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 Input:
In this section, we analyze the Hamming distance between the projections of the sentences from the enwik9 dataset and the corresponding projections of the same sentences after applying character level perturbations. We experiment with three types of character level perturbation BIBREF11 and two types of word level perturbation operations.

Perturbation Study ::: Character Level Perturbation Operations
insert(word, n) : We randomly choose n characters from the character vocabulary and insert them at random locations into the input word. We however retain the first and last characters of the word as is. Ex. transformation: $sample \rightarrow samnple$.

swap(word, n): We randomly swap the location of two characters in the word n times. As with the insert operation, we retain the first and last characters of the word as is and only apply the swap operation to the remaining characters. Ex. transformation: $sample \rightarrow sapmle$.

duplicate(word, n): We randomly duplicate a character in the word by n times. Ex. transformation: $sample \rightarrow saample$.

Perturbation Study ::: Character Level Perturbation Operations ::: Word Level Perturbation Operations
drop(sentence, n): We randomly drop n words from the sentence. Ex. transformation: This is a big cat. $\rightarrow $ This is a cat.

duplicate(sentence, n): Similar to duplicate(word, n) above, we randomly duplicate a word in the sentence n times. Ex. transformation: This is a big cat. $\rightarrow $ This is a big big cat.

swap(sentence, n): Similar to swap(word, n), we randomly swap the location of two words in the sentence n times. Ex. transformation: This is a big cat. $\rightarrow $ This cat is big. 
 Question: How does their perturbation algorihm work?

Ex Output:
same sentences after applying character level perturbations


Ex Input:
The summaries generated by our ILP-based approach were compared with the corresponding manual summaries using the ROUGE BIBREF22 unigram score. 
 Question: What evaluation metrics were used for the summarization task?

Ex Output:
ROUGE BIBREF22 unigram score


Ex Input:
Adding word alignments in parallel sentences results in small, non significant improvements, even if there is some labeled data available in the source language. This difficulty in showing the usefulness of parallel corpora for SRI may be due to the current assumptions about role alignments, which mean that only a small percentage of roles are aligned. Further analyses reveals that annotating small amounts of data can easily outperform the performance gains obtained by adding large unlabeled dataset as well as adding parallel corpora. 
 Question: Overall, does having parallel data improve semantic role induction across multiple languages?

Ex Output:

No