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: To test the robustness of the taggers against the OOV problem, we also conduct experiments using artificially constructed unnormalized text by corrupting words in the normal dev set. Again, the CNN tagger outperforms the two baselines by a very large margin. 
 Question: How do they confirm their model working well on out-of-vocabulary problems?

A: conduct experiments using artificially constructed unnormalized text by corrupting words in the normal dev set
****
Q: We present a comparison of the proposed models to existing word embeddings approaches. These are: the Bernoulli embeddings (b-emb) BIBREF1 , continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) BIBREF5 , Distributed Memory version of Paragraph Vector (PV-DM) BIBREF11 and the Global Vectors (GloVe) BIBREF6 model. 
 Question: What word embeddings do they test?

A: Bernoulli embeddings (b-emb) BIBREF1 , continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) BIBREF5 , Distributed Memory version of Paragraph Vector (PV-DM) BIBREF11 and the Global Vectors (GloVe) BIBREF6 model
****
Q: Irony Classifier: We implement a CNN classifier trained with our irony dataset. Sentiment Classifier for Irony: We first implement a one-layer LSTM network to classify ironic sentences in our dataset into positive and negative ironies. Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony: Similar to the training process of the sentiment classifier for irony, we first implement a one-layer LSTM network trained with the dataset for the sentiment analysis of common twitters to classify the non-ironies into positive and negative non-ironies. In this section, we describe some additional experiments on the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences. 
 Question: What experiments are conducted?

A:
Irony Classifier Sentiment Classifier for Irony Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences
****