niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Given raw audio samples INLINEFORM0 , we apply the encoder network INLINEFORM1 which we parameterize as a five-layer convolutional network similar to BIBREF15 . Next, we apply the context network INLINEFORM0 to the output of the encoder network to mix multiple latent representations INLINEFORM1 into a single contextualized tensor INLINEFORM2 for a receptive field size INLINEFORM3 . The context network has seven layers and each layer has kernel size three and stride one. 
Output: How many convolutional layers does their model have?
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.
Output: Does the performance necessarily drop when more control is desired?
Here we describe the components of our probabilistic model of question generation.  The details of optimization are as follows. First, a large set of 150,000 questions is sampled in order to approximate the gradient at each step via importance sampling. Second, to run the procedure for a given model and training set, we ran 100,000 iterations of gradient ascent at a learning rate of 0.1.
Output: Is it a neural model? How is it trained?
For example, the performance of even the best QA models degrades substantially on our hyponym probes (by 8-15%) when going from 1-hop links to 2-hops. Further, the accuracy of even our best models on the WordNetQA probe drops by 14-44% under our cluster-based analysis, which assesses whether a model knows several facts about each individual concept, rather than just being good at answering isolated questions. 
Output: After how many hops does accuracy decrease?
In this study we use transcripts and results of Oxford-style debates from the public debate series “Intelligence Squared Debates” (IQ2 for short).
Output: what debates dataset was used?
Although FAR is supposed to be favored as FAMs are already manually labeled and tell exactly if one sentence should be extracted (assuming our annotations are in agreement), to further verify that FAR correlates with human preference, we rank UnifiedSum(E), NeuSum, and Lead-3 in Table TABREF15. The order of the 1st rank in the human evaluation coincides with FAR. FAR also has higher Spearman's coefficient $\rho $ than ROUGE (0.457 vs. 0.44, n=30, threshold=0.362 at 95% significance).
Output: How do they evaluate their proposed metric?
We compare Blse (Sections UID23 – UID30 ) to VecMap, Muse, and Barista (Section "Previous Work" ) as baselines, which have similar data requirements and to machine translation (MT) and monolingual (Mono) upper bounds which request more resources.
Output: what baseline do they compare to?
We consider pre-training on the audio data (without labels) of WSJ, part of clean Librispeech (about 80h) and full Librispeech as well as a combination of all datasets (§ SECREF7 ).  Our experimental results on the WSJ benchmark demonstrate that pre-trained representations estimated on about 1,000 hours of unlabeled speech can substantially improve a character-based ASR system and outperform the best character-based result in the literature, Deep Speech 2. 
Output: Which unlabeled data do they pretrain with?
We compare our system to a variety of baselines. (1) Rank by the number of times a citation is mentioned in the document. (2) Rank by the number of times the citation is cited in the literature (citation impact). (3) Rank using Google Scholar Related Articles. (4) Rank by the TF*IDF weighted cosine similarity. (5) Rank using a learning-to-rank model trained on text similarity rankings. The first two baseline systems are models where the values are ordered from highest to lowest to generate the ranking. The idea behind them is that the number of times a citation is mentioned in an article, or the citation impact may already be good indicators of their closeness. The text similarity model is trained using the same features and methods used by the annotation model, but trained using text similarity rankings instead of the author's judgments.
Output: what were the baselines?
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.
Output: What challenges do different registers and domains pose to this task?
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.
Output: How does SPNet utilize additional speaker role, semantic slot and dialog domain annotations?
The basic idea of the visualization, drawing on Isaac Newton’s visualization of the color spectrum BIBREF8 , is to express a mixture in terms of its constituents as represented in barycentric coordinates. This visualization allows an intuitive interpretation of which country a recipe belongs to. If the probability of Japanese is high, the recipe is mapped near the Japanese. The countries on the Newton diagram are placed by spectral graph drawing BIBREF9 , so that similar countries are placed nearby on the circle. 
Output: What is barycentric Newton diagram?
We collected Japanese fictional stories from the Web to construct the dataset.
Output: How is the dataset created?
