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]: We compare our approaches with related approaches of pivoting, multilingual NMT (MNMT) BIBREF19, and cross-lingual transfer without pretraining BIBREF16.  The results show that our approaches consistently outperform other approaches across languages and datasets, especially surpass pivoting, which is a strong baseline in the zero-shot scenario that multilingual NMT systems often fail to beat BIBREF19, BIBREF20, BIBREF23.
[A]: which multilingual approaches do they compare with?


[Q]: We first use predictors based on rules that have previously been proposed in the literature: word length, number of phonemes, number of syllables, alphabetical order, and frequency. We collect all binomials but make predictions only on binomials appearing at least 30 times total, stratified by subreddit. However, none of these features appear to be particularly predictive across the board (Table TABREF15). A simple linear regression model predicts close to random, which bolsters the evidence that these classical rules for frozen binomials are not predictive for general binomials.
[A]: How was performance of previously proposed rules at very large scale?


[Q]: Compared to using external models for confidence modeling, an advantage of the proposed method is that the base model does not change: the binary classification loss just provides additional supervision. For supervised open IE systems, the confidence score of an assertion is typically computed based on its extraction likelihood given by the model BIBREF3 , BIBREF5  We follow the evaluation metrics described by Stanovsky:2016:OIE2016: area under the precision-recall curve (AUC) and F1 score.
[A]:
How does this compare to traditional calibration methods like Platt Scaling?