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.

Ex Input:
They annotated 7.8K verbs, reporting an average of 2.4 QA pairs per predicate. Even though multiple annotators were shown to produce greater coverage, their released dataset was produced using only a single annotator per verb. 
 Question: How was coverage measured?

Ex Output:
QA pairs per predicate


Ex Input:
The proposed Multimodal Differential Network (MDN) consists of a representation module and a joint mixture module. We use a triplet network BIBREF41 , BIBREF42 in our representation module. The triplet network consists of three sub-parts: target, supporting, and contrasting networks. All three networks share the same parameters. The Mixture module brings the image and caption embeddings to a joint feature embedding space. 
 Question: How do the authors define a differential network?

Ex Output:
The proposed Multimodal Differential Network (MDN) consists of a representation module and a joint mixture module.


Ex Input:
WN18RR dataset consists of two kinds of relations: the symmetric relations such as $\_similar\_to$, which link entities in the category (b); other relations such as $\_hypernym$ and $\_member\_meronym$, which link entities in the category (a). Actually, RotatE can model entities in the category (b) very well BIBREF7. However, HAKE gains a 0.021 higher MRR, a 2.4% higher H@1, and a 2.4% higher H@3 against RotatE, respectively. FB15k-237 dataset has more complex relation types and fewer entities, compared with WN18RR and YAGO3-10. Although there are relations that reflect hierarchy in FB15k-237, there are also lots of relations, such as “/location/location/time_zones” and “/film/film/prequel”, that do not lead to hierarchy. The characteristic of this dataset accounts for why our proposed models doesn't outperform the previous state-of-the-art as much as that of WN18RR and YAGO3-10 datasets. AGO3-10 datasets contains entities with high relation-specific indegree BIBREF18. For example, the link prediction task $(?, hasGender, male)$ has over 1000 true answers, which makes the task challenging. Fortunately, we can regard “male” as an entity at higher level of the hierarchy and the predicted head entities as entities at lower level. In this way, YAGO3-10 is a dataset that clearly has semantic hierarchy property, and we can expect that our proposed models is capable of working well on this dataset. Table TABREF19 validates our expectation. Both ModE and HAKE significantly outperform the previous state-of-the-art. Notably, HAKE gains a 0.050 higher MRR, 6.0% higher H@1 and 4.6% higher H@3 than RotatE, respectively. 
 Question: How better does HAKE model peform than state-of-the-art methods?

Ex Output:

0.021 higher MRR, a 2.4% higher H@1, and a 2.4% higher H@3 against RotatE, respectively doesn't outperform the previous state-of-the-art as much as that of WN18RR and YAGO3-10 HAKE gains a 0.050 higher MRR, 6.0% higher H@1 and 4.6% higher H@3 than RotatE, respectively