niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
The current state-of-the-art approach BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 uses maximum entropy and CRF models with a combination of language model and hand-crafted features to predict if each character in the hashtag is the beginning of a new word. 
 Question: What current state of the art method was used for comparison?
Output: current state-of-the-art approach BIBREF14 , BIBREF15
We conducted an experiment to determine whether we could maintain or improve classifier performances by applying the following three-tiered feature elimination approach:

Reduction We reduced the dataset encoded for each class by eliminating features that occur less than twice in the full dataset.

Selection We iteratively applied Chi-Square feature selection on the reduced dataset, selecting the top percentile of highest ranked features in increments of 5 percent to train and test the support vector model using a linear kernel and 5-fold, stratified cross-validation.

Rank We cumulatively plotted the average F1-score performances of each incrementally added percentile of top ranked features. We report the percentile and count of features resulting in the first occurrence of the highest average F1-score for each class. 
 Question: What are the three steps to feature elimination?
Output: Reduction Selection Rank
WN18RR dataset consists of two kinds of relations: the symmetric relations such as $\_similar\_to$, which link entities in the category (b); other relations such as $\_hypernym$ and $\_member\_meronym$, which link entities in the category (a). Actually, RotatE can model entities in the category (b) very well BIBREF7. However, HAKE gains a 0.021 higher MRR, a 2.4% higher H@1, and a 2.4% higher H@3 against RotatE, respectively. FB15k-237 dataset has more complex relation types and fewer entities, compared with WN18RR and YAGO3-10. Although there are relations that reflect hierarchy in FB15k-237, there are also lots of relations, such as “/location/location/time_zones” and “/film/film/prequel”, that do not lead to hierarchy. The characteristic of this dataset accounts for why our proposed models doesn't outperform the previous state-of-the-art as much as that of WN18RR and YAGO3-10 datasets. AGO3-10 datasets contains entities with high relation-specific indegree BIBREF18. For example, the link prediction task $(?, hasGender, male)$ has over 1000 true answers, which makes the task challenging. Fortunately, we can regard “male” as an entity at higher level of the hierarchy and the predicted head entities as entities at lower level. In this way, YAGO3-10 is a dataset that clearly has semantic hierarchy property, and we can expect that our proposed models is capable of working well on this dataset. Table TABREF19 validates our expectation. Both ModE and HAKE significantly outperform the previous state-of-the-art. Notably, HAKE gains a 0.050 higher MRR, 6.0% higher H@1 and 4.6% higher H@3 than RotatE, respectively. 
 Question: How better does HAKE model peform than state-of-the-art methods?
Output: 0.021 higher MRR, a 2.4% higher H@1, and a 2.4% higher H@3 against RotatE, respectively doesn't outperform the previous state-of-the-art as much as that of WN18RR and YAGO3-10 HAKE gains a 0.050 higher MRR, 6.0% higher H@1 and 4.6% higher H@3 than RotatE, respectively
We then show the tweet text and image and we ask them to classify it in one of 6 categories: No attacks to any community, racist, sexist, homophobic, religion based attacks or attacks to other communities. 
 Question: What annotations are available in the dataset - tweat used hate speach or not?
Output: No attacks to any community  racist sexist homophobic religion based attacks attacks to other communities
this paper proposes to use the most relevant samples from the source dataset to train on the target dataset. One way to find the most similar samples is finding the pair-wise distance between all samples of the development set of the target dataset and source dataset. we propose using a clustering algorithm on the development set. The clustering algorithm used ihere is a hierarchical clustering algorithm. The cosine similarity is used as a criteria to cluster each question and answer. Therefore, these clusters are representative of the development set of the target dataset and the corresponding center for each cluster is representative of all the samples on that cluster. In the next step, the distance of each center is used to calculate the cosine similarity. Finally, the samples in the source dataset which are far from these centers are ignored. In other words, the outliers do not take part in transfer learning. 
 Question: How do they transfer the model?
