niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
We segment a hashtag into meaningful English phrases. In order to achieve this, we use a dictionary of English words. The sentiment of url: Since almost all the articles are written in well-formatted english, we analyze the sentiment of the first paragraph of the article using Standford Sentiment Analysis tool BIBREF4 .  
 Question: Do the authors report only on English language data?
Output: Yes
We found that 51.25% of the gang members collected have a tweet that links to a YouTube video. Following these links, a simple keyword search for the terms gangsta and hip-hop in the YouTube video description found that 76.58% of the shared links are related to hip-hop music, gangster rap, and the culture that surrounds this music genre. 
 Question: What are the differences in the use of YouTube links between gang member and the rest of the Twitter population?
Output: 76.58% of the shared links are related to hip-hop music, gangster rap, and the culture that surrounds this music genre
The lexicon is built over all the data and therefore includes the vocabulary from both the training and testing sets. 
 Question: Is the lexicon the same for all languages?
Output: Yes
We validate our approach on the Gigaword corpus, which comprises of a training set of 3.8M article headlines (considered to be the full text) and titles (summaries), along with 200K validation pairs, and we report test performance on the same 2K set used in BIBREF7.  
 Question: What dataset they use for evaluation?
Output: The same 2K set from Gigaword used in BIBREF7
Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (HL7 FHIR)
FHIR BIBREF5 is a new open standard for healthcare data developed by the same company that developed HL7v2. Resource Description Framework (RDF)
RDF is the backbone of the semantic webBIBREF8. 
 Question: What do FHIR and RDF stand for?
Output: Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (HL7 FHIR) Resource Description Framework (RDF)
As shown in Table TABREF12, the T-T model significantly outperforms the LSTM-based RNN-T baseline. 
 Question: What was previous state of the art model?
Output: LSTM-based RNN-T
Our second approach incorporates shallow syntactic information in downstream tasks via token-level chunk label embeddings. Task training (and test) data is automatically chunked, and chunk boundary information is passed into the task model via BIOUL encoding of the labels. We add randomly initialized chunk label embeddings to task-specific input encoders, which are then fine-tuned for task-specific objectives. 
 Question: Which syntactic features are obtained automatically on downstream task data?
Output: token-level chunk label embeddings  chunk boundary information is passed into the task model via BIOUL encoding of the labels
N-GrAM ranked first in all cases except for the language variety task. In this case, the baseline was the top-ranked system, and ours was second by a small margin. Our system significantly out-performed the baseline on the joint task, as the baseline scored significantly lower for the gender task than for the variety task.

 
 Question: On which task does do model do worst?
Output: Gender prediction task
For a purpose of learning from limited annotated linguistic resources, our preliminary discovery shows that it is possible to build a geometric space projection between embedding spaces to help cross-lingual NE recognition. 
 Question: What is their model?
Output: cross-lingual NE recognition
For the McGurk effect, we attempt an illusion for a language token (e.g. phoneme, word, sentence) $x$ by creating a video where an audio stream of $x$ is visually dubbed over by a person saying $x^{\prime }\ne x$ . The illusion $f(x^{\prime },x)$ affects a listener if they perceive what is being said to be $y\ne x$ if they watched the illusory video whereas they perceive $x$ if they had either listened to the audio stream without watching the video or had watched the original unaltered video, depending on specification.  A prototypical example is that the audio of the phoneme “baa,” accompanied by a video of someone mouthing “vaa”, can be perceived as “vaa” or “gaa” (Figure 1 ). 
 Question: What is the McGurk effect?
Output: a perceptual illusion, where listening to a speech sound while watching a mouth pronounce a different sound changes how the audio is heard
We use four systems to evaluate the difficulty of this dataset.  The first two are an information retrieval system and a word-association method, following the designs of BIBREF26 Clark2016CombiningRS. These are naive baselines that do not parse the question, but nevertheless may find some signal in a large corpus of text that helps guess the correct answer. The third is a CCG-style rule-based semantic parser written specifically for friction questions (the QuaRel INLINEFORM0 subset), but prior to data being collected. The last is a state-of-the-art neural semantic parser. We briefly describe each in turn. 
 Question: Which off-the-shelf tools do they use on QuaRel?
Output: information retrieval system word-association method  CCG-style rule-based semantic parser written specifically for friction questions state-of-the-art neural semantic parser
We conduct various experiments to illustrate the properties that are encouraged via different KL magnitudes. In particular, we revisit the interdependence between rate and distortion, and shed light on the impact of KL on the sharpness of the approximated posteriors. Then, through a set of qualitative and quantitative experiments for text generation, we demonstrate how certain generative behaviours could be imposed on VAEs via a range of maximum channel capacities. Finally, we run some experiments to find if any form of syntactic information is encoded in the latent space. 
 Question: What different properties of the posterior distribution are explored in the paper?
Output: interdependence between rate and distortion impact of KL on the sharpness of the approximated posteriors demonstrate how certain generative behaviours could be imposed on VAEs via a range of maximum channel capacities some experiments to find if any form of syntactic information is encoded in the latent space
In this work, we make use of the widely-recognized state of the art entailment technique – BERT BIBREF18, and train it on three mainstream entailment datasets: MNLI BIBREF19, GLUE RTE BIBREF20, BIBREF21 and FEVER BIBREF22, respectively. We convert all datasets into binary case: “entailment” vs. “non-entailment”, by changing the label “neutral” (if exist in some datasets) into “non-entailment”.

