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:
A meta-research study found only 1 in 9 qualitative papers in Human-Computer Interaction reported inter-rater reliability metrics BIBREF31. Another related area are meta-research and methods papers focused on identifying or preventing low-effort responses from crowdworkers — sometimes called “spam” or “random” responses, or alternatively ”fraudsters” or ”cheaters.” Rates of “self-agreement” are often used, determining if the same person labels the same item differently at a later stage. 
 Question: What are the key issues around whether the gold standard data produced in such an annotation is reliable? 

Ex Output:
 only 1 in 9 qualitative papers in Human-Computer Interaction reported inter-rater reliability metrics low-effort responses from crowdworkers


Ex Input:
To learn better graph representation of multi-party dialogues, we adopt the dialogues with 8-15 utterances and 3-7 speakers. To simplify the task, we filter the dialogues with long sentences (more than 20 words). Finally, we obtain 52,053 dialogues and 460,358 utterances. 
 Question: How large is the proposed dataset?

Ex Output:
we obtain 52,053 dialogues and 460,358 utterances


Ex Input:
The split methods (beyond random split) are the following:

Output length: Variation of the setup described by BIBREF2 where the train set consists of examples with output (sparql query or action sequence) length $\le \hspace{-2.5pt} N$, while the test set consists of examples with output length $> \hspace{-2.5pt} N$. For CFQ, we use $N = 7$ constraints. For scan, we use $N = 22$ actions.

Input length: Variation of the above setup, in which the train set consists of examples with input (question or command) length $\le N$, while test set consists of examples with input length $> N$. For CFQ, we use $N=19$ grammar leaves. For SCAN, we use $N=8$ tokens.

Output pattern: Variation of setup described by BIBREF8, in which the split is based on randomly assigning clusters of examples sharing the same output (query or action sequence) pattern. Query patterns are determined by anonymizing entities and properties; action sequence patterns collapse primitive actions and directions.

Input pattern: Variation of the previous setup in which the split is based on randomly assigning clusters of examples sharing the same input (question or command) pattern. Question patterns are determined by anonymizing entity and property names ; command patterns collapse verbs and the interchangeable pairs left/right, around/opposite, twice/thrice. 
 Question: What are other approaches into creating compositional generalization benchmarks?

Ex Output:

random  Output length Input length Output pattern Input pattern