Building on these results, we take a somewhat more systematic approach to looking for interpretable hidden state dimensions, by using decision trees to predict individual hidden state dimensions (Figure 2 ). We visualize the overall dynamics of the hidden states by coloring the training data with the k-means clusters on the state vectors (Figures 3 , 3 ). In Figures 3 and 3 , we color-code the training data with the 10 HMM states. In Figures 3 and 3 , we apply k-means clustering to the LSTM state vectors, and color-code the training data with the clusters.
Output: Which methods do the authors use to reach the conclusion that LSTMs and HMMs learn complementary information?
We compare the performance of our model (Table 2 ) with traditional Bag of Words (BoW), TF-IDF, and n-grams features based classifiers. We also compare against averaged Skip-Gram BIBREF29 , Doc2Vec BIBREF30 , CNN BIBREF23 , Hierarchical Attention (HN-ATT) BIBREF24 and hierarchical network (HN) models. HN it is similar to our model HN-SA but without any self attention. We further investigated the performance on SWBD2 by examining the confusion matrix of the model. Figure 2 shows the heatmap of the normalized confusion matrix of the model on SWBD2.
Output: Do the authors do manual evaluation?
Hausa language is the second most spoken indigenous language in Africa with over 40 million native speakers BIBREF20, and one of the three major languages in Nigeria, along with Igbo and Yorùbá. The language is native to the Northern part of Nigeria and the southern part of Niger, and it is widely spoken in West and Central Africa as a trade language in eight other countries: Benin, Ghana, Cameroon, Togo, Côte d'Ivoire, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Sudan. Yorùbá language is the third most spoken indigenous language in Africa after Swahilli and Hausa with over 35 million native speakers BIBREF20. The language is native to the South-western part of Nigeria and the Southern part of Benin, and it is also spoken in other countries like Republic of Togo, Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Cuba and Brazil.
Output: In which countries are Hausa and Yor\`ub\'a spoken?
Secondly, a well-known problem of uneven yet unknown distribution of word senses is alleviated by modifying a naïve Bayesian classifier. Thanks to this correction, the classifier is no longer biased towards senses that have more training data. Finally, the aggregated feature values corresponding to target word senses are used to build a naïve Bayesian classifier adjusted to a situation of unknown a priori probabilities.
Output: How do they deal with unknown distribution senses?
As a baseline for the RNN models, we apply a uni-directional RNN which predicts the relation after processing the whole sentence.
Output: Which variant of the recurrent neural network do they use?
Follow the prior works BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF9, we adopt the BLEU and the Micro Entity F1 to evaluate our model performance.  We provide human evaluation on our framework and the compared models.  We hire several human experts and ask them to judge the quality of the responses according to correctness, fluency, and humanlikeness on a scale from 1 to 5.
Output: What were the evaluation metrics?
We opted for an automatic approach instead, that can be scaled arbitrarily and at little cost: we generate synthetic sentence pairs $(, \tilde{})$ by randomly perturbing 1.8 million segments $$ from Wikipedia. We use three techniques: mask-filling with BERT, backtranslation, and randomly dropping out words. 
Output: How are the synthetic examples generated?
The baseline applies linear logistic regression to a set of stock technical signals to predict the following day’s stock return sign (+/‐). No sentiment features are provided to the baseline model.
Output: What is the baseline machine learning prediction approach?
Manual verification of Twitter profiles: We verified each profile discovered manually by examining the profile picture, profile background image, recent tweets, and recent pictures posted by a user.
Output: How is gang membership verified?
For the NER task, we consider both Chinese datasets, i.e., OntoNotes4.0 BIBREF34 and MSRA BIBREF35, and English datasets, i.e., CoNLL2003 BIBREF36 and OntoNotes5.0 BIBREF37. Table shows experimental results on NER datasets. For English datasets including CoNLL2003 and OntoNotes5.0, our proposed method outperforms BERT-MRCBIBREF38 by +0.29 and +0.96 respectively. We observe huge performance boosts on Chinese datasets, achieving F1 improvements by +0.97 and +2.36 on MSRA and OntoNotes4.0, respectively. As far as we are concerned, we are setting new SOTA performances on all of the four NER datasets.
Output: What are method's improvements of F1 for NER task for English and Chinese datasets?
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.
Output: Who is the crowd in these experiments?
Despite its usefulness, linked entities extracted from ELS's have issues because of low precision rates BIBREF11 and design challenges in training datasets BIBREF12 . First, the extracted entities may be ambiguous. Second, the linked entities may also be too common to be considered an entity. 
Output: Why are current ELS's not sufficiently effective?
We then proceed to connect these mentions i) if they co-occur within the same document (we will refer to this as DOC-BASED edges), ii) if the pair of named entity mentions is identical (MATCH edges—these may connect nodes across and within documents), or iii) if they are in the same coreference chain, as predicted by the external coreference system (COREF edges).