Output: In the MULT method, two datasets are simultaneously trained, and the weights are tuned based on the inputs which come from both datasets. The hyper-parameter $\lambda \in (0,1)$ is calculated based on a brute-force search or using general global search. This hyper parameter is used to calculate the final cost function which is computed from the combination of the cost function of the source dataset and the target datasets.  this paper proposes to use the most relevant samples from the source dataset to train on the target dataset. One way to find the most similar samples is finding the pair-wise distance between all samples of the development set of the target dataset and source dataset. we propose using a clustering algorithm on the development set. The clustering algorithm used ihere is a hierarchical clustering algorithm. The cosine similarity is used as a criteria to cluster each question and answer. Therefore, these clusters are representative of the development set of the target dataset and the corresponding center for each cluster is representative of all the samples on that cluster. In the next step, the distance of each center is used to calculate the cosine similarity. Finally, the samples in the source dataset which are far from these centers are ignored. In other words, the outliers do not take part in transfer learning.
A number of methods utilize an extra type of information as the observed features for entities, by either merging, concatenating, or averaging the entity and its features to compute its embeddings, such as numerical values BIBREF26 (we use KBLN from this work to compare it with our approach using only numerical as extra attributes), images BIBREF27 , BIBREF28 (we use IKRL from the first work to compare it with our approach using only images as extra attributes), text BIBREF29 , BIBREF30 , BIBREF31 , BIBREF32 , BIBREF33 , BIBREF34 , and a combination of text and image BIBREF35 . Further, BIBREF7 address the multilingual relation extraction task to attain a universal schema by considering raw text with no annotation as extra feature and using matrix factorization to jointly embed KB and textual relations BIBREF36 . In addition to treating the extra information as features, graph embedding approaches BIBREF37 , BIBREF38 consider observed attributes while encoding to achieve more accurate embeddings. 
 Question: What other multimodal knowledge base embedding methods are there?
Output: merging, concatenating, or averaging the entity and its features to compute its embeddings graph embedding approaches matrix factorization to jointly embed KB and textual relations
To measure the effect of adding Bertram to BERT on downstream tasks, we apply the procedure described in Section SECREF4 to a commonly used textual entailment dataset as well as two text classification datasets: MNLI BIBREF21, AG's News BIBREF22 and DBPedia BIBREF23.  
 Question: What are three downstream task datasets?
Output: MNLI BIBREF21 AG's News BIBREF22 DBPedia BIBREF23
We manually investigate the errors made by artificial neural networks for morphological inflection in a target language after pretraining on different source languages. For our qualitative analysis, we make use of the validation set. Therefore, we show validation set accuracies in Table TABREF19 for comparison. We manually annotate the outputs for the first 75 development examples for each source–target language combination. All found errors are categorized as belonging to one of the following categories. 
 Question: How is the performance on the task evaluated?
Output: Comparison of test accuracies of neural network models on an inflection task and qualitative analysis of the errors
In this section we report on the experiments performed using the system and data described above. First we will present the English results for the three ABSA editions as well as a comparison with previous work. After that we will do the same for 5 additional languages included in the ABSA 2016 edition: Dutch, French, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. The local and clustering features, as described in Section SECREF11 , are the same for every language and evaluation setting. The only change is the clustering lexicons used for the different languages. As stated in section SECREF11 , the best cluster combination is chosen via 5-fold cross validation (CV) on the training data. We first try every permutation with the Clark and Word2vec clusters. Once the best combination is obtained, we then try with the Brown clusters obtaining thus the final model for each language and dataset. 
 Question: Which six languages are experimented with?
Output: Dutch French Russian Spanish  Turkish English
First, we adapt a dataset extracted from Freebase, i.e., FB24K, which used by BIBREF26. Then, we collect extra entities and relations that from DBpedia which that they should have at least 100 mentions BIBREF7 and they could link to the entities in the FB24K by the sameAs triples. Finally, we build a datasets named as DBP24K. In addition, we build a game datasets from our game knowledge graph, named as Game30K. 
 Question: What three datasets are used to measure performance?
Output: FB24K DBP24K Game30K
n-gram: We consider 3-gram and 4-gram conditional language model baseline with interpolation. We use random grid search for the best coefficients for the interpolated model.

