEFORM13 . 
 Question: Which sampling method do they use to approximate similarity between the conditional probability distributions over entity pairs?
[A]: monte-carlo sequential sampling


[Q]: We focus on the data shared by BIBREF3, and empirically test to what extent changes in the evaluation design affect the outcome of the human evaluation. In this study, we address three aspects that we consider to be particularly relevant for human evaluation of MT, with a special focus on testing human–machine parity: the choice of raters, the use of linguistic context, and the construction of reference translations. We empirically test and discuss the impact of these factors on human evaluation of MT in Sections SECREF3–SECREF5.  
 Question: What empricial investigations do they reference?
[A]:
empirically test to what extent changes in the evaluation design affect the outcome of the human evaluation