Output: Did they use a relation extraction method to construct the edges in the graph?
Our transference model extends the original transformer model to multi-encoder based transformer architecture. The transformer architecture BIBREF12 is built solely upon such attention mechanisms completely replacing recurrence and convolutions. The transformer uses positional encoding to encode the input and output sequences, and computes both self- and cross-attention through so-called multi-head attentions, which are facilitated by parallelization. We use multi-head attention to jointly attend to information at different positions from different representation subspaces.
Output: Which algorithm is used in the UDS-DFKI system?
We compare our approaches with related approaches of pivoting, multilingual NMT (MNMT) BIBREF19, and cross-lingual transfer without pretraining BIBREF16.  The results show that our approaches consistently outperform other approaches across languages and datasets, especially surpass pivoting, which is a strong baseline in the zero-shot scenario that multilingual NMT systems often fail to beat BIBREF19, BIBREF20, BIBREF23.
Output: which multilingual approaches do they compare with?
On Figure FIGREF1 one can see that the outcomes for every single rerun differ significantly. Namely, accuracy can change up to 5 percentage points, whereas BLEU can vary up to 8 points.
Output: How much does the standard metrics for style accuracy vary on different re-runs?
We choose the state-of-the-art Transformer BIBREF1 model and the conventional RNN-Search model BIBREF0 as our test bed.
Output: Which model architectures do they test their word importance approach on?
We used the Twitter definition of hateful conduct in the first survey. This definition was presented at the beginning, and again above every tweet.
Output: What definition was one of the groups was shown?
We built a phrase-based Chinese-to-English SMT system by using Moses BIBREF18 .  In the end, the final parallel text consists of around 8.8M sentence pairs, 228M Chinese tokens, and 254M English tokens (a token can be a word or punctuation symbol).  The total number of words in these two corpora is 1.81M for Chinese and 2.03M for English.
Output: Did they only experiment with one language pair?
The first approach is based on hierarchical modeling BIBREF13 , which assumes that the group-specific embedding representations are tied through a global embedding.
Output: What hierarchical modelling approach is used?
. It is evident from Table TABREF17 that GM$\_$KL achieves better correlation than existing approaches for various metrics on SCWS dataset.
Output: How does this approach compare to other WSD approaches employing word embeddings?
We have shown that neural network-based models can outperform feature-based models with wide margins, and we conducted an ablation study to show that contextualized representation learning can boost performance of NN models.
Output: What conclusions do the authors draw from their detailed analyses?
We use 10-fold cross-validation, and only two types of features: n-grams and Word2Vec word embeddings.  The n-gram features include unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams, including sequences of punctuation (for example, ellipses or "!!!"), and emoticons. We use GoogleNews Word2Vec features BIBREF28 .
Output: What simple features are used?
Using DSC loss improves the F1 score by +0.58 for MRPC and +0.73 for QQP.
Output: What are method improvements of F1 for paraphrase identification?
Which events authors choose to include in their history, which they leave out, and the way the events chosen relate to the march are crucial factors in conveying bias.
Output: What factors contribute to interpretive biases according to this research?
We then train models on WMT English-German (EnDe) without BT noise, and instead explicitly tag the synthetic data with a reserved token. We repeat these experiments with WMT English-Romanian (EnRo), where NoisedBT underperforms standard BT and TaggedBT improves over both techniques. We perform our experiments on WMT18 EnDe bitext, WMT16 EnRo bitext, and WMT15 EnFr bitext respectively. We use WMT Newscrawl for monolingual data (2007-2017 for De, 2016 for Ro, 2007-2013 for En, and 2007-2014 for Fr). For bitext, we filter out empty sentences and sentences longer than 250 subwords. We remove pairs whose whitespace-tokenized length ratio is greater than 2. This results in about 5.0M pairs for EnDe, and 0.6M pairs for EnRo. We do not filter the EnFr bitext, resulting in 41M sentence pairs.
Output: What datasets was the method evaluated on?
Specifically, we take the CORD-19 dataset BIBREF2, which contains over 45,000 scholarly articles, including over 33,000 with full text, about COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and related coronaviruses. We develop sentence classification methods to identify all sentences narrating radiological findings from COVID-19. 
Output: What is the CORD-19 dataset?
Level B categorizes the type of offense and two labels are used: targeted (TIN) and untargeted (INT) insults and threats.

