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.

This dataset was collected through Mechanical Turk using 100 simulated environments with a corresponding topological map and, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first of its kind for behavioral navigation.  We created a new dataset for the problem of following navigation instructions under the behavioral navigation framework of BIBREF5 . This dataset was created using Amazon Mechanical Turk and 100 maps of simulated indoor environments, each with 6 to 65 rooms. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first benchmark for comparing translation models in the context of behavioral robot navigation.

As shown in Table TABREF16 , the dataset consists of 8066 pairs of free-form natural language instructions and navigation plans for training. This training data was collected from 88 unique simulated environments, totaling 6064 distinct navigation plans (2002 plans have two different navigation instructions each; the rest has one). The dataset contains two test set variants:

While the dataset was collected with simulated environments, no structure was imposed on the navigation instructions while crowd-sourcing data. Thus, many instructions in our dataset are ambiguous. Moreover, the order of the behaviors in the instructions is not always the same. For instance, a person said “turn right and advance” to describe part of a route, while another person said “go straight after turning right” in a similar situation. The high variability present in the natural language descriptions of our dataset makes the problem of decoding instructions into behaviors not trivial. See Appendix A of the supplementary material for additional details on our data collection effort.

 
 Question: How were the navigation instructions collected?
using Amazon Mechanical Turk using simulated environments with topological maps

In our experiments, we used TF.IDF-based features over the title and over the content of the article we wanted to classify. We had these features twice – once for the title and once for the the content of the article, as we wanted to have two different representations of the same article. Thus, we used a total of 1,100 TF.IDF-weighted features (800 content + 300 title), limiting the vocabulary to the top 800 and 300 words, respectively (which occurred in more than five articles). 
 Question: what lexical features did they experiment with?
TF.IDF-based features

The SG model achieved a high average similarity score of 0.650 followed by CBoW with a 0.632 average similarity score. The GloVe also achieved a considerable average score of 0.591 respectively. However, the average similarity score of SdfastText is 0.388 and the word pair Microsoft-Bill Gates is not available in the vocabulary of SdfastText. Moreover, the average semantic relatedness similarity score between countries and their capitals is shown in Table TABREF78 with English translation, where SG also yields the best average score of 0.663 followed by CBoW with 0.611 similarity score. The GloVe also yields better semantic relatedness of 0.576 and the SdfastText yield an average score of 0.391. 
 Question: How does proposed word embeddings compare to Sindhi fastText word representations?

Proposed SG model vs SINDHI FASTTEXT:
Average cosine similarity score: 0.650 vs 0.388
Average semantic relatedness similarity score between countries and their capitals: 0.663 vs 0.391