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.

Q: We evaluate our method on three tagging tasks: POS tagging (Pos), morphological tagging (Morph) and supertagging (Stag). We select these tasks as examples for tagging applications because they differ strongly in tag set sizes. The test results for the three tasks are shown in Table TABREF17 in three groups. The first group of seven columns are the results for Pos, where both LSTM and CNN have three variations of input features: word only ( INLINEFORM0 ), character only ( INLINEFORM1 ) and both ( INLINEFORM2 ). For Morph and Stag, we only use the INLINEFORM3 setting for both LSTM and CNN. 
 Question: Do they jointly tackle multiple tagging problems?

A: No
****
Q: . While automated evaluation metrics like ROUGE measure lexical similarity between machine and human summaries, humans can better measure how coherent and readable a summary is. Our evaluation study investigates whether tuning the PG-net model increases summary coherence, by asking evaluators to select which of three summaries for the same document they like most: the PG-net model trained on CNN/DM; the model trained on student reflections; and finally the model trained on CNN/DM and tuned on student reflections. 20 evaluators were recruited from our institution and asked to each perform 20 annotations. Summaries are presented to evaluators in random order. Evaluators are then asked to select the summary they feel to be most readable and coherent. 
 Question: Who were the human evaluators used?

A: 20 evaluators were recruited from our institution and asked to each perform 20 annotations
****
Q: In our experiment, we use a conversational Mandarin-English code-switching speech corpus called SEAME Phase II (South East Asia Mandarin-English).  
 Question: What languages are explored in this paper?

A:
Mandarin English
****