Targeted Insult (TIN): Posts which contain an insult/threat to an individual, group, or others (see next layer);

Untargeted (UNT): Posts containing non-targeted profanity and swearing. Posts with general profanity are not targeted, but they contain non-acceptable language. Level C categorizes the targets of insults and threats as individual (IND), group (GRP), and other (OTH).

Individual (IND): Posts targeting an individual. It can be a a famous person, a named individual or an unnamed participant in the conversation. Insults and threats targeted at individuals are often defined as cyberbulling.

Group (GRP): The target of these offensive posts is a group of people considered as a unity due to the same ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, political affiliation, religious belief, or other common characteristic. Many of the insults and threats targeted at a group correspond to what is commonly understood as hate speech.

Other (OTH): The target of these offensive posts does not belong to any of the previous two categories (e.g. an organization, a situation, an event, or an issue).
Output: What kinds of offensive content are explored?
We compute our measures over the comments written by users in a community in time windows of months, for each sufficiently active month, and manually remove communities where the bulk of the contributions are in a foreign language. 
Output: Do they report results only on English data?
We use a default train-validation-test split of 70-15-15 for each dataset, and use all 4 datasets (BF, BA, SFU and Sherlock).
Output: Which multiple datasets did they train on during joint training?
Our baseline is TransE since that the score function of our models is based on TransE.
Output: What baselines are used for comparison?
To answer RQ2, which is concerned with in-domain ATSC performance, we see in tab:results that for the in-domain training case, our models BERT-ADA Lapt and BERT-ADA Rest achieve performance close to state-of-the-art on the laptops dataset and new state-of-the-art on the restaurants dataset with accuracies of $79.19\%$ and $87.14\%$, respectively. In general, the ATSC task generalizes well cross-domain, with about 2-$3\%$ drop in accuracy compared to in-domain training.
Output: What are the performance results?
In our experiments, we used TF.IDF-based features over the title and over the content of the article we wanted to classify. We had these features twice – once for the title and once for the the content of the article, as we wanted to have two different representations of the same article. Thus, we used a total of 1,100 TF.IDF-weighted features (800 content + 300 title), limiting the vocabulary to the top 800 and 300 words, respectively (which occurred in more than five articles).
Output: what lexical features did they experiment with?
To demonstrate the generality of NSA, we further present video captioning, machine translation, and visual question answering experiments on the VATEX, WMT 2014 English-to-German, and VQA-v2 datasets, respectively. 
Output: What datasets are used for experiments on three other tasks?
We train an LSTM with and without attention on the training set. After training, we take the best model in terms of BLEU score BIBREF16 on the development set and calculate the BLEU score on the test set. 
Output: How is the generative model evaluated?
We have collected total 3500 questions from the Internet and other sources such as books of general knowledge questions, history etc. The corpus contains the questions and the classes each question belongs to.
Output: what datasets did they use?
Note that the BoW/SVM model being a linear predictor relying directly on word frequency statistics, it lacks expressive power in comparison to the CNN model which additionally learns intermediate hidden layer representations and convolutional filters. Moreover the CNN model can take advantage of the semantic similarity encoded in the distributed word2vec representations, while for the BoW/SVM model all words are “equidistant” in the bag-of-words semantic space
