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.

[Q]: 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.
[A]: How is the accuracy of the system measured?


[Q]:  Note that we adopt a parsimonious design principle in our modelling: both Centroid and Naïve Bayes are parameter-free models, $k$NN only depends on the choice of $k$, and KDE uses a single bandwidth parameter $h$. A Centroid model summarizes each set of seed words by its expected vector in embedding space, and classifies concepts into the class of closest expected embedding in Euclidean distance following a softmax rule; A Naïve Bayes model considers both mean and variance, under the assumption of independence among embedding dimensions, by fitting a normal distribution with mean vector and diagonal covariance matrix to the set of seed words of each class;
[A]: How does the parameter-free model work?


[Q]: Data collected by BIBREF3 , which we term the Sexist/Racist (SR) data set, was collected using an initial Twitter search followed by analysis and filtering by the authors and their team who identified 17 common phrases, hashtags, and users that were indicative of abusive speech. BIBREF4 collected the HATE dataset by searching for tweets using a lexicon provided by Hatebase.org. The final data set we used, which we call HAR, was collected by BIBREF9 ; we removed all retweets reducing the dataset to 20,000 tweets.
[A]:
which datasets were used?