TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: However, we also showed difference in produced errors for each method and different impact at word-level depending of the approach or units. Thus, future work will focus on analysing the orthographic output of these systems in two ways: 1) investigate errors produced by the end-to-end methods and explore several approaches to correct common errors done in French and 2) compare the end-to-end methods in a SLU context and evaluate the semantic value of the partially correct produced words.

SOLUTION: What will be in focus for future work?

PROBLEM: The graphs in figure 1 show the distances between duplicate and non-duplicate questions using different embedding systems. Large achieved a F1 score of 0.71 for this task without any specific training, simply by choosing a threshold below which all sentence pairs are considered duplicates. In order to test whether these results generalised to our domain, we devised a test that would make use of what little data we had to evaluate.

SOLUTION: How is the accuracy of the system measured?

PROBLEM: We treat each individual language as a task and train a joint model for all the tasks. We seek to learn a set of shared character embeddings for taggers in both languages together through optimization of a joint loss function that combines the high-resource tagger and the low-resource one.

SOLUTION:
How are character representations from various languages joint?