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.
--------
Question: In our experiments, we used WordNet 3.0 BIBREF9 as our external knowledge base INLINEFORM0 . For word embeddings, we experimented with two popular models: (1) GloVe embeddings trained by BIBREF10 on Wikipedia and Gigaword 5 (vocab: 400K, dim: 300), and (2) w2v-gn, Word2vec BIBREF5 trained on the Google News dataset (vocab: 3M, dim: 300). Our coverage enhancement starts by transforming the knowledge base INLINEFORM0 into a vector space representation that is comparable to that of the corpus-based space INLINEFORM1 . To this end, we use two techniques for learning low-dimensional feature spaces from knowledge graphs: DeepWalk and node2vec. DeepWalk uses a stream of short random walks in order to extract local information for a node from the graph. By treating these walks as short sentences and phrases in a special language, the approach learns latent representations for each node. Similarly, node2vec learns a mapping of nodes to continuous vectors that maximizes the likelihood of preserving network neighborhoods of nodes. Thanks to a flexible objective that is not tied to a particular sampling strategy, node2vec reports improvements over DeepWalk on multiple classification and link prediction datasets. For both these systems we used the default parameters and set the dimensionality of output representation to 100. Also, note than nodes in the semantic graph of WordNet represent synsets. Hence, a polysemous word would correspond to multiple nodes. In our experiments, we use the MaxSim assumption of BIBREF11 in order to map words to synsets. 
 Question: What other embedding models are tested?

Answer: GloVe embeddings trained by BIBREF10 on Wikipedia and Gigaword 5 (vocab: 400K, dim: 300) w2v-gn, Word2vec BIBREF5 trained on the Google News dataset (vocab: 3M, dim: 300) DeepWalk  node2vec


Question: The word intrusion test is expensive to apply since it requires manual evaluations by human observers separately for each embedding dimension. Furthermore, the word intrusion test does not quantify the interpretability levels of the embedding dimensions, instead it yields a binary decision as to whether a dimension is interpretable or not. However, using continuous values is more adequate than making binary evaluations since interpretability levels may vary gradually across dimensions. 
 Question: What advantages does their proposed method of quantifying interpretability have over the human-in-the-loop evaluation they compare to?

Answer: it is less expensive and quantifies interpretability using continuous values rather than binary evaluations


Question: RC-QED$^{\rm E}$ can be naturally solved by path ranking-based KGC (PRKGC), where the query triplet and the sampled paths correspond to a question and derivation steps, respectively. 
 Question: What is the baseline?

Answer:
 path ranking-based KGC (PRKGC)