For our label-fully-unseen setup, we directly apply this pretrained entailment model on the test sets of all $\textsc {0shot-tc}$ aspects. For label-partially-unseen setup in which we intentionally provide annotated data, we first pretrain BERT on the MNLI/FEVER/RTE, then fine-tune on the provided training data. 
 Question: Do they use pretrained models?
Output: Yes
In particular, we aggregate documents from the CommonCrawl dataset that has the most overlapping n-grams with the questions. We name this dataset STORIES since most of the constituent documents take the form of a story with long chain of coherent events. Figure 5 -left and middle show that STORIES always yield the highest accuracy for both types of input processing. 
 Question: Which of their training domains improves performance the most?
Output: documents from the CommonCrawl dataset that has the most overlapping n-grams with the question
Our goal was to generate questions without templates and with minimal human involvement using machine learning transformers that have been demonstrated to train faster and better than RNNs. Such a system would benefit educators by saving time to generate quizzes and tests. 
 Question: What is the motivation behind the work? Why question generation is an important task?
Output: Such a system would benefit educators by saving time to generate quizzes and tests.
GhostVLAD is an extension of the NetVLAD approach, which we discussed in the previous section. GhostVLAD works exactly similar to NetVLAD except it adds Ghost clusters along with the NetVLAD clusters. So, now we will have a K+G number of clusters instead of K clusters. The Ghost clusters are added to map any noisy or irrelevant content into ghost clusters and are not included during the feature aggregation stage, as shown in Figure 1 (Right side). 
 Question: What is the GhostVLAD approach?
Output: extension of the NetVLAD adds Ghost clusters along with the NetVLAD clusters
Modules: Modules are the basic building blocks of different models. In LeafNATS, we provide ready-to-use modules for constructing recurrent neural network (RNN)-based sequence-to-sequence (Seq2Seq) models for NATS, e.g., pointer-generator network BIBREF1 . These modules include embedder, RNN encoder, attention BIBREF24 , temporal attention BIBREF6 , attention on decoder BIBREF2 and others. We also use these basic modules to assemble a pointer-generator decoder module and the corresponding beam search algorithms. The embedder can also be used to realize the embedding-weights sharing mechanism BIBREF2 . 
 Question: What models are included in the toolkit?
Output:  recurrent neural network (RNN)-based sequence-to-sequence (Seq2Seq) models for NATS
During the final training process, 500 validation data is used to generate the recurrent neural model, which is 3% of the training data. After finishing the training, the accuracy of the generated model using validation data from the source corpus was 74.40% 
 Question: What dataset is used to measure accuracy?
Output: validation data
For supertagging, we observe that the baseline cross entropy trained model improves its predictions with beam search decoding compared to greedy decoding by 2 accuracy points, which suggests that beam search is already helpful for this task, even without search-aware training. 
 Question: By how much do they outperform basic greedy and cross-entropy beam decoding?
Output: 2 accuracy points
We first use predictors based on rules that have previously been proposed in the literature: word length, number of phonemes, number of syllables, alphabetical order, and frequency.  
 Question: What previously proposed rules for predicting binoial ordering are used?
Output: word length, number of phonemes, number of syllables, alphabetical order, and frequency
Logistic regression: To produce the representation of the input, we concatenate the Bag-Of-Words representation of the document with the Bag-Of-Words representation of the question. LSTM: We start with a concatenation of the sequence of indexes of the document with the sequence of indexes of the question. Them we feed an LSTM network with this vector and use the final state as the representation of the input. Finally, we apply a logistic regression over this representation to produce the final decision. End-to-end memory networks: This architecture is based on two different memory cells (input and output) that contain a representation of the document. Deep projective reader: This is a model of our own design, largely inspired by the efficient R-net reader BIBREF12 . 
 Question: What baselines are presented?
Output: Logistic regression LSTM End-to-end memory networks Deep projective reader
We evaluate our approach on two well benchmarked sequence tagging tasks, the CoNLL 2003 NER task BIBREF13 and the CoNLL 2000 Chunking task BIBREF14 .  
 Question: what are the evaluation datasets?
Output: CoNLL 2003 CoNLL 2000
We incorporate typing information by concatenating to the embedding vector of each input symbol one of three embedding vectors, S, E or R, where S is concatenated to structural elements (opening and closing brackets), E to entity symbols and R to relation symbol 
 Question: How are typing hints suggested?
Output:  concatenating to the embedding vector
This step entails counting occurrences of all words in the training corpus and sorting them in order of decreasing occurrence. As mentioned, the vocabulary is taken to be the INLINEFORM0 most frequently occurring words, that occur at least some number INLINEFORM1 times. It is implemented in Spark as a straight-forward map-reduce job. 
 Question: Do they perform any morphological tokenization?
Output: No
In order to provide directions for future work, we analyze the errors made by the classifier trained on the extended features on the four prediction tasks.