Output: According to the authors, why does the CNN model exhibit a higher level of explainability?
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.
Output: How is moral bias measured?
We extend the Amazon Conversational Bot Toolkit (CoBot) BIBREF6 which is a flexible event-driven framework. CoBot provides ASR results and natural language processing pipelines through the Alexa Skills Kit (ASK) BIBREF7. Gunrock corrects ASR according to the context (asr) and creates a natural language understanding (NLU) (nlu) module where multiple components analyze the user utterances. A dialog manager (DM) (dm) uses features from NLU to select topic dialog modules and defines an individual dialog flow. Each dialog module leverages several knowledge bases (knowledge). Then a natural language generation (NLG) (nlg) module generates a corresponding response. While we provide an overview of the system in the following sections, for detailed system implementation details, please see the technical report BIBREF1.
Output: Do they specify the model they use for Gunrock?
Then, it selects a subset of a 1,700-hour ( INLINEFORM2 1.1M instances) unlabeled dataset.
Output: How much data samples do they start with before obtaining the initial model labels?
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.
Output: How does the SCAN dataset evaluate compositional generalization?
Following recent works, we compare on two widely used datasets, the Penn Treebank (PTB) BIBREF28 as prepared by BIBREF29 and WikiText2 (WT-2) BIBREF20 .
Output: what data did they use?
Consequently, our architecture is based on Embeddings from Language Model or ELMo BIBREF10 Concretely, we use a pre-trained ELMo model, obtained using the 1 Billion Word Benchmark which contains about 800M tokens of news crawl data from WMT 2011 BIBREF24 . Subsequently, the contextualized embeddings are passed on to a BiLSTM with 2,048 hidden units. We aggregate the LSTM hidden states using max-pooling, which in our preliminary experiments offered us better results, and feed the resulting vector to a 2-layer feed-forward network, where each layer has 512 units. The output of this is then fed to the final layer of the model, which performs the binary classification.
Output: What type of model are the ELMo representations used in?
As explained in Section SECREF15 , the corruption introduced in Doc2VecC acts as a data-dependent regularization that suppresses the embeddings of frequent but uninformative words. In contrast, Doc2VecC manages to clamp down the representation of words frequently appear in the training set, but are uninformative, such as symbols and stop words.
Output: How do they determine which words are informative?
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.
Output: How is correctness of automatic derivation proved?
We used a set of global network indicators which allow us to encode each network layer by a tuple of features. Then we simply concatenated tuples as to represent each multi-layer network with a single feature vector. We used the following global network properties:

Number of Strongly Connected Components (SCC): a Strongly Connected Component of a directed graph is a maximal (sub)graph where for each pair of vertices $u,v$ there is a path in each direction ($u\rightarrow v$, $v\rightarrow u$).

Size of the Largest Strongly Connected Component (LSCC): the number of nodes in the largest strongly connected component of a given graph.

Number of Weakly Connected Components (WCC): a Weakly Connected Component of a directed graph is a maximal (sub)graph where for each pair of vertices $(u, v)$ there is a path $u \leftrightarrow v$ ignoring edge directions.

