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.

Input: Consider Input: To test the robustness of the taggers against the OOV problem, we also conduct experiments using artificially constructed unnormalized text by corrupting words in the normal dev set. Again, the CNN tagger outperforms the two baselines by a very large margin. 
 Question: How do they confirm their model working well on out-of-vocabulary problems?

Output: conduct experiments using artificially constructed unnormalized text by corrupting words in the normal dev set


Input: Consider Input: The input document/summary that may have unordered sentences is processed so that it will have sentences clustered together. To test our approach, we jumble the ordering of sentences in a document, process the unordered document and compare the similarity of the output document with the original document. To structure an unordered document is an essential task in many applications. It is a post-requisite for applications like multiple document extractive text summarization where we have to present a summary of multiple documents. It is a prerequisite for applications like question answering from multiple documents where we have to present an answer by processing multiple documents. 
 Question: What is an unordered text document, do these arise in real-world corpora?

Output: A unordered text document is one where sentences in the document are disordered or jumbled. It doesn't appear that unordered text documents appear in corpora, but rather are introduced as part of processing pipeline.


Input: Consider Input: We evaluate the quality of the document embeddings learned by MPAD on 10 document classification datasets, covering the topic identification, coarse and fine sentiment analysis and opinion mining, and subjectivity detection tasks. We briefly introduce the datasets next. Their statistics are reported in Table TABREF21.

(1) Reuters. This dataset contains stories collected from the Reuters news agency in 1987. Following common practice, we used the ModApte split and considered only the 10 classes with the highest number of positive training examples. We also removed documents belonging to more than one class and then classes left with no document (2 classes).

(2) BBCSport BIBREF30 contains documents from the BBC Sport website corresponding to 2004-2005 sports news articles.

(3) Polarity BIBREF31 features positive and negative labeled snippets from Rotten Tomatoes.

(4) Subjectivity BIBREF32 contains movie review snippets from Rotten Tomatoes (subjective sentences), and Internet Movie Database plot summaries (objective sentences).

(5) MPQA BIBREF33 is made of positive and negative phrases, annotated as part of the summer 2002 NRRC Workshop on Multi-Perspective Question Answering.

(6) IMDB BIBREF34 is a collection of highly polarized movie reviews from IMDB (positive and negative). There are at most 30 reviews for each movie.

(7) TREC BIBREF35 consists of questions that are classified into 6 different categories.

(8) SST-1 BIBREF36 contains the same snippets as Polarity. The authors used the Stanford Parser to parse the snippets and split them into multiple sentences. They then used Amazon Mechanical Turk to annotate the resulting phrases according to their polarity (very negative, negative, neutral, positive, very positive).

(9) SST-2 BIBREF36 is the same as SST-1 but with neutral reviews removed and snippets classified as positive or negative.

(10) Yelp2013 BIBREF26 features reviews obtained from the 2013 Yelp Dataset Challenge. 
 Question: Which datasets are used?


Output: Reuters  BBCSport Polarity Subjectivity MPQA IMDB TREC SST-1 SST-2 Yelp2013