Errors on Intention (I) prediction: The lack of background is a major problem when identifying trolling comments. Non-cursing aggressions and insults This is a challenging problem, since the majority of abusive and insulting comments rely on profanity and swearing.  Another source of error is the presence of controversial topic words such as “black”,“feminism”, “killing”, “racism”, “brown”, etc. that are commonly used by trolls. Errors on Disclosure (D) prediction: A major source of error that affects disclosure is the shallow meaning representation obtained from the BOW model even when augmented with the distributional features given by the glove vectors. Errors on Interpretation (R) prediction: it is a common practice from many users to directly ask the suspected troll if he/she is trolling or not.  Errors on Response Strategy (B) prediction: In some cases there is a blurry line between “Frustrate” and “Neutralize”.  Another challenging problem is the distinction between the classes “Troll” and “Engage”.  
 Question: What is an example of a difficult-to-classify case?
Output: The lack of background Non-cursing aggressions and insults the presence of controversial topic words   shallow meaning representation directly ask the suspected troll if he/she is trolling or not a blurry line between “Frustrate” and “Neutralize” distinction between the classes “Troll” and “Engage”
Since we are interested in the zero-shot capabilities of our representation, we trained our sentiment analysis model only on the english IMDB Large Movie Review dataset and tested it on the chinese ChnSentiCorp dataset and german SB-10K BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 . A natural language inference task consists of two sentences; a premise and a hypothesis which are either contradictions, entailments or neutral. Learning a NLI task takes a certain nuanced understanding of language. Therefore it is of interest whether or not UG-WGAN captures the necessary linguistic features.  
 Question: Did they experiment with tasks other than word problems in math?
Output: They experimented with sentiment analysis and natural language inference task
Models include both neural nets (e.g. RNNs, CNNs) and standard machine learning tools (e.g. Naive Bayes with Laplace Smoothing, k-clustering, SVM with linear kernel).  
 Question: Which machine learning models are used?
Output: RNNs CNNs Naive Bayes with Laplace Smoothing k-clustering SVM with linear kernel
To assess the predictive capability of this and other models, we require some method by which we can compare the models. For that purpose, we use receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves as a visual representation of predictive effectiveness. ROC curves compare the true positive rate (TPR) and false positive rate (FPR) of a model's predictions at different threshold levels. The area under the curve (AUC) (between 0 and 1) is a numerical measure, where the higher the AUC is, the better the model performs. We cross-validate our model by first randomly splitting the corpus into a training set (95% of the corpus) and test set (5% of the corpus). We then fit the model to the training set, and use it to predict the response of the documents in the test set. We repeat this process 100 times. The threshold-averaged ROC curve BIBREF13 is found from these predictions, and shown in Figure 3 . Table 1 shows the AUC for each model considered. 
 Question: How is performance measured?
Output: they use ROC curves and cross-validation
In the future, we are planning to pay attention on a generalized language model for code-mixed texts which can also handle Hindi-code-mixed and other multi-lingual code-mixed datasets (i.e., trying to reduce the dependencies on language-specific code-mixed resources). Our system outperforms all the previous state of the art approaches used for aggression identification on English code-mixed TRAC data, while being trained only from Facebook comments the system outperforms other approaches on the additional Twitter test set. The fine-grained definition of the aggressiveness/aggression identification is provided by the organizers of TRAC-2018 BIBREF0, BIBREF2. They have classified the aggressiveness into three labels (Overtly aggressive(OAG), Covertly aggressive(CAG), Non-aggressive(NAG)). The detailed description for each of the three labels is described as follows:

Overtly Aggressive(OAG) - This type of aggression shows direct verbal attack pointing to the particular individual or group. For example, "Well said sonu..you have courage to stand against dadagiri of Muslims".

Covertly Aggressive(CAG) - This type of aggression the attack is not direct but hidden, subtle and more indirect while being stated politely most of the times. For example, "Dear India, stop playing with the emotions of your people for votes."

Non-Aggressive(NAG) - Generally these type of text lack any kind of aggression it is basically used to state facts, wishing on occasions and polite and supportive. 
 Question: What is English mixed with in the TRAC dataset?
Output: Hindi
First, we introduce a two-stage labeling strategy for sentiment texts. In the first stage, annotators are invited to label a large number of short texts with relatively pure sentiment orientations. Each sample is labeled by only one annotator. In the second stage, a relatively small number of text samples with mixed sentiment orientations are annotated, and each sample is labeled by multiple annotators.  
 Question: What is the new labeling strategy?
Output: They use a two-stage labeling strategy where in the first stage single annotators label a large number of short texts with relatively pure sentiment orientations and in the second stage multiple annotators label few text samples with mixed sentiment orientations
In our dataset, we store the full tweet object including the id of the tweet, username, hashtags, and geolocation of the tweet. We created a list of the most common Arabic keywords associated with COVID-19. Using Twitter’s streaming API, we searched for any tweet containing the keyword(s) in the text of the tweet. Table TABREF1 shows the list of keywords used along with the starting date of tracking each keyword. Furthermore, Table TABREF2 shows the list of hashtags we have been tracking along with the number of tweets collected from each hashtag.  
 Question: What additional information is found in the dataset?
Output: the full tweet object including the id of the tweet, username, hashtags, and geolocation of the tweet
We compare our proposed discrete CVAE (DCVAE) with the two-stage sampling approach to three categories of response generation models:

Baselines: Seq2seq, the basic encoder-decoder model with soft attention mechanism BIBREF30 used in decoding and beam search used in testing; MMI-bidi BIBREF5, which uses the MMI to re-rank results from beam search.

CVAE BIBREF14: We adjust the original work which is for multi-round conversation for our single-round setting. For a fair comparison, we utilize the same keywords used in our network pre-training as the knowledge-guided features in this model.

Other enhanced encoder-decoder models: Hierarchical Gated Fusion Unit (HGFU) BIBREF12, which incorporates a cue word extracted using pointwise mutual information (PMI) into the decoder to generate meaningful responses; Mechanism-Aware Neural Machine (MANM) BIBREF13, which introduces latent embeddings to allow for multiple diverse response generation. 
 Question: What other kinds of generation models are used in experiments?
Output:  Seq2seq CVAE Hierarchical Gated Fusion Unit (HGFU) Mechanism-Aware Neural Machine (MANM)
The dataset includes about 6,000 triples, comprised of videos, questions, and answer spans manually collected from screencast tutorial videos with spoken narratives for a photo-editing software.  
 Question: What kind of instructional videos are in the dataset?
Output: tutorial videos for a photo-editing software
For Turkish, as the first dataset, we utilised the movie reviews which are collected from a popular website. The number of reviews in this movie corpus is 20,244 and the average number of words in reviews is 39. Each of these reviews has a star-rating score which is indicative of sentiment. These polarity scores are between the values 0.5 and 5, at intervals of 0.5. We consider a review to be negative it the score is equal to or lower than 2.5. On the other hand, if it is equal to or higher than 4, it is assumed to be positive. We have randomly selected 7,020 negative and 7,020 positive reviews and processed only them.

