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.

Example Input: Our in-house dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 6 languages: English, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Portuguese.  The ACE05 dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 3 languages: English, Arabic and Chinese. It defines 7 entity types (Person, Organization, Geo-Political Entity, Location, Facility, Weapon, Vehicle) and 6 relation types between the entities (Agent-Artifact, General-Affiliation, ORG-Affiliation, Part-Whole, Personal-Social, Physical). 
 Question: What languages do they experiment on?
Example Output: English, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Portuguese  English, Arabic and Chinese

Example Input: First preference is given to the labels that are perfectly matching in all the neural annotators. In Table TABREF11, we can see that both datasets have about 40% of exactly matching labels over all models (AM). Then priority is given to the context-based models to check if the label in all context models is matching perfectly. In case two out of three context models are correct, then it is being checked if that label is also produced by at least one of the non-context models. Then, we allow labels to rely on these at least two context models. As a result, about 47% of the labels are taken based on the context models (CM). When we see that none of the context models is producing the same results, then we rank the labels with their respective confidence values produced as a probability distribution using the $softmax$ function. The labels are sorted in descending order according to confidence values. Then we check if the first three (case when one context model and both non-context models produce the same label) or at least two labels are matching, then we allow to pick that one. There are about 3% in IEMOCAP and 5% in MELD (BM).

Finally, when none the above conditions are fulfilled, we leave out the label with an unknown category. This unknown category of the dialogue act is labeled with `xx' in the final annotations, and they are about 7% in IEMOCAP and 11% in MELD (NM). 
 Question: How does the ensemble annotator extract the final label?
Example Output: First preference is given to the labels that are perfectly matching in all the neural annotators. In case two out of three context models are correct, then it is being checked if that label is also produced by at least one of the non-context models. When we see that none of the context models is producing the same results, then we rank the labels with their respective confidence values produced as a probability distribution using the $softmax$ function. The labels are sorted in descending order according to confidence values. Then we check if the first three (case when one context model and both non-context models produce the same label) or at least two labels are matching, then we allow to pick that one.  Finally, when none the above conditions are fulfilled, we leave out the label with an unknown category.

Example Input: We evaluated the phrase compositionality models on the adjective–noun and noun–noun phrase similarity tasks compiled by Mitchell2010, using the same evaluation scheme as in the original work. Spearman's INLINEFORM0 between phrasal similarities derived from our compositional functions and the human annotators (computed individually per annotator and then averaged across all annotators) was the evaluation measure. 
 Question: How do they score phrasal compositionality?
Example Output:
Spearman's INLINEFORM0 between phrasal similarities derived from our compositional functions and the human annotators