niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
In contrast to most encoder-decoder architectures, which are purely based on recurrent neural network (RNNs) framework, we construct an encoder with several convolutional layers BIBREF14 followed by NIN layers BIBREF15 as the lower part in the encoder and integrate them with deep bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) BIBREF16 at the higher part. On the decoder side, we use a standard deep unidirectional LSTM with global attention BIBREF13 that is calculated by a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) as described in Eq. EQREF2 . 
 Question: Which architecture do they use for the encoder and decoder?
Output: we construct an encoder with several convolutional layers BIBREF14 followed by NIN layers BIBREF15 as the lower part in the encoder and integrate them with deep bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) BIBREF16 at the higher part On the decoder side, we use a standard deep unidirectional LSTM with global attention BIBREF13 that is calculated by a multi-layer perceptron (MLP)
We follow the same scheme as BIBREF47 to annotate the MT outputs with coreference chains. This scheme allows the annotator to define each markable as a certain mention type (pronoun, NP, VP or clause). The mentions can be defined further in terms of their cohesive function (antecedent, anaphoric, cataphoric, comparative, substitution, ellipsis, apposition). Antecedents can either be marked as simple or split or as entity or event. The annotation scheme also includes pronoun type (personal, possessive, demonstrative, reflexive, relative) and modifier types of NPs (possessive, demonstrative, definite article, or none for proper names), see BIBREF46 for details. The mentions referring to the same discourse item are linked between each other. We use the annotation tool MMAX2 BIBREF48 which was also used for the annotation of ParCorFull. In the next step, chain members are annotated for their correctness. For the incorrect translations of mentions, we include the following error categories: gender, number, case, ambiguous and other. The latter category is open, which means that the annotators can add their own error types during the annotation process. With this, the final typology of errors also considered wrong named entity, wrong word, missing word, wrong syntactic structure, spelling error and addressee reference. 
 Question: How are the (possibly incorrect) coreference chains in the MT outputs annotated?
Output: allows the annotator to define each markable as a certain mention type (pronoun, NP, VP or clause) The mentions referring to the same discourse item are linked between each other. chain members are annotated for their correctness
The quality class of a Wikipedia article is assigned by Wikipedia reviewers or any registered user, who can discuss through the article's talk page to reach consensus. The arXiv dataset BIBREF2 consists of three subsets of academic articles under the arXiv repository of Computer Science (cs), from the three subject areas of: Artificial Intelligence (cs.ai), Computation and Language (cs.cl), and Machine Learning (cs.lg). In line with the original dataset formulation BIBREF2 , a paper is considered to have been accepted (i.e. is positively labeled) if it matches a paper in the DBLP database or is otherwise accepted by any of the following conferences: ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, TACL, NIPS, ICML, ICLR, or AAAI. Failing this, it is considered to be rejected (noting that some of the papers may not have been submitted to one of these conferences). 
 Question: Where do they get their ground truth quality judgments?
Output: Wikipedia articles are labelled with one of six quality classes, in descending order of quality: Featured Article (“FA”), Good Article (“GA”), B-class Article (“B”), C-class Article (“C”), Start Article (“Start”), and Stub Article (“Stub”). The quality class of a Wikipedia article is assigned by Wikipedia reviewers or any registered user, who can discuss through the article's talk page to reach consensus. The arXiv dataset BIBREF2 consists of three subsets of academic articles under the arXiv repository of Computer Science (cs), from the three subject areas of: Artificial Intelligence (cs.ai), Computation and Language (cs.cl), and Machine Learning (cs.lg). In line with the original dataset formulation BIBREF2 , a paper is considered to have been accepted (i.e. is positively labeled) if it matches a paper in the DBLP database or is otherwise accepted by any of the following conferences: ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, TACL, NIPS, ICML, ICLR, or AAAI. Failing this, it is considered to be rejected (noting that some of the papers may not have been submitted to one of these conferences).
For both POS tagging and dependency parsing, we run experiments on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) portion of the Penn Treebank. 
 Question: What datasets do they evaluate on?
Output:  Wall Street Journal (WSJ) portion of the Penn Treebank
We make copies of the monolingual model for each language and add additional crosslingual latent variables (CLVs) to couple the monolingual models, capturing crosslingual semantic role patterns. Concretely, when training on parallel sentences, whenever the head words of the arguments are aligned, we add a CLV as a parent of the two corresponding role variables. 
 Question: Do they add one latent variable for each language pair in their Bayesian model?
Output: Yes
One of the major drawbacks of SCRF models is their high computational cost. In our experiments, the CTC model is around 3–4 times faster than the SRNN model that uses the same RNN encoder. To cut down the computational cost, we investigated if CTC can be used to pretrain the RNN encoder to speed up the training of the joint model. Figure 2 shows the convergence curves of the joint model with and without CTC pretraining, and we see pretraining indeed improves the convergence speed of the joint model. 
 Question: Can SCRF be used to pretrain the model?
Output: No
Given a proof state $= (_, _)$ , where $_$ and $_$ denote a substitution set and a proof score, respectively, unification is computed as follows: The resulting proof score of $g$ is given by:

$$ \begin{aligned} \max _{f \in \mathcal {K}} & \; {unify}_(g, [f_{p}, f_{s}, f_{o}], (\emptyset , )) \\ & = \max _{f \in \mathcal {K}} \; \min \big \lbrace , \operatorname{k}(_{\scriptsize {grandpaOf}:}, _{f_{p}:}),\\ &\qquad \qquad \qquad \operatorname{k}(_{{abe}:}, _{f_{s}:}), \operatorname{k}(_{{bart}:}, _{f_{o}:}) \big \rbrace , \end{aligned}$$ (Eq. 3)

where $f \triangleq [f_{p}, f_{s}, f_{o}]$ is a fact in $\mathcal {K}$ denoting a relationship of type $f_{p}$ between $f_{s}$ and $f_{o}$ , $_{s:}$ is the embedding representation of a symbol $s$ , $$ denotes the initial proof score, and $\operatorname{k}({}\cdot {}, {}\cdot {})$ denotes the RBF kernel. 
 Question: How are proof scores calculated?
Output: '= ( , { ll k(h:, g:) if hV, gV

1 otherwise } )

where $_{h:}$ and $_{g:}$ denote the embedding representations of $h$ and $g$ , respectively.
The main reason is that when the controllability is strong, the change of selection will directly affect the text realization so that a tiny error of content selection might lead to unrealistic text. If the selector is not perfectly trained, the fluency will inevitably be influenced. When the controllability is weaker, like in RS, the fluency is more stable because it will not be affected much by the selection mask. 
 Question: Does the performance necessarily drop when more control is desired?
Output: Yes
The dataset consists of a set of polysemous words: 20 nouns, 20 verbs, and 10 adjectives and specifies 20 to 100 contexts per word, with the total of 4,664 contexts, drawn from the Open American National Corpus. Given a set of contexts of a polysemous word, the participants of the competition had to divide them into clusters by sense of the word. The contexts are manually labelled with WordNet senses of the target words, the gold standard clustering is generated from this labelling.

The task allows two setups: graded WSI where participants can submit multiple senses per word and provide the probability of each sense in a particular context, and non-graded WSI where a model determines a single sense for a word in context. In our experiments we performed non-graded WSI. We considered the most suitable sense as the one with the highest cosine similarity with embeddings of the context, as described in Section SECREF9. 
 Question: How are the different senses annotated/labeled? 
Output: The contexts are manually labelled with WordNet senses of the target words
This model uses a particular RNN cell in order to store just relevant information about the given question.  Dynamic Memory stores information of entities present in $T$ . The addition of the $s_t^T q$ term in the gating function is our main contribution.  
 Question: How does the model recognize entities and their relation to answers at inference time when answers are not accessible?
Output: gating function Dynamic Memory
For capturing facial presence, we rely on BIBREF56 's approach that uses multilevel convolutional coarse-to-fine network cascade to tackle facial landmark localization. Facial Expression:

Following BIBREF8 's approach, we adopt Ekman's model of six emotions: anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness and surprise, and use the Face++ API to automatically capture them from the shared images. General Image Features:

The importance of interpretable computational aesthetic features for studying users' online behavior has been highlighted by several efforts BIBREF55 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF57 .  Qualitative Language Analysis: The recent LIWC version summarizes textual content in terms of language variables such as analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone.  It also measures other linguistic dimensions such as descriptors categories (e.g., percent of target words gleaned by dictionary, or longer than six letters - Sixltr) and informal language markers (e.g., swear words, netspeak), and other linguistic aspects (e.g., 1st person singular pronouns.) 
 Question: What types of features are used from each data type?
Output: facial presence Facial Expression General Image Features  textual content analytical thinking clout authenticity emotional tone Sixltr  informal language markers 1st person singular pronouns
We deployed the task on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). To see how reasoning varies across workers, we hire 3 crowdworkers per one instance. We hire reliable crowdworkers with $\ge 5,000$ HITs experiences and an approval rate of $\ge $ 99.0%, and pay ¢20 as a reward per instance. 
 Question: Did they use any crowdsourcing platform?
Output: Yes
The same BUTD model that achieves 73.02% on the uncorrected SNLI-VE test set, achieves 73.18% balanced accuracy when tested on the corrected test set from SNLI-VE-2.0. Hence, for this model, we do not notice a significant difference in performance. This could be due to randomness. 
 Question: How much is performance difference of existing model between original and corrected corpus?
Output: 73.02% on the uncorrected SNLI-VE test set, achieves 73.18% balanced accuracy when tested on the corrected test set
The Wikipedia dataset consists of articles from English Wikipedia, with quality class labels assigned by the Wikipedia community. 
 Question: Which languages do they use?
Output: English
We crowd-sourced the collection of the dataset on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). 
 Question: How was the dataset collected?
Output: crowd-sourced the collection of the dataset on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)
As shown in Table TABREF48, our two models show competitive results compared to the state-of-the-art on the Visual Dialog challenge 2018 (DL-61 was the winner of the Visual Dialog challenge 2018).  
 Question: What model was winner of the Visual Dialog challenge 2018?
Output: DL-61
The total F-1 score on the OntoNotes dataset is 88%, and the total F-1 cross-validation score on the 112 class Wiki(gold) dataset is 53%.  
 Question: What results do they achieve using their proposed approach?
Output: F-1 score on the OntoNotes is 88%, and it is 53% on Wiki (gold).
In this section, we empirically compare automatic differentiation (AD, our implementation based on Clad) and numerical differentiation (ND, based on finite difference method) in ROOT. We show that AD can drastically improve accuracy and performance of derivative evaluation, compared to ND. 
 Question: How is correctness of automatic derivation proved?
Output: empirically compare automatic differentiation (AD, our implementation based on Clad) and numerical differentiation (ND, based on finite difference method)
EmotionLines BIBREF6 is a dialogue dataset composed of two subsets, Friends and EmotionPush, according to the source of the dialogues. The former comes from the scripts of the Friends TV sitcom. The other is made up of Facebook messenger chats.  
 Question: What are the sources of the datasets?
Output: Friends TV sitcom Facebook messenger chats
TF-IDF: We applied TF-IDF features as inputs to four classifiers: support vector machine classifier (SVM), logistic regression classifier (LR), Naive Bayes classifier (NB) and random forest (RF); CNN: We followed the same architecture as BIBREF9; LSTM: We applied an LSTM model BIBREF20 to classify the sentences with pre-trained word embeddings;LSTM-soft: We then added a soft-attention BIBREF21 layer on top of the LSTM model where we computed soft alignment scores over each of the hidden states; LSTM-self: We applied a self-attention layer BIBREF22 to LSTM model.  
 Question: To what baseline models is proposed model compared?
Output: support vector machine classifier (SVM) logistic regression classifier (LR) Naive Bayes classifier (NB) random forest (RF) CNN LSTM  LSTM-soft LSTM-self
In this section, we recommend a set of evaluation design changes that we believe are needed for assessing human–machine parity, and will strengthen the human evaluation of MT in general.

