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.

Ex Input:
We manually reviewed 1,177 pairs of entities and referring expressions generated by the system. Overall, 73.3% of the non-first mentions of entities were replaced with suitable shorter and more fluent expressions.

Ex Output:
How is fluency of generated text evaluated?


Ex Input:
Our prediction task is thus a straightforward binary classification task at the word level. We develop the following five groups of features to capture properties of how a word is used in the explanandum (see Table TABREF18 for the full list):

[itemsep=0pt,leftmargin=*,topsep=0pt]

Non-contextual properties of a word. These features are derived directly from the word and capture the general tendency of a word being echoed in explanations.

Word usage in an OP or PC (two groups). These features capture how a word is used in an OP or PC. As a result, for each feature, we have two values for the OP and PC respectively.

How a word connects an OP and PC. These features look at the difference between word usage in the OP and PC. We expect this group to be the most important in our task.

General OP/PC properties. These features capture the general properties of a conversation. They can be used to characterize the background distribution of echoing.

Table TABREF18 further shows the intuition for including each feature, and condensed $t$-test results after Bonferroni correction. Specifically, we test whether the words that were echoed in explanations have different feature values from those that were not echoed. In addition to considering all words, we also separately consider stopwords and content words in light of Figure FIGREF8. Here, we highlight a few observations:

[itemsep=0pt,leftmargin=*,topsep=0pt]

Although we expect more complicated words (#characters) to be echoed more often, this is not the case on average. We also observe an interesting example of Simpson's paradox in the results for Wordnet depth BIBREF38: shallower words are more likely to be echoed across all words, but deeper words are more likely to be echoed in content words and stopwords.

Ex Output:
What features are proposed?


Ex Input:
irremediable annotation discrepancies Some shortcomings of recall come from irremediable annotation discrepancies. Largely, we are hamstrung by differences in choice of attributes to annotate. When one resource marks gender and the other marks case, we can't infer the gender of the word purely from its surface form. The resources themselves would need updating to encode the relevant morphosyntactic information. Some languages had a very low number of overlapping forms, and no tag matches or near-matches between them: Arabic, Hindi, Lithuanian, Persian, and Russian. A full list of observed, irremediable discrepancies is presented alongside the codebase. We were able to find specific instances of incorrectly applied UniMorph annotation, as well as specific instances of cross-lingual inconsistency in both resources. 

Ex Output:

What are the main sources of recall errors in the mapping?