Convolution: We use the fconv architecture BIBREF24 and default hyperparameters from the fairseq BIBREF25 framework. We train the network with ADAM optimizer BIBREF26 with learning rate of 0.25 and dropout probability set to 0.2.

LSTM: We consider LSTM models BIBREF27 with and without attention BIBREF28 and use the tensor2tensor BIBREF29 framework for the LSTM baselines. We use a two-layer LSTM network for both the encoder and the decoder with 128 dimensional hidden vectors.

Transformer: As with LSTMs, we use the tensor2tensor framework for the Transformer model. Our Transformer BIBREF21 model uses 256 dimensions for both input embedding and hidden state, 2 layers and 4 attention heads. For both LSTMs and Transformer, we train the model with ADAM optimizer ($\beta _{1} = 0.85$, $\beta _{2} = 0.997$) and dropout probability set to 0.2.

GPT-2: Apart from supervised seq2seq models, we also include results from pre-trained GPT-2 BIBREF30 containing 117M parameters. 
 Question: What baseline models are offered?
Output: 3-gram and 4-gram conditional language model Convolution LSTM models BIBREF27 with and without attention BIBREF28 Transformer GPT-2
While WSD is predominantly evaluated on English, we are also interested in evaluating our approach on Chinese, to evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in a different language. 
 Question: Which language(s) are found in the WSD datasets?
Output:  WSD is predominantly evaluated on English, we are also interested in evaluating our approach on Chinese
Our framework includes three key modules: Retrieve, Fast Rerank, and BiSET. For each source article, Retrieve aims to return a few candidate templates from the training corpus. Then, the Fast Rerank module quickly identifies a best template from the candidates. Finally, BiSET mutually selects important information from the source article and the template to generate an enhanced article representation for summarization. This module starts with a standard information retrieval library to retrieve a small set of candidates for fine-grained filtering as cao2018retrieve. To do that, all non-alphabetic characters (e.g., dates) are removed to eliminate their influence on article matching. The retrieval process starts by querying the training corpus with a source article to find a few (5 to 30) related articles, the summaries of which will be treated as candidate templates. The above retrieval process is essentially based on superficial word matching and cannot measure the deep semantic relationship between two articles. Therefore, the Fast Rerank module is developed to identify a best template from the candidates based on their deep semantic relevance with the source article. We regard the candidate with highest relevance as the template. As illustrated in Figure FIGREF6 , this module consists of a Convolution Encoder Block, a Similarity Matrix and a Pooling Layer. 
 Question: How are templates discovered from training data?
Output: For each source article, Retrieve aims to return a few candidate templates from the training corpus. Then, the Fast Rerank module quickly identifies a best template from the candidates.
We thus adapt an off-the-shelf reward learning algorithm BIBREF7 to the supervised setting for automated data manipulation. 
 Question: What off-the-shelf reward learning algorithm from RL for joint data manipulation learning and model training is adapted?
Output: BIBREF7
How the music taste of the audience of popular music changed in the last century? The trend lines of the MUSIC model features, reported in figure FIGREF12, reveal that audiences wanted products more and more contemporary, intense and a little bit novel or sophisticated, but less and less mellow and (surprisingly) unpretentious. In other words, the audiences of popular music are getting more demanding as the quality and variety of the music products increases. 
 Question: What trends are found in musical preferences?
Output: audiences wanted products more and more contemporary, intense and a little bit novel or sophisticated, but less and less mellow and (surprisingly) unpretentious
One distinguishing feature of educational topics is their breadth of sub-topics and points of view, as they attract researchers, practitioners, parents, students, or policy-makers. We assume that this diversity leads to the linguistic variability of the education topics and thus represents a challenge for NLP. 
 Question: What challenges do different registers and domains pose to this task?
Output: linguistic variability
We have two main interfaces that enable human interaction with the computer. There is cross-model interaction, where the machine does all the composition work, and displays three different versions of a story written by three distinct models for a human to compare. The user guides generation by providing a topic for story-writing and by tweaking decoding parameters to control novelty, or diversity. The second interface is intra-model interaction, where a human can select the model to interact with (potentially after having chosen it via cross-model), and can collaborate at all stages to jointly create better stories. 
 Question: How is human interaction consumed by the model?
Output: displays three different versions of a story written by three distinct models for a human to compare human can select the model to interact with (potentially after having chosen it via cross-model), and can collaborate at all stages
We quantify the use of these strategies by comparing the airtime debaters devote to talking points . For a side INLINEFORM0 , let the self-coverage INLINEFORM1 be the fraction of content words uttered by INLINEFORM2 in round INLINEFORM3 that are among their own talking points INLINEFORM4 ; and the opponent-coverage INLINEFORM5 be the fraction of its content words covering opposing talking points INLINEFORM6 .  We use all conversational features discussed above. For each side INLINEFORM0 we include INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , and their sum. We also use the drop in self-coverage given by subtracting corresponding values for INLINEFORM3 , and the number of discussion points adopted by each side. 
 Question: what aspects of conversation flow do they look at?
Output: The time devoted to self-coverage, opponent-coverage, and the number of adopted discussion points.
We focused evaluation over a small but diversified dataset composed by 10 YouTube videos in the English language in the news context. The selected videos cover different topics like technology, human rights, terrorism and politics with a length variation between 2 and 10 minutes.  
 Question: What kind of Youtube video transcripts did they use?
Output: youtube video transcripts on news covering different topics like technology, human rights, terrorism and politics
It thus seems feasible that by using a similar model, we can produce text samples that are conditioned upon a set of user-specified keywords. To illustrate by example, say a user desires the generated output to contain the keywords, $\lbrace subway, manhattan\rbrace $ .  
 Question: What are the user-defined keywords?
Output: Words that a user wants them to appear in the generated output.
Despite these shortcomings in using WER as a metric of success, the WER can reflect our model's effectiveness in generating questions that are similar to those of SQuAD based on the given reading passage and answer. WER can be used for initial analyses that can lead to deeper insights as discussed further below. 
 Question: Why did they choose WER as evaluation metric?
Output: WER can reflect our model's effectiveness in generating questions that are similar to those of SQuAD WER can be used for initial analyses
We have created a dataset of discharge summaries and nursing notes, all in the English language, with a focus on frequently readmitted patients, labeled with 15 clinical patient phenotypes believed to be associated with risk of recurrent Intensive Care Unit (ICU) readmission per our domain experts (co-authors LAC, PAT, DAG) as well as the literature. BIBREF10 BIBREF11 BIBREF12 
 Question: How many different phenotypes are present in the dataset?
Output: 15 clinical patient phenotypes
Hypothesis 4 (H4) : The proposed template-based synthesis model outperforms a simple word replacement model. Table TABREF13 supports H4 by showing that the proposed synthesis model outperforms the WordNet baseline in training (rows 7, 8 and 19, 20) except Stat2016, and tuning (10, 11 and 22, 23) over all courses. It also shows that while adding synthetic data from the baseline is not always helpful, adding synthetic data from the template model helps to improve both the training and the tuning process. In both CS and ENGR courses, tuning with synthetic data enhances all ROUGE scores compared to tuning with only the original data. (rows 9 and 11). As for Stat2015, R-1 and R-$L$ improved, while R-2 decreased. For Stat2016, R-2 and R-$L$ improved, and R-1 decreased (rows 21 and 23). Training with both student reflection data and synthetic data compared to training with only student reflection data yields similar improvements, supporting H3 (rows 6, 8 and 18, 20). 
 Question: Is the template-based model realistic?  
Output: Yes
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: Do they gather explicit user satisfaction data on Gunrock?
Output: Yes
We experiment and compare with the following models.