Recommendations ::: (R1) Choose professional translators as raters.
In our blind experiment (Section SECREF3), non-experts assess parity between human and machine translation where professional translators do not, indicating that the former neglect more subtle differences between different translation outputs.

Recommendations ::: (R2) Evaluate documents, not sentences.
When evaluating sentences in random order, professional translators judge machine translation more favourably as they cannot identify errors related to textual coherence and cohesion, such as different translations of the same product name. Our experiments show that using whole documents (i. e., full news articles) as unit of evaluation increases the rating gap between human and machine translation (Section SECREF4).

Recommendations ::: (R3) Evaluate fluency in addition to adequacy.
Raters who judge target language fluency without access to the source texts show a stronger preference for human translation than raters with access to the source texts (Sections SECREF4 and SECREF24). In all of our experiments, raters prefer human translation in terms of fluency while, just as in BIBREF3's BIBREF3 evaluation, they find no significant difference between human and machine translation in sentence-level adequacy (Tables TABREF21 and TABREF30). Our error analysis in Table TABREF34 also indicates that MT still lags behind human translation in fluency, specifically in grammaticality.

Recommendations ::: (R4) Do not heavily edit reference translations for fluency.
In professional translation workflows, texts are typically revised with a focus on target language fluency after an initial translation step. As shown in our experiment in Section SECREF24, aggressive revision can make translations more fluent but less accurate, to the degree that they become indistinguishable from MT in terms of accuracy (Table TABREF30).

Recommendations ::: (R5) Use original source texts.
Raters show a significant preference for human over machine translations of texts that were originally written in the source language, but not for source texts that are translations themselves (Section SECREF35). Our results are further evidence that translated texts tend to be simpler than original texts, and in turn easier to translate with MT. 
 Question: What recommendations do they offer?
Output:  Choose professional translators as raters  Evaluate documents, not sentences Evaluate fluency in addition to adequacy Do not heavily edit reference translations for fluency Use original source texts
I also performed several case studies. I obtained document embeddings, in the same latent space as the topic embeddings, by summing the posterior mean vectors INLINEFORM0 for each token, and visualized them in two dimensions using INLINEFORM1 -SNE BIBREF24 (all vectors were normalized to unit length). The state of the Union addresses (Figure FIGREF27 ) are embedded almost linearly by year, with a major jump around the New Deal (1930s), and are well separated by party at any given time period.  
 Question: What is an example of a computational social science NLP task?
Output: Visualization of State of the union addresses
Most prior work focuses on a different aspect of offensive language such as abusive language BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , (cyber-)aggression BIBREF2 , (cyber-)bullying BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , toxic comments INLINEFORM0 , hate speech BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , and offensive language BIBREF11 . Prior work has focused on these aspects of offensive language in Twitter BIBREF3 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF11 , Wikipedia comments, and Facebook posts BIBREF2 . 
 Question: What is the definition of offensive language?
Output:  Most prior work focuses on a different aspect of offensive language such as abusive language BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , (cyber-)aggression BIBREF2 , (cyber-)bullying BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , toxic comments INLINEFORM0 , hate speech BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , and offensive language BIBREF11 . Prior work has focused on these aspects of offensive language in Twitter BIBREF3 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF11 , Wikipedia comments, and Facebook posts BIBREF2 .
Manning and Schütze argue that, even though not quite correct, language text can be modeled as stationary, ergodic random processes BIBREF29, an assumption that we follow. Moreover, given the diversity of language production, we assume this stationary ergodic random process with finite alphabet $\mathcal {A}$ denoted $X = \lbrace X_i, -\infty < i < \infty \rbrace $ is non-null in the sense that always $P(x_{-m}^{-1}) > 0$ and

