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.

Input: Consider Input: Then, we compute embeddings of concepts (by GloVe) for interview descriptions and for examination descriptions separately. The simplest way to generate text embeddings based on term embeddings is to use some kind of aggregation of term embeddings such as an average. This approach was tested for example by BIBREF21 and BIBREF13 . BIBREF22 computed a weighted mean of term embeddings by the construction of a loss function and training weights by the gradient descent method.

Final embeddings for visits are obtained by concatenation of average embeddings calculated separately for the interview and for the medical examination, see Figure FIGREF4 . 
 Question: Which word embeddings do they use to represent medical visits?

Output: GloVe concatenation of average embeddings calculated separately for the interview and for the medical examination


Input: Consider Input: Compared with 2015, our QA-SRL gold yielded 1593 annotations, with 989 core and 604 adjuncts, while theirs yielded 1315 annotations, 979 core and 336 adjuncts.  
 Question: How much more coverage is in the new dataset?

Output: 278 more annotations


Input: Consider Input: We compared several summarization methods which can be categorized into three groups: unsupervised, non-neural supervised, and neural supervised methods.  As a baseline, we used Lead-N which selects INLINEFORM0 leading sentences as the summary. For all methods, we extracted 3 sentences as the summary since it is the median number of sentences in the gold summaries that we found in our exploratory analysis. Lead-3 baseline performs really well and outperforms almost all the other models, which is not surprising and even consistent with other work that for news summarization, Lead-N baseline is surprisingly hard to beat. 
 Question: What was the best performing baseline?


Output: Lead-3