Pointer-Gen is the baseline model trained by optimizing $L_\text{MLE}$ in Equation DISPLAY_FORM13.

Pointer-Gen+Pos is the baseline model by training Pointer-Gen only on positive examples whose sensationalism score is larger than 0.5

Pointer-Gen+Same-FT is the model which fine-tunes Pointer-Gen on the training samples whose sensationalism score is larger than 0.1

Pointer-Gen+Pos-FT is the model which fine-tunes Pointer-Gen on the training samples whose sensationalism score is larger than 0.5

Pointer-Gen+RL-ROUGE is the baseline model trained by optimizing $L_\text{RL-ROUGE}$ in Equation DISPLAY_FORM17, with ROUGE-L BIBREF9 as the reward.

Pointer-Gen+RL-SEN is the baseline model trained by optimizing $L_\text{RL-SEN}$ in Equation DISPLAY_FORM17, with $\alpha _\text{sen}$ as the reward. 
 Question: Which baselines are used for evaluation?
Output: Pointer-Gen Pointer-Gen+Pos Pointer-Gen+Same-FT Pointer-Gen+Pos-FT Pointer-Gen+RL-ROUGE Pointer-Gen+RL-SEN
d  Experiments on two benchmark data sets, the Stanford Sentiment Treebank BIBREF7 and the AG English news corpus BIBREF3 , show that 1) our method achieves very competitive accuracy, 2) some views distinguish themselves from others by better categorizing specific classes, and 3) when our base bag-of-words feature set is augmented with convolutional features, the method establishes a new state-of-the-art for both data sets.  Stanford Sentiment Treebank  AG English news corpus  
 Question: which benchmark tasks did they experiment on?
Output:  They used Stanford Sentiment Treebank benchmark for sentiment classification task and   AG English news corpus for the text classification task.
Compared to single-task baselines, performance improved on the low-resource En-De task and was comparable on high-resource En-Fr task. 
 Question: How big are negative effects of proposed techniques on high-resource tasks?
Output: The negative effects were insignificant.
This action space is of the order of $A=\mathcal {O}(|V| \times |O|^2)$ where $V$ is the number of action verbs, and $O$ is the number of distinct objects in the world that the agent can interact with. As this is too large a space for a RL agent to effectively explore, the knowledge graph is used to prune this space by ranking actions based on their presence in the current knowledge graph and the relations between the objects in the graph as in BIBREF7 
 Question: How is the domain knowledge transfer represented as knowledge graph?
Output: the knowledge graph is used to prune this space by ranking actions based on their presence in the current knowledge graph and the relations between the objects in the graph as in BIBREF7
We use datasets from the NIST DUC-05, DUC-06 and DUC-07 shared tasks BIBREF7, BIBREF19, BIBREF20. Given a question and a cluster of newswire documents, the contestants were asked to generate a 250-word summary answering the question. DUC-05 contains 1,600 summaries (50 questions x 32 systems); in DUC-06, 1,750 summaries are included (50 questions x 35 systems); and DUC-07 has 1,440 summaries (45 questions x 32 systems). 
 Question: What dataset do they use?
Output: datasets from the NIST DUC-05, DUC-06 and DUC-07 shared tasks
Within ICU notes (e.g., text example in top-left box in Figure 2), we first identify all abbreviations using regular expressions and then try to find all possible expansions of these abbreviations from domain-specific knowledge base as candidates. 
 Question: How do they identify abbreviations?
Output: identify all abbreviations using regular expressions
Validated transcripts were sent to professional translators. In order to control the quality of the professional translations, we applied various sanity checks to the translations BIBREF11. We also sanity check the overlaps of train, development and test sets in terms of transcripts and voice clips (via MD5 file hashing), and confirm they are totally disjoint. 
 Question: How is the quality of the data empirically evaluated? 
Output: Validated transcripts were sent to professional translators. various sanity checks to the translations  sanity check the overlaps of train, development and test sets
We conduct our experiments on $\sim $ 8.7M annotated anonymised user utterances. They are annotated and derived from requests across 23 domains. 
 Question: Over which datasets/corpora is this work evaluated?
Output: $\sim $ 8.7M annotated anonymised user utterances
To tackle this issue we applying a back-translation method BIBREF13, where we translate indirect and physical harassment tweets of the train set from english to german, french and greek. After that, we translate them back to english in order to achieve data augmentation. 
 Question: What language(s) is/are represented in the dataset?
Output: english
This section introduces our probabilistic model that infers keyword expectation and trains the target model simultaneously. 
 Question: What type of classifiers are used?
Output: probabilistic model
Our model achieves a 33.33 average of ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L on the CNN/Daily Mail, which is state-of-the-art. 
 Question: What is the ROUGE score of the highest performing model?
Output: 33.33 average of ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L
We discuss two core models for addressing sequence labeling problems and describe, for each, training them in a single-model multilingual setting: (1) the Meta-LSTM BIBREF0 , an extremely strong baseline for our tasks, and (2) a multilingual BERT-based model BIBREF1 . 
 Question: What is the multilingual baseline?
Output:  the Meta-LSTM BIBREF0
In this paper, we propose the first large-scale dataset for QA over social media data.   Table TABREF3 gives an example from our TweetQA dataset. The dataset now includes 10,898 articles, 17,794 tweets, and 13,757 crowdsourced question-answer pairs 
 Question: What is the size of this dataset?
Output: 13,757
We computed Fliess' INLINEFORM0 on the trial set for the five annotators on 21 of the tweets. INLINEFORM1 is .83 for Layer A (OFF vs NOT) indicating high agreement. As to normalization and anonymization, no user metadata or Twitter IDs have been stored, and URLs and Twitter mentions have been substituted to placeholders.  
 Question: How many annotators participated?
Output: five annotators
Our system, including software and corpus, is available as an open source project for free research purpose and we believe that it is a good baseline for the development and comparison of future Vietnamese SRL systems.  
 Question: Are their corpus and software public?
Output: Yes
As illustrated in Figure FIGREF1, our key idea is that we can exploit discourse relations BIBREF4 to efficiently propagate polarity from seed predicates that directly report one's emotions (e.g., “to be glad” is positive). Suppose that events $x_1$ are $x_2$ are in the discourse relation of Cause (i.e., $x_1$ causes $x_2$). If the seed lexicon suggests $x_2$ is positive, $x_1$ is also likely to be positive because it triggers the positive emotion. The fact that $x_2$ is known to be negative indicates the negative polarity of $x_1$. Similarly, if $x_1$ and $x_2$ are in the discourse relation of Concession (i.e., $x_2$ in spite of $x_1$), the reverse of $x_2$'s polarity can be propagated to $x_1$. Even if $x_2$'s polarity is not known in advance, we can exploit the tendency of $x_1$ and $x_2$ to be of the same polarity (for Cause) or of the reverse polarity (for Concession) although the heuristic is not exempt from counterexamples. We transform this idea into objective functions and train neural network models that predict the polarity of a given event. 
 Question: How are relations used to propagate polarity?
Output: based on the relation between events, the suggested polarity of one event can determine the possible polarity of the other event
Previously, datasets openly available in abusive language detection research on Twitter ranged from 10K to 35K in size BIBREF9 , BIBREF11 . This quantity is not sufficient to train the significant number of parameters in deep learning models. Due to this reason, these datasets have been mainly studied by traditional machine learning methods. Most recently, Founta et al. founta2018large introduced Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter, a dataset containing 100K tweets with cross-validated labels. Although this corpus has great potential in training deep models with its significant size, there are no baseline reports to date.