This is sometimes called the smoothing requirement. 
 Question: Is the assumption that natural language is stationary and ergodic valid?
Output: It is not completely valid for natural languages because of diversity of language - this is called smoothing requirement.
To fine-tune GPT2 for text generation, it is typical to concatenate the conditioning context $X = x_1 \ldots x_n$ and citing sentence $Y = y_1 \ldots y_m$ with a special separator token $\mho $. The abstract of each document is embedded into a single dense vector by averaging the contextualized embeddings provided by the SciBERT model of BIBREF11 and normalizing. 
 Question: Which baselines are explored?
Output: GPT2 SciBERT model of BIBREF11
As shown in Table TABREF46, consensus dropout fusion improves the score of NDCG by around 1.0 from the score of the joint model while still yielding comparable scores for other metrics. As also shown in Table TABREF46, the ensemble model seems to take the best results from each model. 
 Question: Which method for integration peforms better ensemble or consensus dropout fusion with shared parameters?
Output: ensemble model
We evaluated our models on 3 different datasets:

CSAT dataset for CSAT prediction, consisting of spoken transcripts (automatic via ASR).

20 newsgroups for topic identification task, consisting of written text;

Fisher Phase 1 corpus for topic identification task, consisting of spoken transcripts (manual); 
 Question: What datasets did they use for evaluation?
Output: CSAT dataset 20 newsgroups Fisher Phase 1 corpus
For the two single sentence tasks—the syntax-oriented CoLA task and the SST sentiment task—we find somewhat deteriorated performance. 
 Question: Does the additional training on supervised tasks hurt performance in some tasks?
Output: Yes
In order to compare with the previous methods, we evaluate our model on AIDA-B and other datasets.  AIDA-CoNLL BIBREF14 is annotated on Reuters news articles. It contains training (AIDA-Train), validation (AIDA-A) and test (AIDA-B) sets.

ACE2004 BIBREF15 is a subset of the ACE2004 Coreference documents.

MSNBC BIBREF16 contains top two stories in the ten news categories(Politics, Business, Sports etc.)

AQUAINT BIBREF17 is a news corpus from the Xinhua News Service, the New York Times, and the Associated Press.

WNED-CWEB BIBREF18 is randomly picked from the FACC1 annotated ClueWeb 2012 dataset.

