In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question based on the context. You have to classify the questions into "Extractive", "Abstractive", or "Yes-no" questions. Extractive questions can be answered by concatenating extracts taken from a context into a summary while answering abstractive questions involves paraphrasing the context using novel sentences. Yes-no question is a question whose expected answer is one of two choices, one that affirms the question and one that denies the question. Typically, the choices are either yes or no.

Input: Consider Input:  We defined a sequence labeling task to extract custom entities from user input. We assumed seven (7) possible entities (see Table TABREF43) to be recognized by the model: topic, subtopic, examination mode and level, question number, intent, as well as the entity other for remaining words in the utterance.   We defined a classification problem to predict the system's next action according to the given user input. We assumed 13 custom actions (see Table TABREF42) that we considered being our labels. In the conversational dataset, each input was automatically labeled by the rule-based system with the corresponding next action and the dialogue-id. Thus, no additional post-labeling was required.  
 Question: How does the IPA label data after interacting with users?

Output: Abstractive


Input: Consider Input: As a framework, we use the sentence classifier configuration of FLAIR BIBREF46 with a biLSTM encoder/classifier architecture fed by character and word level representations composed of a concatenation of fixed 300 dimensional GloVe embeddings BIBREF47, pre-trained contextualized FLAIR word embeddings, and pre-trained contextualized character embeddings from AllenNLP BIBREF48 with FLAIR's default hyperparameters. 
 Question: Are some models evaluated using this metric, what are the findings?

Output: Yes-no


Input: Consider Input: GE-FL reduces the heavy load of instance annotation and performs well when we provide prior knowledge with no bias. In our experiments, we observe that comparable numbers of labeled features for each class have to be supplied. We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other. Our methods are also evaluated on datasets with different unbalanced class distributions. We manually construct several movie datasets with class distributions of 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 by randomly removing 50%, 67%, 75% positive documents. Incorporating KL divergence is robust enough to control unbalance both in the dataset and in labeled features while the other three methods are not so competitive. 
 Question: How do they define robustness of a model?


Output: Abstractive