 
 Question: What details are given about the movie domain dataset?
Output: there are 20,244 reviews divided into positive and negative with an average 39 words per review, each one having a star-rating score
We thus use the dataset introduced by Krishnamurthy and Mitchell krishnamurthy-2015-semparse-open-vocabulary, which consists of the ClueWeb09 web corpus along with Google's FACC entity linking of that corpus to Freebase BIBREF9 . 
 Question: What knowledge base do they use?
Output: Freebase
We varied the number of experts between models, using ordinary MoE layers with 4, 32 and 256 experts and hierarchical MoE layers with 256, 1024 and 4096 experts. 
 Question: How is the correct number of experts to use decided?
Output: varied the number of experts between models
If we take the best psr ensemble trained on CBT as a baseline, improving the model architecture as in BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , continuing to use the original CBT training data, lead to improvements of INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 absolute on named entities and common nouns respectively. By contrast, inflating the training dataset provided a boost of INLINEFORM2 while using the same model. 
 Question: How large are the improvements of the Attention-Sum Reader model when using the BookTest dataset?
Output: INLINEFORM2
Our current feature set for training a machine learning classifier is relatively small, consisting of paragraph domain scores, bag-of-words, length of stay, and number of previous admissions, but we intend to factor in many additional features that extend beyond the scope of the present study. These include a deeper analysis of clinical narratives in EHRs: our next task will be to extend our EHR data pipeline by distinguishing between clinically positive and negative phenomena within each risk factor domain. This will involve a series of annotation tasks that will allow us to generate lexicon-based and corpus-based sentiment analysis tools. We can then use these clinical sentiment scores to generate a gradient of patient improvement or deterioration over time. 
 Question: What additional features are proposed for future work?
Output: distinguishing between clinically positive and negative phenomena within each risk factor domain and accounting for structured data collected on the target cohort
We crowd-sourced the collection of the dataset on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). 
 Question: Did the authors use crowdsourcing platforms?
Output: Yes
Crowdsourced annotators assigned similarity to word pairs during the word similarity task.  
 Question: did they use a crowdsourcing platform for annotations?
Output: Yes
The informal setting/environment of social media often encourage multilingual speakers to switch back and forth between languages when speaking or writing. These all resulted in code-mixing and code-switching. Code-mixing refers to the use of linguistic units from different languages in a single utterance or sentence, whereas code-switching refers to the co-occurrence of speech extracts belonging to two different grammatical systemsBIBREF3. This language interchange makes the grammar more complex and thus it becomes tough to handle it by traditional algorithms. Thus the presence of high percentage of code-mixed content in social media text has increased the complexity of the aggression detection task. For example, the dataset provided by the organizers of TRAC-2018 BIBREF0, BIBREF2 is actually a code-mixed dataset. 
 Question: What data/studies do the authors provide to support the assertion that the majority of aggressive conversations contain code-mixed languages?
Output: None
In our experiment, some widely used text clustering methods are compared with our approach. Besides K-means, Skip-thought Vectors, Recursive Neural Network and Paragraph Vector based clustering methods, four baseline clustering methods are directly based on the popular unsupervised dimensionality reduction methods as described in Section SECREF11 .  
 Question: Which popular clustering methods did they experiment with?
Output: K-means, Skip-thought Vectors, Recursive Neural Network and Paragraph Vector based clustering methods
In this approach the similarity between two words is not strictly based on their co–occurrence frequencies, but rather on the frequencies of the other words which occur with both of them (i.e., second order co–occurrences). This approach has been shown to be successful in quantifying semantic relatedness BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 . 
 Question: What is a second order co-ocurrence matrix?
Output: frequencies of the other words which occur with both of them (i.e., second order co–occurrences)
Based on annotated corpora and token-based features, studies used machine learning approaches to build word segmentation systems with accuracy about 94%-97%. 
 Question: How successful are the approaches used to solve word segmentation in Vietnamese?
Output: Their accuracy in word segmentation is about 94%-97%.
Contexts are either ground-truth contexts from that dataset, or they are Wikipedia passages retrieved using TF-IDF BIBREF24 based on a HotpotQA question. A new non-overlapping set of contexts was again constructed from Wikipedia via HotpotQA using the same method as Round 1. In addition to contexts from Wikipedia for Round 3, we also included contexts from the following domains: News (extracted from Common Crawl), fiction (extracted from BIBREF27, and BIBREF28), formal spoken text (excerpted from court and presidential debate transcripts in the Manually Annotated Sub-Corpus (MASC) of the Open American National Corpus), and causal or procedural text, which describes sequences of events or actions, extracted from WikiHow. Finally, we also collected annotations using the longer contexts present in the GLUE RTE training data, which came from the RTE5 dataset BIBREF29. 
 Question: What data sources do they use for creating their dataset?
Output: Wikipedia (of 250-600 characters) from the manually curated HotpotQA training set Manually Annotated Sub-Corpus (MASC) of the Open American National Corpus) RTE5
Table TABREF23 shows the unlabeled INLINEFORM0 scores for our models and various baselines. 
 Question: what were the evaluation metrics?
Output: INLINEFORM0 scores
We demonstrated the utility of Katecheo by deploying the system for question answering in two topics, Medical Sciences and Christianity. 
 Question: how many domains did they experiment with?
Output: 2
We evaluate our proposed model on a Twitter dataset obtained from the authors of BIBREF12. Our final dataset consists of 11,576 users (i.e, fact-checkers), 4,732 fact-checking URLs and 63,429 interactions. The dataset also contains each user's social network information. Note that each user's social relationship is restricted within available users in the dataset. 
 Question: What dataset is used?
Output: Twitter dataset obtained from the authors of BIBREF12
We used the Pasokh dataset BIBREF42 that contains 100 Persian news documents each of which is associated with 5 summaries. Each summary consists of several sentences of the original text, selected by a human expert. Some sentences are slightly modified and are not, therefore, an exact copy of any original sentences. Documents are categorized into six categories such as political, economic and so on. The length of documents ranges from 4 to 156 sentences. Overall, it has about 2,500 sentences. 
 Question: What dataset is used for this task?
Output: the Pasokh dataset BIBREF42
Introduced by BIBREF16 , in this dataset, the input query is the concatenation of a Wikipedia article title with the title of one of its section. The relevant passages are the paragraphs within that section. The corpus consists of all of the English Wikipedia paragraphs, except the abstracts. The released dataset has five predefined folds, and we use the first four as a training set (approximately 3M queries), and the remaining as a validation set (approximately 700k queries). The test set is the same one used to evaluate the submissions to TREC-CAR 2017 (approx. 1,800 queries). 
 Question: What is the TREC-CAR dataset?
Output: in this dataset, the input query is the concatenation of a Wikipedia article title with the title of one of its section. The relevant passages are the paragraphs within that section
To evaluate the influence of our hypersphere feature for off-the-shelf NER systems, we perform the NE recognition on two standard NER benchmark datasets, CoNLL2003 and ONTONOTES 5.0. 
 Question: Do they evaluate on NER data sets?
Output: Yes
As in the example above, we pre-process documents by removing all numbers and interjections. 
 Question: what processing was done on the speeches before being parsed?
Output: Remove numbers and interjections
We use precision, recall and F-measure to evaluate the detected revisions. 
 Question: What metrics are used to evaluation revision detection?
Output: precision recall F-measure
Overall, this resulted in a total of 34,432 user conversations. Together, these users gave Gunrock an average rating of 3.65 (median: 4.0), which was elicited at the end of the conversation (“On a scale from 1 to 5 stars, how do you feel about talking to this socialbot again?"). 
 Question: What is the sample size of people used to measure user satisfaction?
Output: 34,432 user conversations
Transfer learning based approaches
Mathur et al. in their paper for detecting offensive tweets proposed a Ternary Trans-CNN model where they train a model architecture comprising of 3 layers of Convolution 1D having filter sizes of 15, 12 and 10 and kernel size of 3 followed by 2 dense fully connected layer of size 64 and 3. The first dense FC layer has ReLU activation while the last Dense layer had Softmax activation. They were able to train this network on a parallel English dataset provided by Davidson et al. The authors were able to achieve Accuracy of 83.9%, Precision of 80.2%, Recall of 69.8%.