WNED-WIKI BIBREF18 is crawled from Wikipedia pages with its original hyperlink annotation. 
 Question: What datasets used for evaluation?
Output: AIDA-B ACE2004 MSNBC AQUAINT WNED-CWEB WNED-WIKI
Since pre-trained models operate on subword level, we need to estimate subword translation probabilities. For the purpose of evaluating the contextual representations learned by our model, we do not use part-of-speech tags. Contextualized representations are directly fed into Deep-Biaffine layers to predict arc and label scores. Table TABREF34 presents the Labeled Attachment Scores (LAS) for zero-shot dependency parsing. 
 Question: What metrics are used for evaluation?
Output: translation probabilities Labeled Attachment Scores (LAS)
In the sentiment analysis experiments, we found that a tweet may contain multiple sentiments. The groundtruth labels contain 210 positive sentiments, 521 neutral sentiments, and 305 negative sentiments to the candidates. 
 Question: Is datasets for sentiment analysis balanced?
Output: No
Many practical fake news detection algorithms use a kind of semantic side information, such as whether the generated text is factually correct, in addition to its statistical properties. Although statistical side information would be straightforward to incorporate in the hypothesis testing framework, it remains to understand how to cast such semantic knowledge in a statistical decision theory framework. 
 Question: What semantic features help in detecting whether a piece of text is genuine or generated? of 
Output: No feature is given, only discussion that semantic features are use in practice and yet to be discovered how to embed that knowledge into statistical decision theory framework.
We propose to derive rewards from human-human dialogues by assigning positive values to contextualised responses seen in the data, and negative values to randomly chosen responses due to lacking coherence (also referred to as `non-human-like responses') – see example in Tables TABREF29 and TABREF30 . 
 Question: How do they obtain human generated policies?
Output: derive rewards from human-human dialogues by assigning positive values to contextualised responses seen in the data, and negative values to randomly chosen responses due to lacking coherence
The contributions of this work are: 
 Question: Do they look for inconsistencies between different UD treebanks?
Output: Yes
Active learning methods can generally be described into two parts: a learning engine and a selection engine BIBREF28 . The learning engine is essentially a classifier, which is mainly used for training of classification problems. The selection engine is based on the sampling strategy, which chooses samples that need to be relabeled by annotators from unlabeled data. Then, relabeled samples are added to training set for classifier to re-train, thus continuously improving the accuracy of the classifier. In this paper, a CRF-based segmenter and a scoring model are employed as learning engine and selection engine, respectively. 
 Question: How does the active learning model work?
Output: Active learning methods has a learning engine (mainly used for training of classification problems) and the selection engine (which chooses samples that need to be relabeled by annotators from unlabeled data). Then, relabeled samples are added to training set for classifier to re-train, thus continuously improving the accuracy of the classifier. In this paper, CRF-based segmenter and a scoring model are employed as learning engine and selection engine, respectively.
Word Lattice
As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , a word lattice is a directed graph INLINEFORM0 , where INLINEFORM1 represents a node set and INLINEFORM2 represents a edge set. For a sentence in Chinese, which is a sequence of Chinese characters INLINEFORM3 , all of its possible substrings that can be considered as words are treated as vertexes, i.e. INLINEFORM4 . Then, all neighbor words are connected by directed edges according to their positions in the original sentence, i.e. INLINEFORM5 . 
 Question: How do they obtain word lattices from words?
Output: By considering words as vertices and generating directed edges between neighboring words within a sentence
JESSI is trained using only the datasets given on the shared task, without using any additional external data. 
 Question: What datasets were used?
Output: datasets given on the shared task, without using any additional external data
Based on Euclidean distance between vector representations of visits we applied and compared two clustering algorithms: k-means and hierarchical clustering with Ward's method for merging clusters BIBREF23 . 
 Question: Which clustering technique do they use on partients' visits texts?
Output: k-means hierarchical clustering with Ward's method for merging clusters BIBREF23
We assume that speech transcripts can be extracted from audio signals with high accuracy, given the advancement of ASR technologies BIBREF7 . 
 Question: Do they use datasets with transcribed text or do they determine text from the audio?
Output: They use text transcription.
In order to train and evaluate open-domain factoid QA system for real-world questions, we build a new Chinese QA dataset named as WebQA. 
 Question: What languages do they experiment with?
Output: Chinese
In our experiments we use the same data-sets from other works BIBREF32, BIBREF23, BIBREF33 as well as other datasets that we collected by us using a similar criterion (described in Section SECREF4). We use thirty different discussions that took place between March 2015 and June 2019, half of them with controversy and half without it. We considered discussions in four different languages: English, Portuguese, Spanish and French, occurring in five regions over the world: South and North America, Western Europe, Central and Southern Asia. We also studied these discussions taking first 140 characters and then 280 from each tweet to analyze the difference in performance and computing time wrt the length of the posts. 
 Question: What datasets did they use?
Output: BIBREF32, BIBREF23, BIBREF33 discussions in four different languages: English, Portuguese, Spanish and French, occurring in five regions over the world: South and North America, Western Europe, Central and Southern Asia.
We extract unique users and tweets from the combined result set to generate a dataset of about 60,000 unique tweets, pertaining to 51,104 unique users. 
 Question: How many tweets are explored in this paper?
Output: 60,000
