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: We observe interesting hidden correlation in data. Fig. FIGREF24 has Topic 2 as selected topic. Topic 2 contains top-4 co-occurring keywords "vegan", "yoga", "job", "every_woman" having the highest term frequency. We can infer different things from the topic that "women usually practice yoga more than men", "women teach yoga and take it as a job", "Yogi follow vegan diet". We would say there are noticeable correlation in data i.e. `Yoga-Veganism', `Women-Yoga'. Women-Yoga 
 Question: What other interesting correlations are observed?

SOLUTION: Women-Yoga

PROBLEM: Which events authors choose to include in their history, which they leave out, and the way the events chosen relate to the march are crucial factors in conveying bias. 
 Question: What factors contribute to interpretive biases according to this research?

SOLUTION: Which events authors choose to include in their history, which they leave out, and the way the events chosen relate to the march

PROBLEM: The word intrusion test is expensive to apply since it requires manual evaluations by human observers separately for each embedding dimension. Furthermore, the word intrusion test does not quantify the interpretability levels of the embedding dimensions, instead it yields a binary decision as to whether a dimension is interpretable or not. However, using continuous values is more adequate than making binary evaluations since interpretability levels may vary gradually across dimensions. 
 Question: What advantages does their proposed method of quantifying interpretability have over the human-in-the-loop evaluation they compare to?

SOLUTION:
it is less expensive and quantifies interpretability using continuous values rather than binary evaluations