The approach looked promising given that the dataset was merely 3189 sentences divided into three categories and thus we replicated the experiment but failed to replicate the results. The results were poor than what the original authors achieved. But, most of the model hyper-parameter choices where inspired from this work.

Related Work ::: Hybrid models
In another localized setting of Vietnamese language, Nguyen et al. in 2017 proposed a Hybrid multi-channel CNN and LSTM model where they build feature maps for Vietnamese language using CNN to capture shorterm dependencies and LSTM to capture long term dependencies and concatenate both these feature sets to learn a unified set of features on the messages. These concatenated feature vectors are then sent to a few fully connected layers. They achieved an accuracy rate of 87.3% with this architecture. 
 Question: What models do previous work use?
Output: Ternary Trans-CNN  Hybrid multi-channel CNN and LSTM
For the sake of simplicity, we focus our analysis on Airbnb listings from Manhattan, NY, during the time period of January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2017. The data provided to us contained information for roughly 40,000 Manhattan listings that were posted on Airbnb during this defined time period. For each listing, we were given information of the amenities of the listing (number of bathrooms, number of bedrooms …), the listing’s zip code, the host’s description of the listing, the price of the listing, and the occupancy rate of the listing.  
 Question: What is the size of the Airbnb?
Output: roughly 40,000 Manhattan listings
We compare with the following baselines:

(1) Naive: A non-domain-adaptive baseline with bag-of-words representations and SVM classifier trained on the source domain.

(2) mSDA BIBREF7 : This is the state-of-the-art method based on discrete input features. Top 1000 bag-of-words features are kept as pivot features. We set the number of stacked layers to 3 and the corruption probability to 0.5.

(3) NaiveNN: This is a non-domain-adaptive CNN trained on source domain, which is a variant of our model by setting INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 to zeros.

(4) AuxNN BIBREF4 : This is a neural model that exploits auxiliary tasks, which has achieved state-of-the-art results on cross-domain sentiment classification. The sentence encoder used in this model is the same as ours.

(5) ADAN BIBREF16 : This method exploits adversarial training to reduce representation difference between domains. The original paper uses a simple feedforward network as encoder. For fair comparison, we replace it with our CNN-based encoder. We train 5 iterations on the discriminator per iteration on the encoder and sentiment classifier as suggested in their paper.

(6) MMD: MMD has been widely used for minimizing domain discrepancy on images. In those works BIBREF9 , BIBREF13 , variants of deep CNNs are used for encoding images and the MMDs of multiple layers are jointly minimized. In NLP, adding more layers of CNNs may not be very helpful and thus those models from image-related tasks can not be directly applied to our problem. To compare with MMD-based method, we train a model that jointly minimize the classification loss INLINEFORM0 on the source domain and MMD between INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 . For computing MMD, we use a Gaussian RBF which is a common choice for characteristic kernel. 
 Question: What are the baseline methods?
Output: (1) Naive (2) mSDA BIBREF7 (3) NaiveNN (4) AuxNN BIBREF4 (5) ADAN BIBREF16 (6) MMD
We used two strategies in combining prediction results of two types of models. Specifically, the Max Score Ensemble model made the final decisions based on the maximum of two scores assigned by the two separate models; instead, the Average Score Ensemble model used the average score to make final decisions. 
 Question: How do they combine the models?
Output: maximum of two scores assigned by the two separate models average score
We also observe that the best combination seems to consist in training our model on the original out-of-context dataset and testing it on the in-context pairs. In this configuration we reach an F-score (0.72) only slightly lower than the one reported in BIBREF3 (0.74), and we record the highest Pearson correlation, 0.3 (which is still not strong, compared to BIBREF3 's best run, 0.75).  
 Question: What were the results of the first experiment?
Output: Best performance achieved is 0.72 F1 score
BIBREF25 also proposed the idea of using average of word embeddings to represent the global context of a document. Different from their work, we choose to corrupt the original document by randomly removing significant portion of words, and represent the document using only the embeddings of the words remained. 
 Question: Is their approach similar to making an averaged weighted sum of word vectors, where weights reflect word frequencies?
Output: Different from their work, we choose to corrupt the original document by randomly removing significant portion of words, and represent the document using only the embeddings of the words remained.
Previous attempts to annotate QA-SRL initially involved trained annotators BIBREF4 but later resorted to crowdsourcing BIBREF5 to achieve scalability. 
 Question: How was the corpus obtained?
Output:  trained annotators BIBREF4 crowdsourcing BIBREF5
Baselines. We compare our models against a neural baseline models, hierarchical LSTM (hLSTM), with the attention ablated but with access to the complete context, and a strong, open-sourced feature-rich baseline BIBREF7 . We choose BIBREF7 over other prior works such as BIBREF0 since we do not have access to the dataset or the system used in their papers for replication. BIBREF7 is a logistic regression classifier with features inclusive of bag-of-words representation of the unigrams and thread length, normalised counts of agreements to previous posts, counts of non-lexical reference items such as URLs, and the Coursera forum type in which a thread appeared. We also report aggregated results from a hLSTM model with access only to the last post as context for comparison. Table TABREF17 compares the performance of these baselines against our proposed methods. 
 Question: What was the previous state of the art for this task?
Output: hLSTM
We define a metric called the Semantic Text Exchange Score (STES) that evaluates the overall ability of a model to perform STE, and an adjustable parameter masking (replacement) rate threshold (MRT/RRT) that can be used to control the amount of semantic change. 
 Question: Has STES been previously used in the literature to evaluate similar tasks?
Output: No
In this step we extract the AMR graphs of the summary sentences using story sentence AMRs. We divide this task in two parts. First is finding the important sentences from the story and then extracting the key information from those sentences using their AMR graphs. 
 Question: How are sentences selected from the summary graph?
Output:  finding the important sentences from the story extracting the key information from those sentences using their AMR graphs
While in this paper, we focus on the contexts and names of entities, there is a textual source of information about entities in KBs which we can also make use of: descriptions of entities. We extract Wikipedia descriptions of FIGMENT entities filtering out the entities ( $\sim $ 40,000 out of $\sim $ 200,000) without description. 
 Question: How do you find the entity descriptions?
Output: Wikipedia
Despite the focus on sharing datasets and source codes on popular software development platforms such as GitHub (github.com) or Zenodo (zenodo.org), it is still a challenge to use data or code from other groups. 
 Question: Are datasets publicly available?
Output: Yes
The dataset contains approximately 30M utterances of fictional characters. 
 Question: How large is the dataset?
Output: 30M utterances
We then perform the following analysis.

