TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Wikilinks can be seen as a large-scale, naturally-occurring, crowd-sourced dataset where thousands of human annotators provide ground truths for mentions of interest. This means that the dataset contains various kinds of noise, especially due to incoherent contexts. We prepare our dataset from the local-context version of Wikilinks, and resolve ground-truth links using a Wikipedia dump from April 2016. We use the page and redirect tables for resolution, and keep the database pageid column as a unique identifier for Wikipedia entities. We discard mentions where the ground-truth could not be resolved (only 3% of mentions). 
 Question: How was a quality control performed so that the text is noisy but the annotations are accurate?

SOLUTION: The authors believe that the Wikilinks corpus  contains ground truth annotations while being noisy. They discard mentions that cannot have ground-truth verified by comparison with Wikipedia.

PROBLEM: In total around 500 different workers were involved in the annotation. about 500 
 Question: How many people participated in their evaluation study of table-to-text models?

SOLUTION: about 500

PROBLEM:  For a given query $q = \langle s, r, ? \rangle $ , we identify mentions in $S_q$ of the entities in $C_q \cup \lbrace s\rbrace $ and create one node per mention. This process is based on the following heuristic:

we consider mentions spans in $S_q$ exactly matching an element of $C_q \cup \lbrace s\rbrace $ . Admittedly, this is a rather simple strategy which may suffer from low recall.

we use predictions from a coreference resolution system to add mentions of elements in $C_q \cup \lbrace s\rbrace $ beyond exact matching (including both noun phrases and anaphoric pronouns). In particular, we use the end-to-end coreference resolution by BIBREF16 .

we discard mentions which are ambiguously resolved to multiple coreference chains; this may sacrifice recall, but avoids propagating ambiguity. 
 Question: How did they detect entity mentions?

SOLUTION:
Exact matches to the entity string and predictions from a coreference resolution system