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: Given a statement and articles, workers are asked to judge whether the statement can be derived from the articles at three grades: True, Likely (i.e. Answerable), or Unsure (i.e. Unanswerable). If a worker selects Unsure, we ask workers to tell us why they are unsure from two choices (“Not stated in the article” or “Other”). If a worker selects True or Likely in the judgement task, we first ask which sentences in the given articles are justification explanations for a given statement, similarly to HotpotQA BIBREF2. The “summary” text boxes (i.e. NLDs) are then initialized with these selected sentences. 
 Question: How was the dataset annotated?

SOLUTION: True, Likely (i.e. Answerable), or Unsure (i.e. Unanswerable) why they are unsure from two choices (“Not stated in the article” or “Other”) The “summary” text boxes

PROBLEM: The annotation projection method, which we follow in this work, is one way to address this problem. It was introduced for POS tagging, base noun phrase bracketing, NER tagging, and inflectional morphological analysis BIBREF29 but it has also been used for dependency parsing BIBREF30 , role labeling BIBREF31 , BIBREF32 and semantic parsing BIBREF26 . 
 Question: Do the authors test their annotation projection techniques on tasks other than AMR?

SOLUTION: No

PROBLEM: When we include the LM embeddings in our system overall performance increases from 90.87% to 91.93% INLINEFORM0 for the CoNLL 2003 NER task, a more then 1% absolute F1 increase, and a substantial improvement over the previous state of the art. We also establish a new state of the art result (96.37% INLINEFORM1 ) for the CoNLL 2000 Chunking task. 
 Question: what results do they achieve?

SOLUTION:
91.93% F1 score on CoNLL 2003 NER task and 96.37% F1 score on CoNLL 2000 Chunking task