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.

 To support this claim, we measure our system's performance for datasets across various domains. The evaluations are done by managed judges who understands the knowledge base and then judge user queries relevance to the QA pairs (binary labels). Each query-QA pair is judged by two judges. We filter out data for which judges do not agree on the label. Chit-chat in itself can be considered as a domain. Thus, we evaluate performance on given KB both with and without chit-chat data (last two rows in Table TABREF19), as well as performance on just chit-chat data (2nd row in Table TABREF19). 
 Question: What experiments do the authors present to validate their system?
 we measure our system's performance for datasets across various domains evaluations are done by managed judges who understands the knowledge base and then judge user queries relevance to the QA pairs

This section introduces our probabilistic model that infers keyword expectation and trains the target model simultaneously. 
 Question: What type of classifiers are used?
probabilistic model

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.  
 Question: What are the main sources of recall errors in the mapping?

irremediable annotation discrepancies differences in choice of attributes to annotate 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 the two annotations encode distinct information incorrectly applied UniMorph annotation cross-lingual inconsistency in both resources