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.

Input: Consider Input: In Figure FIGREF15 , we plot the zero-resource German and Japanese test set accuracy as a function of the number of steps taken, with and without adversarial training. The plot shows that the variation in the test accuracy is reduced with adversarial training, which suggests that the cross-lingual performance is more consistent when adversarial training is applied. 
 Question: Do any of the evaluations show that adversarial learning improves performance in at least two different language families?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: We compare our model with the following state-of-the-art joint entity and relation extraction models:

(1) SPTree BIBREF4: This is an end-to-end neural entity and relation extraction model using sequence LSTM and Tree LSTM. (2) Tagging BIBREF5: This is a neural sequence tagging model which jointly extracts the entities and relations using an LSTM encoder and an LSTM decoder. (3) CopyR BIBREF6: This model uses an encoder-decoder approach for joint extraction of entities and relations. (4) HRL BIBREF11: This model uses a reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm with two levels of hierarchy for tuple extraction. (5) GraphR BIBREF14: This model considers each token in a sentence as a node in a graph, and edges connecting the nodes as relations between them. (6) N-gram Attention BIBREF9: This model uses an encoder-decoder approach with N-gram attention mechanism for knowledge-base completion using distantly supervised data. 
 Question: What is previous work authors reffer to?

Output: SPTree Tagging CopyR HRL GraphR N-gram Attention


Input: Consider Input: In our experiments, we compared about 60 elementary metrics, which can be organised as follows:

MT metrics

BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, TERp

Variants of BLEU: BLEU_1gram, BLEU_2gram, BLEU_3gram, BLEU_4gram and seven smoothing methods from NLTK BIBREF32 .

Intermediate components of TERp inspired by BIBREF18 : e.g. number of insertions, deletions, shifts...

Readability metrics and other sentence-level features: FKGL and FRE, numbers of words, characters, syllables...

Metrics based on the baseline QuEst features (17 features) BIBREF28 , such as statistics on the number of words, word lengths, language model probability and INLINEFORM0 -gram frequency.

Metrics based on other features: frequency table position, concreteness as extracted from BIBREF33 's BIBREF33 list, language model probability of words using a convolutional sequence to sequence model from BIBREF34 , comparison methods using pre-trained fastText word embeddings BIBREF35 or Skip-thought sentence embeddings BIBREF36 . 
 Question: what approaches are compared?


Output: MT metrics Readability metrics and other sentence-level features Metrics based on the baseline QuEst features Metrics based on other features