instruction:
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.
question:
We found interesting patterns which are learned by our model and help understand these monolingual gains. For example, a recurring pattern is that words in English which are translated to the same word, or to semantically close words, in the target language end up closer together after our transformation. For example, in the case of English-Spanish the following pairs were among the pairs whose similarity increased the most by applying our transformation: cellphone-telephone, movie-film, book-manuscript or rhythm-cadence, which are either translated to the same word in Spanish (i.e., teléfono and película in the first two cases) or are already very close in the Spanish space. More generally, we found that word pairs which move together the most tend to be semantically very similar and belong to the same domain, e.g., car-bicycle, opera-cinema, or snow-ice.

 
 Question: Why does the model improve in monolingual spaces as well? 
answer:
Abstractive


question:
The choice of two methods for our empirical study is motivated by the best performance achieved by Logistic Regression in question-question similarity at SemEval 2017 (best system BIBREF37 and second best system BIBREF38 ), and the high performance achieved by neural networks on larger datasets such as SNLI BIBREF13 , BIBREF39 , BIBREF40 , BIBREF41  
 Question: What machine learning and deep learning methods are used for RQE?
answer:
Extractive


question:
The respondents in our MTurk survey had most difficulties recognizing reviews of category $(b=0.3, \lambda=-5)$, where true positive rate was $40.4\%$, while the true negative rate of the real class was $62.7\%$. The precision were $16\%$ and $86\%$, respectively. The class-averaged F-score is $47.6\%$, which is close to random. Detailed classification reports are shown in Table~\ref{table:MTurk_sub} in Appendix. Our MTurk-study shows that \emph{our NMT-Fake reviews pose a significant threat to review systems}, since \emph{ordinary native English-speakers have very big difficulties in separating real reviews from fake reviews}. We use the review category $(b=0.3, \lambda=-5)$ for future user tests in this paper, since MTurk participants had most difficulties detecting these reviews. We refer to this category as NMT-Fake* in this paper. The classifier is very effective in detecting reviews that humans have difficulties detecting. For example, the fake reviews MTurk users had most difficulty detecting ($b=0.3, \lambda=-5$) are detected with an excellent 97\% F-score. 
 Question: Does their detection tool work better than human detection?
answer:

Yes-no