Speaker's Gender Effects: We search for first-person singular pronouns with subject case (ani, unmarked for gender, corresponding to the English I), and consider the gender of its governing verb (or adjectives in copular constructions such as `I am nice'). The possible genders are `masculine', `feminine' and `both', where the latter indicates a case where the none-diacriticized written form admits both a masculine and a feminine reading. We expect the gender to match the ones requested in the prefix.

Interlocutors' Gender and Number Effects: We search for second-person pronouns and consider their gender and number. For pronouns in subject position, we also consider the gender and number of their governing verbs (or adjectives in copular constructions). For a singular audience, we expect the gender and number to match the requested ones. For a plural audience, we expect the masculine-plural forms. 
 Question: What type of syntactic analysis is performed?
Output: Speaker's Gender Effects Interlocutors' Gender and Number Effects
the basic model yields good performance for recognizing explicit discourse relations as well, which is comparable with previous best result (92.05% macro F1-score and 93.09% accuracy as reported in BIBREF11 ). In summary, our full paragraph-level neural network model achieves the best macro-average F1-score of 48.82% in predicting implicit discourse relations, which outperforms previous neural tensor network models (e.g., BIBREF18 ) by more than 2 percents and outperforms the best previous system BIBREF19 by 1 percent. Then we also created ensemble models by applying majority voting to combine results of ten runs. From table 5 , each ensemble model obtains performance improvements compared with single model. The full model achieves performance boosting of (51.84 - 48.82 = 3.02) and (94.17 - 93.21 = 0.96) in macro F1-scores for predicting implicit and explicit discourse relations respectively.  
 Question: How much does this model improve state-of-the-art?
Output: the basic model yields good performance for recognizing explicit discourse relations as well, which is comparable with previous best result (92.05% macro F1-score and 93.09% accuracy as reported in BIBREF11 ). full paragraph-level neural network model achieves the best macro-average F1-score of 48.82% in predicting implicit discourse relations, which outperforms previous neural tensor network models (e.g., BIBREF18 ) by more than 2 percents and outperforms the best previous system BIBREF19 by 1 percent. Then we also created ensemble models by applying majority voting to combine results of ten runs. From table 5 , each ensemble model obtains performance improvements compared with single model. The full model achieves performance boosting of (51.84 - 48.82 = 3.02) and (94.17 - 93.21 = 0.96) in macro F1-scores for predicting implicit and explicit discourse relations respectively.
We sampled all papers published in the Computer Science subcategories of Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI), Machine Learning (cs.LG), Social and Information Networks (cs.SI), Computational Linguistics (cs.CL), Computers and Society (cs.CY), Information Retrieval (cs.IR), and Computer Vision (CS.CV), the Statistics subcategory of Machine Learning (stat.ML), and Social Physics (physics.soc-ph). We filtered for papers in which the title or abstract included at least one of the words “machine learning”, “classif*”, or “supervi*” (case insensitive). We then filtered to papers in which the title or abstract included at least “twitter” or “tweet” (case insensitive), which resulted in 494 papers. We used the same query on Elsevier's Scopus database of peer-reviewed articles, selecting 30 randomly sampled articles, which mostly selected from conference proceedings. One paper from the Scopus sample was corrupted, so only 29 papers were examined. 
 Question: How were the machine learning papers from ArXiv sampled?
Output: sampled all papers published in the Computer Science subcategories of Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI), Machine Learning (cs.LG), Social and Information Networks (cs.SI), Computational Linguistics (cs.CL), Computers and Society (cs.CY), Information Retrieval (cs.IR), and Computer Vision (CS.CV), the Statistics subcategory of Machine Learning (stat.ML), and Social Physics (physics.soc-ph) filtered for papers in which the title or abstract included at least one of the words “machine learning”, “classif*”, or “supervi*” (case insensitive) filtered to papers in which the title or abstract included at least “twitter” or “tweet” (case insensitive)
We focus on the following aspects of NLP research: size, demographics, areas of research, impact, and correlation of citations with demographic attributes (age and gender). 
 Question: What aspect of NLP research is examined?
Output: size, demographics, areas of research, impact, and correlation of citations with demographic attributes (age and gender)
The 10-fold cross validation with this setting gave a token-level accuracy of roughly 71%.  
 Question: Does the paper report translation accuracy for an automatic translation model for Tunisian to Arabish words?
Output: Yes
The used classifiers are Support Vector Machine (SVM), Logistic regression (Log.Reg), Random Forest (RF) and gradient boosting (XGB). 
 Question: What classical machine learning algorithms are used?
Output: Support Vector Machine (SVM) Logistic regression (Log.Reg) Random Forest (RF) gradient boosting (XGB)
Our novelties include:

