instruction:
In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and you have to write an answerable question based on the context. Your questions can be extractive, abstractive, or yes-no questions.
question:
Results on all sets show an important difference between precision and recall, precision being significantly higher than recall. There is also a significant difference between the results obtained on development and test set (F1 = 89.60, F1 = 87.82) and the results on the supplemental test set (F1 = 71.49). The time difference between the supplemental test set and the development and test set (the headlines from the the supplemental test set being from a different time period to the training set) can probably explain these differences.
answer:
What is the performance of the CRF model on the task described?


question:
As mentioned in subsec:datasets, all the word-similarity datasets contain pairs of words annotated with similarity or relatedness scores, although this difference is not always explicit. Below we provide some details for each.

MEN contains 3000 annotated word pairs with integer scores ranging from 0 to 50. Words correspond to image labels appearing in the ESP-Game and MIRFLICKR-1M image datasets.

MTurk287 contains 287 annotated pairs with scores ranging from 1.0 to 5.0. It was created from words appearing in both DBpedia and in news articles from The New York Times.

MTurk771 contains 771 annotated pairs with scores ranging from 1.0 to 5.0, with words having synonymy, holonymy or meronymy relationships sampled from WordNet BIBREF56 .

RG contains 65 annotated pairs with scores ranging from 0.0 to 4.0 representing “similarity of meaning”.

RW contains 2034 pairs of words annotated with similarity scores in a scale from 0 to 10. The words included in this dataset were obtained from Wikipedia based on their frequency, and later filtered depending on their WordNet synsets, including synonymy, hyperonymy, hyponymy, holonymy and meronymy. This dataset was created with the purpose of testing how well models can represent rare and complex words.

SimLex999 contains 999 word pairs annotated with similarity scores ranging from 0 to 10. In this case the authors explicitly considered similarity and not relatedness, addressing the shortcomings of datasets that do not, such as MEN and WS353. Words include nouns, adjectives and verbs.

SimVerb3500 contains 3500 verb pairs annotated with similarity scores ranging from 0 to 10. Verbs were obtained from the USF free association database BIBREF66 , and VerbNet BIBREF63 . This dataset was created to address the lack of representativity of verbs in SimLex999, and the fact that, at the time of creation, the best performing models had already surpassed inter-annotator agreement in verb similarity evaluation resources. Like SimLex999, this dataset also explicitly considers similarity as opposed to relatedness.

WS353 contains 353 word pairs annotated with similarity scores from 0 to 10.

WS353R is a subset of WS353 containing 252 word pairs annotated with relatedness scores. This dataset was created by asking humans to classify each WS353 word pair into one of the following classes: synonyms, antonyms, identical, hyperonym-hyponym, hyponym-hyperonym, holonym-meronym, meronym-holonym, and none-of-the-above. These annotations were later used to group the pairs into: similar pairs (synonyms, antonyms, identical, hyperonym-hyponym, and hyponym-hyperonym), related pairs (holonym-meronym, meronym-holonym, and none-of-the-above with a human similarity score greater than 5), and unrelated pairs (classified as none-of-the-above with a similarity score less than or equal to 5). This dataset is composed by the union of related and unrelated pairs.

WS353S is another subset of WS353 containing 203 word pairs annotated with similarity scores. This dataset is composed by the union of similar and unrelated pairs, as described previously.
answer:
Which similarity datasets do they use?


question:
For capturing facial presence, we rely on BIBREF56 's approach that uses multilevel convolutional coarse-to-fine network cascade to tackle facial landmark localization. Facial Expression:

Following BIBREF8 's approach, we adopt Ekman's model of six emotions: anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness and surprise, and use the Face++ API to automatically capture them from the shared images. General Image Features:

The importance of interpretable computational aesthetic features for studying users' online behavior has been highlighted by several efforts BIBREF55 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF57 .  Qualitative Language Analysis: The recent LIWC version summarizes textual content in terms of language variables such as analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone.  It also measures other linguistic dimensions such as descriptors categories (e.g., percent of target words gleaned by dictionary, or longer than six letters - Sixltr) and informal language markers (e.g., swear words, netspeak), and other linguistic aspects (e.g., 1st person singular pronouns.)
answer:

What types of features are used from each data type?