This paper investigates the efficacy of different learning models in detecting abusive language. We compare accuracy using the most frequently studied machine learning classifiers as well as recent neural network models. Reliable baseline results are presented with the first comparative study on this dataset. Additionally, we demonstrate the effect of different features and variants, and describe the possibility for further improvements with the use of ensemble models. 
 Question: Does the dataset feature only English language data?
Output: Yes
We pre-trained our model on the Dutch section of the OSCAR corpus, a large multilingual corpus which was obtained by language classification in the Common Crawl corpus BIBREF16. 
 Question: What data did they use?
Output: the Dutch section of the OSCAR corpus
Our approach consists of structuring input to the transformer network to use and guide the self-attention of the transformers, conditioning it on the entity. Our main mode of encoding the input, the entity-first method, is shown in Figure FIGREF4.  We also have an entity-last variant where the entity is primarily observed just before the classification token to condition the [CLS] token's self-attention accordingly.  As an additional variation, we can either run the transformer once per document with multiple [CLS] tokens (a document-level model as shown in Figure FIGREF4) or specialize the prediction to a single timestep (a sentence-level model). 
 Question: In what way is the input restructured?
Output: In four entity-centric ways - entity-first, entity-last, document-level and sentence-level
To further study the information encoded in the discourse embeddings, we perform t-SNE clustering BIBREF20 on them, using the best performing model CNN2-DE (global). 
 Question: How are discourse embeddings analyzed?
Output: They perform t-SNE clustering to analyze discourse embeddings
Recently, continuous space representations of words and phrases have been incorporated into SMT systems via neural networks. Specifically, addition of monolingual neural network language models BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , neural network joint models (NNJM) BIBREF4 , and neural network global lexicon models (NNGLM) BIBREF3 have been shown to be useful for SMT Grammatical error correction (GEC) is a challenging task due to the variability of the type of errors and the syntactic and semantic dependencies of the errors on the surrounding context. Most of the grammatical error correction systems use classification and rule-based approaches for correcting specific error types. However, these systems use several linguistic cues as features. The standard linguistic analysis tools like part-of-speech (POS) taggers and parsers are often trained on well-formed text and perform poorly on ungrammatical text. This introduces further errors and limits the performance of rule-based and classification approaches to GEC. As a consequence, the phrase-based statistical machine translation (SMT) approach to GEC has gained popularity because of its ability to learn text transformations from erroneous text to correct text from error-corrected parallel corpora without any additional linguistic information.  We conduct experiments by incorporating NNGLM and NNJM both independently and jointly into our baseline system On top of our baseline system described above, we incorporate the two neural network components, neural network global lexicon model (NNGLM) and neural network joint model (NNJM) as features. Both NNGLM and NNJM are trained using the parallel data used to train the translation model of our baseline system. 
 Question: How do they combine the two proposed neural network models?
Output: ncorporating NNGLM and NNJM both independently and jointly into baseline system
Note that ESIM models have two LSTM layers, the first (input) LSTM performs the input encoding and the second (inference) LSTM generates the representation for inference. 
 Question: How many layers are there in their model?
Output: two LSTM layers
To test whether horizontal or vertical consistency is more helpful, we train and evaluate M-Bert on a dataset variant where all questions are in their English version. 
 Question: Did they pefrorm any cross-lingual vs single language evaluation?
Output: Yes
For the sake of interpretability, we will also project back coefficients from the embeddings as well as PCA models into the dummy variable space. 
 Question: How do their interpret the coefficients?
Output: The coefficients are projected back to the dummy variable space.
To make the annotated data publicly available, we selected 70 news articles from Arabic WikiNews site. These articles cover recent news from year 2013 to year 2015 in multiple genres (politics, economics, health, science and technology, sports, arts, and culture.) Articles contain 18,300 words, and they are evenly distributed among these 7 genres with 10 articles per each.