Using self-play learning for the neural response ranker (described in detail below).

Optimizing neural models for specific metrics (e.g. diversity, coherence) in our ensemble setup.

Training a separate dialog model for each user, personalizing our socialbot and making it more consistent.

Using a response classification predictor and a response classifier to predict and control aspects of responses such as sentiment, topic, offensiveness, diversity etc.

Using a model predictor to predict the best responding model, before the response candidates are generated, reducing computational expenses.

Using our entropy-based filtering technique to filter all dialog datasets, obtaining higher quality training data BIBREF3.

Building big, pre-trained, hierarchical BERT and GPT dialog models BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8.

Constantly monitoring the user input through our automatic metrics, ensuring that the user stays engaged. 
 Question: What is novel in author's approach?
Output: They use self-play learning , optimize the model for specific metrics, train separate models per user, use model  and response classification predictors, and filter the dataset to obtain higher quality training data.
Accuracy of acquired phoneme sequences representing the names of places
We evaluated whether the names of places were properly learned for the considered teaching places. This experiment assumes a request for the best phoneme sequence INLINEFORM0 representing the self-position INLINEFORM1 for a robot. The robot moves close to each teaching place. The probability of a word INLINEFORM2 when the self-position INLINEFORM3 of the robot is given, INLINEFORM4 , can be obtained by using equation ( EQREF37 ). The word having the best probability was selected. We compared the PAR with the correct phoneme sequence and a selected name of the place. Because “kiqchiN” and “daidokoro” were taught for the same place, the word whose PAR was the higher score was adopted.

Fig. FIGREF63 shows the results of PAR for the word considered the name of a place. SpCoA (latticelm), the proposed method using the results of unsupervised word segmentation on the basis of the speech recognition results in the lattice format, showed the best PAR score. In the 1-best and BoS methods, a part syllable sequence of the name of a place was more minutely segmented as shown in Table TABREF55 . Therefore, the robot could not learn the name of the teaching place as a coherent phoneme sequence. In contrast, the robot could learn the names of teaching places more accurately by using the proposed method. 
 Question: How do they evaluate how their model acquired words?
Output: PAR score
We introduce a list of 8 different competencies that a reading system should master in order to process reviews and text documents in general. These 8 tasks require different competencies and a different level of understanding of the document to be well answered. For instance, detecting if an aspect is mentioned in a review will require less understanding of the review than predicting explicitly the rating of this aspect. Table TABREF10 presents the 8 tasks we have introduced in this dataset with an example of a question that corresponds to each task. 
 Question: What kind of questions are present in the dataset?
Output: These 8 tasks require different competencies and a different level of understanding of the document to be well answered
We designed 3 evaluation sets: (1) Base Set (1,264 samples) held out from the simulated data. (2) Augmented Set (1,280 samples) built by adding two out-of-distribution symptoms, with corresponding dialogue contents and queries, to the Base Set (“bleeding” and “cold”, which never appeared in training data). (3) Real-World Set (944 samples) manually delineated from the the symptom checking portions (approximately 4 hours) of real-world dialogues, and annotated as evaluation samples. 
 Question: How do they select instances to their hold-out test set?
Output: 1264 instances from simulated data, 1280 instances by adding two out-of-distribution symptoms and 944 instances manually delineated from the symptom checking portions of real-word dialogues