In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.

Example Input: The field of speech recognition is in the midst of a paradigm shift: end-to-end neural networks are challenging the dominance of hidden Markov models as a core technology. Using an attention mechanism in a recurrent encoder-decoder architecture solves the dynamic time alignment problem, allowing joint end-to-end training of the acoustic and language modeling components. In this paper we extend the end-to-end framework to encompass microphone array signal processing for noise suppression and speech enhancement within the acoustic encoding network. This allows the beamforming components to be optimized jointly within the recognition architecture to improve the end-to-end speech recognition objective. Experiments on the noisy speech benchmarks (CHiME-4 and AMI) show that our multichannel end-to-end system outperformed the attention-based baseline with input from a conventional adaptive beamformer.
Example Output: Multichannel End-to-end Speech Recognition 

Example Input: In this paper, we implicitly incorporate morpheme information into word embedding. Based on the strategy we utilize the morpheme information, three models are proposed. To test the performances of our models, we conduct the word similarity and syntactic analogy. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods. Our models beat the comparative baselines on both tasks to a great extent. On the golden standard Wordsim-353 and RG-65, our models approximately outperform CBOW for 5 and 7 percent, respectively. In addition, 7 percent advantage is also achieved by our models on syntactic analysis. According to parameter analysis, our models can increase the semantic information in the corpus and our performances on the smallest corpus are similar to the performance of CBOW on the corpus which is five times ours. This property of our methods may have some positive effects on NLP researches about the corpus-limited languages.
Example Output: Implicitly Incorporating Morphological Information into Word Embedding

Example Input: We study the use of greedy feature selection methods for morphosyntactic tagging under a number of different conditions. We compare a static ordering of features to a dynamic ordering based on mutual information statistics, and we apply the techniques to standalone taggers as well as joint systems for tagging and parsing. Experiments on five languages show that feature selection can result in more compact models as well as higher accuracy under all conditions, but also that a dynamic ordering works better than a static ordering and that joint systems benefit more than standalone taggers. We also show that the same techniques can be used to select which morphosyntactic categories to predict in order to maximize syntactic accuracy in a joint system. Our final results represent a substantial improvement of the state of the art for several languages, while at the same time reducing both the number of features and the running time by up to 80% in some cases.
Example Output:
Static and Dynamic Feature Selection in Morphosyntactic Analyzers