Word are white-space and punctuation separated, and some spelling errors are corrected (1.33% of the total words) to have very clean test cases. Lemmatization is done by an expert Arabic linguist where spelling corrections are marked, and lemmas are provided with full diacritization as shown in Figure FIGREF2 . 
 Question: How was the dataset annotated?
Output: Lemmatization is done by an expert Arabic linguist where spelling corrections are marked, and lemmas are provided with full diacritization
Table TABREF19 shows the comparison of our proposed system with the existing state-of-the-art system of SemEval 2016 Task 6 for the sentiment dataset. BIBREF7 used feature-based SVM, BIBREF39 used keyword rules, LitisMind relied on hashtag rules on external data, BIBREF38 utilized a combination of sentiment classifiers and rules, whereas BIBREF37 used a maximum entropy classifier with domain-specific features. We also compare our system with the state-of-the-art systems proposed by BIBREF15 on the emotion dataset. The comparison is demonstrated in Table TABREF22. Maximum entropy, SVM, LSTM, Bi-LSTM, and CNN were the five individual systems used by BIBREF15. 
 Question: What is the previous state-of-the-art model?
Output: BIBREF7 BIBREF39 BIBREF37 LitisMind Maximum entropy, SVM, LSTM, Bi-LSTM, and CNN
For a fair comparison with previous work, we train the baseline MT system on the data released by BIBREF11.  
 Question: what was the baseline?
Output:  MT system on the data released by BIBREF11
The observed performance of both the BasicDCGAN and MultitaskDCGAN using 3-classes is comparable to the state-of-the-art, with 49.80% compared to 49.99% reported in BIBREF16  
 Question: What model achieves state of the art performance on this task?
Output: BIBREF16
Differently to textual data, our goal in this paper is to explore the large amount of categorical data that is often collected in travel surveys. This includes trip purpose, education level, or family type. We also consider other variables that are not necessarily of categorical nature, but typically end up as dummy encoding, due to segmentation, such as age, income, or even origin/destination pair. 
 Question: How do they model travel behavior?
Output: The data from collected travel surveys is used to model travel behavior.
Dataset Quality Analysis ::: Inter-Annotator Agreement (IAA)
To estimate dataset consistency across different annotations, we measure F1 using our UA metric with 5 generators per predicate. Dataset Quality Analysis ::: Dataset Assessment and Comparison
We assess both our gold standard set and the recent Dense set against an integrated expert annotated sample of 100 predicates.  Dataset Quality Analysis ::: Agreement with PropBank Data
It is illuminating to observe the agreement between QA-SRL and PropBank (CoNLL-2009) annotations BIBREF7.  
 Question: How was quality measured?
Output: Inter-annotator agreement, comparison against expert annotation, agreement with PropBank Data annotations.
To demonstrate the value of building a dedicated version of BERT for French, we first compare CamemBERT to the multilingual cased version of BERT (designated as mBERT). 
 Question: Was CamemBERT compared against multilingual BERT on these tasks?
Output: Yes
We further explore the effect of INLINEFORM0 -gram length in our model (i.e., the filter size for the covolutional layers used by the attention parsing module). In Figure FIGREF39 we plot the AUC scores for link prediction on the Cora dataset against varying INLINEFORM1 -gram length.  
 Question: Do they measure how well they perform on longer sequences specifically?
Output: Yes
Then, it selects a subset of a 1,700-hour ( INLINEFORM2 1.1M instances) unlabeled dataset. 
 Question: How much data samples do they start with before obtaining the initial model labels?
Output: 1,700-hour ( INLINEFORM2 1.1M instances) unlabeled dataset
We use one public dataset Social Honeypot dataset and one self-collected dataset Weibo dataset to validate the effectiveness of our proposed features. Before directly performing the experiments on the employed datasets, we first delete some accounts with few posts in the two employed since the number of tweets is highly indicative of spammers. For the English Honeypot dataset, we remove stopwords, punctuations, non-ASCII words and apply stemming. For the Chinese Weibo dataset, we perform segmentation with "Jieba", a Chinese text segmentation tool. After preprocessing steps, the Weibo dataset contains 2197 legitimate users and 802 spammers, and the honeypot dataset contains 2218 legitimate users and 2947 spammers. 
 Question: What is the benchmark dataset and is its quality high?
Output: Social Honeypot dataset (public) and Weibo dataset (self-collected); yes
Most recently, GANs were used to generate an original painting in an unsupervised fashion BIBREF24.  
 Question: Is text-to-image synthesis trained is suppervized or unsuppervized manner?
Output: unsupervised
Analogous to word embeddings, sentence embeddings, e.g. the Universal Sentence Encoder BIBREF8 and Sentence-BERT BIBREF6, allow one to calculate the cosine similarity of various different sentences, as for instance the similarity of a question and the corresponding answer. The more appropriate a specific answer is to a given question, the stronger is its cosine similarity expected to be. When considering two opposite answers, it is therefore possible to determine a bias value:

