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.

Our experiments are run using the English$\rightarrow $Italian/German portions of the MuST-C corpus BIBREF25, which is extracted from TED talks, using the same train/validation/test split as provided with the corpus (see Table TABREF18). As additional data, we use a mix of public and proprietary data for about 16 million sentence pairs for English-Italian (En-It) and $4.4$ million WMT14 sentence pairs for the English-German (En-De). 
 Question: What dataset do they use?
English$\rightarrow $Italian/German portions of the MuST-C corpus As additional data, we use a mix of public and proprietary data for about 16 million sentence pairs for English-Italian (En-It) and $4.4$ million WMT14 sentence pairs for the English-German (En-De)

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

Given a set of evaluation documents, each having a known correct label from a closed set of labels (often referred to as the “gold-standard”), and a predicted label for each document from the same set, the document-level accuracy is the proportion of documents that are correctly labeled over the entire evaluation collection. This is the most frequently reported metric and conveys the same information as the error rate, which is simply the proportion of documents that are incorrectly labeled (i.e. INLINEFORM0 ). There are two distinct ways in which results are generally summarized per-language: (1) precision, in which documents are grouped according to their predicted language; and (2) recall, in which documents are grouped according to what language they are actually written in. It is also common practice to report an F-score INLINEFORM0 , which is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. 
 Question: what evaluation methods are discussed?

document-level accuracy precision recall F-score