A recently published dataset called SCAN BIBREF2 (Simplified version of the CommAI Navigation tasks), tests compositional generalization in a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) setting by systematically holding out of the training set all inputs containing a basic primitive verb ("jump"), and testing on sequences containing that verb. 
 Question: How does the SCAN dataset evaluate compositional generalization?
Output: it systematically holds out inputs in the training set containing basic primitive verb, "jump", and tests on sequences containing that verb.
For the future work, we plan to solve the triples with multiple entities as the second entity, which is excluded from problem scope in this paper. The input of QA4IE is a document $D$ with an existing knowledge base $K$ and the output is a set of relation triples $R = \lbrace e_i, r_{ij}, e_j\rbrace $ in $D$ where $e_i$ and $e_j$ are two individual entities and $r_{ij}$ is their relation. 
 Question: Can this approach model n-ary relations?
Output: No
We embedded COSTRA sentences with LASER BIBREF15, the method that performed very well in revealing linear relations in BaBo2019. 
 Question: Are some baseline models trained on this dataset?
Output: Yes
To demonstrate SPNet's effectiveness, we compare it with two state-of-the-art methods, Pointer-Generator BIBREF5 and Transformer BIBREF6. 
 Question: What are previous state-of-the-art document summarization methods used?
Output: Pointer-Generator Transformer
We compare our sentence classification with the LSTM baseline and evaluate the biggest set of PICO sentence data available at this point BIBREF13. SCIBERT was chosen as an additional baseline model for fine-tuning because it provided the best representation of embedded PICO sentences.  
 Question: What baselines did they consider?
Output: LSTM SCIBERT
Word2vec representation is far better, advanced and a recent technique which functions by mapping words to a 300 dimensional vector representations. 
 Question: What is the dimension of the embeddings?
Output: 300
Our encoder-decoder framework employs separate encoding for different speakers in the dialog. User utterances $x_t^{usr}$ and system utterances $x_t^{sys}$ are fed into a user encoder and a system encoder separately to obtain encoder hidden states $h_{i}^{usr}$ and $h_{i}^{sys}$ . We integrate semantic slot scaffold by performing delexicalization on original dialogs. Delexicalization is a common pre-processing step in dialog modeling. We integrate dialog domain scaffold through a multi-task framework. Dialog domain indicates different conversation task content, for example, booking hotel, restaurant and taxi in MultiWOZ dataset. 
 Question: How does SPNet utilize additional speaker role, semantic slot and dialog domain annotations?
Output: Our encoder-decoder framework employs separate encoding for different speakers in the dialog. We integrate semantic slot scaffold by performing delexicalization on original dialogs. We integrate dialog domain scaffold through a multi-task framework.
A few sample advice rules in English (these are converted to first-order logic format and given as input to our algorithm) are presented in Table TABREF11 .  We modified the work of Odom et al. odomAIME15,odomAAAI15 to learn RDNs in the presence of advice. The key idea is to explicitly represent advice in calculating gradients. 
 Question: How do they incorporate human advice?
Output: by converting human advice to first-order logic format and use as an input to calculate gradient
We evaluate our cross-lingual pre-training based transfer approach against several strong baselines on two public datatsets, Europarl BIBREF31 and MultiUN BIBREF32, which contain multi-parallel evaluation data to assess the zero-shot performance. 
 Question: which datasets did they experiment with?
Output: Europarl MultiUN
For instance, schema 23 from the WSC collection can be translated into both “The girls were bullying the boys so we [punished/rescued] them” and “The boys were bullying the girls, so we [punished/rescued] them,” thus avoiding any presupposition of whether girls are more likely to bully boys or vice versa. 
 Question: What data do they look at?
Output: WSC collection
Inspired by the supervised reordering in conventional SMT, in this paper, we propose a Supervised Attention based NMT (SA-NMT) model. Specifically, similar to conventional SMT, we first run off-the-shelf aligners (GIZA++ BIBREF3 or fast_align BIBREF4 etc.) to obtain the alignment of the bilingual training corpus in advance. Then, treating this alignment result as the supervision of attention, we jointly learn attention and translation, both in supervised manners. Since the conventional aligners delivers higher quality alignment, it is expected that the alignment in the supervised attention NMT will be improved leading to better end-to-end translation performance. 
 Question: Which conventional alignment models do they use as guidance?
Output: GIZA++ BIBREF3 or fast_align BIBREF4
We obtained a corpus of approximately 300,000 sentences, from which roughly 1.5 million single-quiz question training examples were derived.  
 Question: What is the size of the dataset?
Output: 300,000 sentences with 1.5 million single-quiz questions
The prediction of outcomes of debates is very interesting in our case. Most of the results seem to match with the views of some experts such as the political pundits of the Washington Post. This implies that certain rules that were used to score the candidates in the debates by said-experts were in fact reflected by reading peoples' sentiments expressed over social media. This opens up a wide variety of learning possibilities from users' sentiments on social media, which is sometimes referred to as the wisdom of crowd. 
 Question: Who is the crowd in these experiments?
Output:  peoples' sentiments expressed over social media
Car-speak is abstract language that pertains to a car's physical attribute(s). In this instance the physical attributes that the term “fast” pertains to could be the horsepower, or it could be the car's form factor (how the car looks). However, we do not know exactly which attributes the term “fast” refers to. 
 Question: How does car speak pertains to a car's physical attributes?
Output: we do not know exactly
. This work can be extended to predict future events with one day in advance, where we will use the same method for feature selection in addition to to time series analysis of the historical patterns of the word-pairs. 
 Question: Do the authors suggest any future extensions to this work?
Output: Yes
We compare our approach with two baseline vision-based methods proposed in BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , which measure the similarity of two sets of global visual features for bilingual lexicon induction:

CNN-mean: taking the similarity score of the averaged feature of the two image sets.

CNN-avgmax: taking the average of the maximum similarity scores of two image sets. 
 Question: What baseline is used for the experimental setup?
Output: CNN-mean CNN-avgmax
The final section of the paper, then, discusses how insights gained from technologically observing opinion dynamics can inform conceptual modelling efforts and approaches to on-line opinion facilitation. As such, the paper brings into view and critically evaluates the fundamental conceptual leap from machine-guided observation to debate facilitation and intervention. 
 Question: Does the paper report the results of previous models applied to the same tasks?
Output: Yes
The core idea of dual learning is to leverage the duality between the primal task (mapping from domain $\mathcal {X}$ to domain $\mathcal {Y}$) and dual task (mapping from domain $\mathcal {Y}$ to $\mathcal {X}$ ) to boost the performances of both tasks. MADL BIBREF0 extends the dual learning BIBREF1, BIBREF2 framework by introducing multiple primal and dual models. 
 Question: How does muli-agent dual learning work?
Output: MADL BIBREF0 extends the dual learning BIBREF1, BIBREF2 framework by introducing multiple primal and dual models.
Firstly, LastStateRNN is the classic RNN model, where the last state passes through an MLP and then the LR Layer estimates the corresponding probability. In contrast, in the AvgRNN model we consider the average vector of all states that come out of the cells. The AttentionRNN model is the one that it has been presented in BIBREF9. Moreover, we introduce the MultiAttentionRNN model for the harassment language detection, which instead of one attention, it includes four attentions, one for each category. 
 Question: What baseline model is used?
Output:  LastStateRNN AvgRNN AttentionRNN
MATT-BiE-LSTM and WATT-BiE-LSTM obtain similar performances when tested on both Vader and human annotated samples, though their ways of computing the attention (weights and vectors) are different that WATT computes attention weights and the senti-emoji embeddings guided by each word, and MATT obtains the senti-emoji embedding based on the LSTM encoder on the whole contexts and computes the attention weights of the senti-emoji embedding across all words. Both models outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline models including ATT-E-LSTM Attention-based LSTM with emojis:We also use the word-emoji embedding to calculate the emoji-word attention following Equation EQREF20 and EQREF21 , and the only difference is that we replace the attention-derived senti-emoji embedding with the pre-trained word-emoji embedding by fasttext, denoted as ATT-E-LSTM. LSTM with bi-sense emoji embedding (proposed): As we have introduced in Section SECREF13 , we propose two attention-based LSTM networks based on bi-sense emoji embedding, denoted as MATT-BiE-LSTM and WATT-BiE-LSTM. 
 Question: Which SOTA models are outperformed?
Output: Attention-based LSTM with emojis
In our experiments, we use as input the 2210 tokenized sentences of the Stanford Sentiment Treebank test set BIBREF2 , preprocessing them by lowercasing as was done in BIBREF8 . 
 Question: Which datasets are used for evaluation?
Output: Stanford Sentiment Treebank
The resulting set of 46 documents makes up our base corpus. Note that these documents vary greatly in size, which means the resulting corpus is varied, but not balanced in terms of size (Table TABREF43). 
 Question: How big PIE datasets are obtained from dictionaries?
Output: 46 documents makes up our base corpus
We compared our models with the following state-of-the-art baselines:

Sequence to Sequence (Seq2Seq): A simple encoder-decoder model which concatenates four sentences to a long sentence with an attention mechanism BIBREF31 .

Hierarchical LSTM (HLSTM): The story context is represented by a hierarchical LSTM: a word-level LSTM for each sentence and a sentence-level LSTM connecting the four sentences BIBREF29 . A hierarchical attention mechanism is applied, which attends to the states of the two LSTMs respectively.

HLSTM+Copy: The copy mechanism BIBREF32 is applied to hierarchical states to copy the words in the story context for generation.

HLSTM+Graph Attention(GA): We applied multi-source attention HLSTM where commonsense knowledge is encoded by graph attention.

HLSTM+Contextual Attention(CA): Contextual attention is applied to represent commonsense knowledge. 
 Question: Which baselines are they using?
Output: Seq2Seq HLSTM HLSTM+Copy HLSTM+Graph Attention HLSTM+Contextual Attention
GP-GNNs first build a fully-connected graph $\mathcal {G} = (\mathcal {V}, \mathcal {E})$ , where $\mathcal {V}$ is the set of entities, and each edge $(v_i, v_j) \in \mathcal {E}, v_i, v_j \in \mathcal {V}$ corresponds to a sequence $s = x_0^{i,j}, x_1^{i,j}, \dots , x_{l-1}^{i,j}$ extracted from the text.  
 Question: So this paper turns unstructured text inputs to parameters that GNNs can read?
Output: Yes
The first challenge is to acquire very large Vietnamese corpus and to use them in building a classifier, which could further improve accuracy.  The second challenge is design and development of big data warehouse and analytic framework for Vietnamese documents, which corresponds to the rapid and continuous growth of gigantic volume of articles and/or documents from Web 2.0 applications, such as, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. The final challenge relates to building a system, which is able to incrementally learn new corpora and interactively process feedback. 
 Question: Why challenges does word segmentation in Vietnamese pose?
Output: Acquire very large Vietnamese corpus and build a classifier with it, design a develop a big data warehouse and analytic framework, build a system to incrementally learn new corpora and interactively process feedback.
For multi-modal sentiment analysis, we can simply split the image into two parts. One for the text input, and the other for the tabular data. 
 Question: How is Super Character method modified to handle tabular data also?
Output: simply split the image into two parts. One for the text input, and the other for the tabular data
We observe $R^2$ correlation coefficients between 0.11 and 0.22 for the input and output length ratios and between 0.81 and 0.88 for the compound divergence.  
 Question: How strong is negative correlation between compound divergence and accuracy in performed experiment?
Output:  between 0.81 and 0.88
Figure FIGREF23 shows the proposed ontology, which, in our evaluation procedure, was populated with 3121 events entries from 51 documents. 
 Question: How is the effectiveness of this pipeline approach evaluated?
Output: proposed ontology, which, in our evaluation procedure, was populated with 3121 events entries from 51 documents.
Here we consider five baselines to compare with GraLap: (i) Uniform: assign 3 to all the references assuming equal intensity, (ii) SVR+W: recently proposed Support Vector Regression (SVR) with the feature set mentioned in BIBREF4 , (iii) SVR+O: SVR model with our feature set, (iv) C4.5SSL: C4.5 semi-supervised algorithm with our feature set BIBREF23 , and (v) GLM: the traditional graph-based LP model with our feature set BIBREF9 . 
 Question: What are the baselines model?
Output: (i) Uniform (ii) SVR+W (iii) SVR+O (iv) C4.5SSL (v) GLM
We evaluate our approaches on two public Chinese span-extraction machine reading comprehension datasets: CMRC 2018 (simplified Chinese) BIBREF8 and DRCD (traditional Chinese) BIBREF9. The statistics of the two datasets are listed in Table TABREF29. 
 Question: Is this a span-based (extractive) QA task?
Output: Yes
We explored different normalization techniques. FBanks with cepstral mean normalization (CMN) perform better than raw FBanks. We found using variance with mean normalization (CMVN) unnecessary for the task. Using deltas and delta-deltas improves model, so we used them in other experiments. Models trained with spectrogram features converge slower and to worse minimum, but the difference when using CMN is not very big compared to FBanks. 
 Question: What normalization techniques are mentioned?
Output: FBanks with cepstral mean normalization (CMN) variance with mean normalization (CMVN)
We first pre-train our generator on the Gutenberg dataset BIBREF24 for 20 epochs and then fine-tune BIBREF19 them to our target datasets with a language modeling objective. 
 Question: What objective function is used in the GAN?
Output: language modeling objective
A meta-research study found only 1 in 9 qualitative papers in Human-Computer Interaction reported inter-rater reliability metrics BIBREF31. Another related area are meta-research and methods papers focused on identifying or preventing low-effort responses from crowdworkers — sometimes called “spam” or “random” responses, or alternatively ”fraudsters” or ”cheaters.” Rates of “self-agreement” are often used, determining if the same person labels the same item differently at a later stage. 
 Question: What are the key issues around whether the gold standard data produced in such an annotation is reliable? 
Output:  only 1 in 9 qualitative papers in Human-Computer Interaction reported inter-rater reliability metrics low-effort responses from crowdworkers
As it is reported that conservatives and liberals exhibit different behaviors on online social platforms BIBREF19BIBREF20BIBREF21, we further assigned a political bias label to different US outlets (and therefore news articles) following the procedure described in BIBREF2. In order to assess the robustness of our method, we performed classification experiments by training only on left-biased (or right-biased) outlets of both disinformation and mainstream domains and testing on the entire set of sources, as well as excluding particular sources that outweigh the others in terms of samples to avoid over-fitting. 
 Question: How is the political bias of different sources included in the model?
Output: By assigning a political bias label to each news article and training only on left-biased or right-biased outlets of both disinformation and mainstream domains
We use two datasets for experiments (Table TABREF29 ): (a) STAN INLINEFORM0 , created by BIBREF10 BansalBV15, which consists of 1,108 unique English hashtags from 1,268 randomly selected tweets in the Stanford Sentiment Analysis Dataset BIBREF36 along with their crowdsourced segmentations and our additional corrections; and (b) STAN INLINEFORM1 , our new expert curated dataset, which includes all 12,594 unique English hashtags and their associated tweets from the same Stanford dataset. 
 Question: How is the dataset of hashtags sourced?
Output: 1,268 randomly selected tweets in the Stanford Sentiment Analysis Dataset BIBREF36 all 12,594 unique English hashtags and their associated tweets from the same Stanford dataset
One of the solutions that has been proposed for mitigating gender bias on the word embedding level is Counterfactual Data Augmentation (CDA) BIBREF25. We apply this method by augmenting our dataset with a copy of every dialogue with gendered words swapped using the gendered word pair list provided by BIBREF21. 
 Question: How does counterfactual data augmentation aim to tackle bias?
Output: The training dataset is augmented by swapping all gendered words by their other gender counterparts
When generating the word $y_t$ at time step $t$, the context $\mathbf {X}$ is encoded into a fixed-sized dialog context vector $\mathbf {c}_t$ by following the hierarchical attention structure in HRAN BIBREF13. Additionally, we extract the emotion information from the utterances in $\mathbf {X}$ by leveraging an external text analysis program, and use an RNN to encode it into an emotion context vector $\mathbf {e}$, which is combined with $\mathbf {c}_t$ to produce the distribution. 
 Question: How does the multi-turn dialog system learns?
Output: we extract the emotion information from the utterances in $\mathbf {X}$ by leveraging an external text analysis program, and use an RNN to encode it into an emotion context vector $\mathbf {e}$, which is combined with $\mathbf {c}_t$ to produce the distribution
To evaluate the usefulness of our corpus for SMT purposes, we used it to train an automatic translator with Moses BIBREF8 . 
 Question: What SMT models did they look at?
Output: automatic translator with Moses
Following prior work BIBREF56 , BIBREF57 , BIBREF17 , we employ the MNCut spectral clustering algorithm BIBREF58 , which has wide applicability in similar NLP tasks which involve high-dimensional feature spaces BIBREF59 , BIBREF60 , BIBREF18 . 
 Question: What clustering algorithm is used on top of the VerbNet-specialized representations?
Output: MNCut spectral clustering algorithm BIBREF58
We show that using external knowledge outside the tweet text (from landing pages of URLs) and user features can significantly improve performance.  
 Question: What external sources of information are used?
Output: landing pages of URLs
Data collected by BIBREF3 , which we term the Sexist/Racist (SR) data set, was collected using an initial Twitter search followed by analysis and filtering by the authors and their team who identified 17 common phrases, hashtags, and users that were indicative of abusive speech. BIBREF4 collected the HATE dataset by searching for tweets using a lexicon provided by Hatebase.org. The final data set we used, which we call HAR, was collected by BIBREF9 ; we removed all retweets reducing the dataset to 20,000 tweets. 
 Question: which datasets were used?
Output: Sexist/Racist (SR) data set HATE dataset HAR