where $\vec{q}$ is the vector representation of the question and $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ the representations of the two answers/choices. 
 Question: How is moral bias measured?
Output: Answer with content missing: (formula 1) bias(q, a, b) = cos(a, q) − cos(b, q)
Bias is calculated as substraction of cosine similarities of question and some answer for two opposite answers.
As shown in Table TABREF24, MUSE outperforms all previously models on En-De and En-Fr translation, including both state-of-the-art models of stand alone self-attention BIBREF0, BIBREF13, and convolutional models BIBREF11, BIBREF15, BIBREF10. This result shows that either self-attention or convolution alone is not enough for sequence to sequence learning. The proposed parallel multi-scale attention improves over them both on En-De and En-Fr.

Compared to Evolved Transformer BIBREF19 which is constructed by NAS and also mixes convolutions of different kernel size, MUSE achieves 2.2 BLEU gains in En-Fr translation. 
 Question: How big is improvement in performance over Transformers?
Output: 2.2 BLEU gains
Compared with 2015, our QA-SRL gold yielded 1593 annotations, with 989 core and 604 adjuncts, while theirs yielded 1315 annotations, 979 core and 336 adjuncts.  
 Question: How big is the dataset?
Output: 1593 annotations
Our training data consists of 2.09M sentence pairs extracted from LDC corpus. 
 Question: Where does the vocabulary come from?
Output: LDC corpus
In this section, we introduce an invertibility condition for our neural projector to tackle the optimization challenge. Specifically, we constrain our neural projector with two requirements: (1) INLINEFORM0 and (2) INLINEFORM1 exists.  
 Question: What is the invertibility condition?
Output: The neural projector must be invertible.
We use three datasets for our experiments: IWSLT14 German-English, Turkish-English, and WMT14 English-German. 
 Question: what language pairs are explored?
Output: German-English Turkish-English English-German
On the other hand, in the case of MHD, instead of the integration at attention level, we assign multiple decoders for each head and then integrate their outputs to get a final output. 
 Question: Does each attention head in the decoder calculate the same output?
Output: No
Davidson et al. BIBREF2 showed that there were systematic and substantial racial biases in five benchmark Twitter datasets annotated for offensive language detection. By examining more samples and with respect to recently studies BIBREF2, BIBREF24, BIBREF19, it is clear that many errors are due to biases from data collection BIBREF19 and rules of annotation BIBREF24 and not the classifier itself.  
 Question: What are the existing biases?
Output: systematic and substantial racial biases biases from data collection rules of annotation
The training data released for this task contains 22 drug labels, referred to as Training-22, with gold standard annotations.  As Training-22 is a relatively small dataset, we additionally utilize an external dataset with 180 annotated drug labels dubbed NLM-180 BIBREF5 (more later).  
 Question: What training data did they use?
Output: Training-22 NLM-180
The language is Chinese, which is not easy for non-Chinese-speaking researchers to work on. 
 Question: What language are the conversations in?
Output: The language is Chinese, which is not easy for non-Chinese-speaking researchers to work on.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large-scale reusable sentence representation model obtained by combining a set of training objectives with the level of diversity explored here, i.e. multi-lingual NMT, natural language inference, constituency parsing and skip-thought vectors. 
 Question: Which training objectives do they combine?
Output: multi-lingual NMT natural language inference constituency parsing skip-thought vectors
We are using the disaster data from BIBREF5. It contains various dataset including the CrisiLexT6 dataset which contains six crisis events related to English tweets in 2012 and 2013, labeled by relatedness (on-topic and off-topic) of respective crisis. Each crisis event tweets contain almost 10,000 labeled tweets but we are only focused on flood-related tweets thus, we experimented with only two flood event i.e. Queensland flood in Queensland, Australia and Alberta flood in Alberta, Canada and relabeled all on-topic tweets as Related and Off-topic as Unrelated for implicit class labels understanding in this case. 
 Question: What dataset did they use?
Output:  disaster data from BIBREF5 Queensland flood in Queensland, Australia and Alberta flood in Alberta, Canada
Wikilinks can be seen as a large-scale, naturally-occurring, crowd-sourced dataset where thousands of human annotators provide ground truths for mentions of interest. This means that the dataset contains various kinds of noise, especially due to incoherent contexts. We prepare our dataset from the local-context version of Wikilinks, and resolve ground-truth links using a Wikipedia dump from April 2016. We use the page and redirect tables for resolution, and keep the database pageid column as a unique identifier for Wikipedia entities. We discard mentions where the ground-truth could not be resolved (only 3% of mentions). 
 Question: How was a quality control performed so that the text is noisy but the annotations are accurate?
Output: The authors believe that the Wikilinks corpus  contains ground truth annotations while being noisy. They discard mentions that cannot have ground-truth verified by comparison with Wikipedia.
In this work we consider directed graphs. Let INLINEFORM0 represent a graph comprised of a set of vertices INLINEFORM1 and a set of edges ( INLINEFORM2 ), which are ordered pairs. Further, each edge can have a real-valued weight assigned. Let INLINEFORM3 represent a document comprised of tokens INLINEFORM4 . The order in which tokens in text appear is known, thus INLINEFORM5 is a totally ordered set. A potential way of constructing a graph from a document is by simply observing word co-occurrences. When two words co-occur, they are used as an edge. However, such approaches do not take into account the sequence nature of the words, meaning that the order is lost. We attempt to take this aspect into account as follows. The given corpus is traversed, and for each element INLINEFORM6 , its successor INLINEFORM7 , together with a given element, forms a directed edge INLINEFORM8 . Finally, such edges are weighted according to the number of times they appear in a given corpus. Thus the graph, constructed after traversing a given corpus, consists of all local neighborhoods (order one), merged into a single joint structure. Global contextual information is potentially kept intact (via weights), even though it needs to be detected via network analysis as proposed next. 
 Question: How are graphs derived from a given text?
Output: The given corpus is traversed, and for each element INLINEFORM6 , its successor INLINEFORM7 , together with a given element, forms a directed edge INLINEFORM8 . Finally, such edges are weighted according to the number of times they appear in a given corpus. Thus the graph, constructed after traversing a given corpus, consists of all local neighborhoods (order one), merged into a single joint structure. Global contextual information is potentially kept intact (via weights), even though it needs to be detected via network analysis
In addition to it, we extract three hand-crafted polarity scores, which are minimum, mean, and maximum polarity scores, from each review. These polarity scores of words are computed as in (DISPLAY_FORM4). For example, if a review consists of five words, it would have five polarity scores and we utilise only three of these sentiment scores as mentioned. Lastly, we concatenate these three scores to the averaged word vector per review.

That is, each review is represented by the average word vector of its constituent word embeddings and three supervised scores. We then feed these inputs into the SVM approach. The flowchart of our framework is given in Figure FIGREF11. When combining the unsupervised features, which are word vectors created on a word basis, with supervised three scores extracted on a review basis, we have better state-of-the-art results. 
 Question: Which hand-crafted features are combined with word2vec?
Output: three hand-crafted polarity scores, which are minimum, mean, and maximum polarity scores
For comparison purpose, we build two baseline systems for each direction: one is use the traditional phrase-based statistical machine translation (SMT), the other one is the NMT system.  
 Question: what was the baseline?
Output: traditional phrase-based statistical machine translation (SMT) NMT system
We used the Twitter API to gather real-time tweets from September 2018 until February 2019, selecting the ones containing any of the 51 Hatebase terms that are more common in hate speech tweets, as studied in BIBREF9. 
 Question: How is data collected, manual collection or Twitter api?
Output: Twitter API
The SnapCaptions dataset is composed of 10K user-generated image (snap) and textual caption pairs where named entities in captions are manually labeled by expert human annotators (entity types: PER, LOC, ORG, MISC). 
 Question: Which types of named entities do they recognize?
Output: PER, LOC, ORG, MISC