Size of the Largest Weakly Connected Component (LWCC): the number of nodes in the largest weakly connected component of a given graph.

Diameter of the Largest Weakly Connected Component (DWCC): the largest distance (length of the shortest path) between two nodes in the (undirected version of) largest weakly connected component of a graph.

Average Clustering Coefficient (CC): the average of the local clustering coefficients of all nodes in a graph; the local clustering coefficient of a node quantifies how close its neighbours are to being a complete graph (or a clique). It is computed according to BIBREF28.

Main K-core Number (KC): a K-core BIBREF13 of a graph is a maximal sub-graph that contains nodes of internal degree $k$ or more; the main K-core number is the highest value of $k$ (in directed graphs the total degree is considered).

Density (d): the density for directed graphs is $d=\frac{|E|}{|V||V-1|}$, where $|E|$ is the number of edges and $|N|$ is the number of vertices in the graph; the density equals 0 for a graph without edges and 1 for a complete graph.

Structural virality of the largest weakly connected component (SV): this measure is defined in BIBREF14 as the average distance between all pairs of nodes in a cascade tree or, equivalently, as the average depth of nodes, averaged over all nodes in turn acting as a root; for $|V| > 1$ vertices, $SV=\frac{1}{|V||V-1|}\sum _i\sum _j d_{ij}$ where $d_{ij}$ denotes the length of the shortest path between nodes $i$ and $j$. This is equivalent to compute the Wiener's index BIBREF29 of the graph and multiply it by a factor $\frac{1}{|V||V-1|}$. In our case we computed it for the undirected equivalent graph of the largest weakly connected component, setting it to 0 whenever $V=1$.
Output: What are the global network features which quantify different aspects of the sharing process?
SVM: We define 3 sets of features to characterize each question. The first is a simple bag-of-words set of features over the question (SVM-BOW), the second is bag-of-words features of the question as well as length of the question in words (SVM-BOW + LEN), and lastly we extract bag-of-words features, length of the question in words as well as part-of-speech tags for the question (SVM-BOW + LEN + POS). This results in vectors of 200, 201 and 228 dimensions respectively, which are provided to an SVM with a linear kernel. No-Answer Baseline (NA) : Most of the questions we receive are difficult to answer in a legally-sound way on the basis of information present in the privacy policy. We establish a simple baseline to quantify the effect of identifying every question as unanswerable. Word Count Baseline : To quantify the effect of using simple lexical matching to answer the questions, we retrieve the top candidate policy sentences for each question using a word count baseline BIBREF53, which counts the number of question words that also appear in a sentence. We include the top 2, 3 and 5 candidates as baselines. Human Performance: We pick each reference answer provided by an annotator, and compute the F1 with respect to the remaining references, as described in section 4.2.1. Each reference answer is treated as the prediction, and the remaining n-1 answers are treated as the gold reference. The average of the maximum F1 across all reference answers is computed as the human baseline.
Output: Were other baselines tested to compare with the neural baseline?
It is worth mentioning that the collected texts contain a large quantity of errors of several types: orthographic, syntactic, code-switched words (i.e. words not in the required language), jokes, etc. Hence, the original written sentences have been processed in order to produce “cleaner” versions, in order to make the data usable for some research purposes (e.g. to train language models, to extract features for proficiency assessment, ...).
Output: Are any of the utterances ungrammatical?
Method ::: Passage Ranking Model
The key component of our framework is the Ranker model, which is provided with a question $q$ and $K$ passages $\mathcal {P} = \lbrace p_1, p_2 ... p_K\rbrace $ from a pool of candidates, and outputs a chain of selected passages. Method ::: Cooperative Reasoner
To alleviate the noise in the distant supervision signal $\mathcal {C}$, in addition to the conditional selection, we further propose a cooperative Reasoner model, also implemented with the MatchLSTM architecture (see Appendix SECREF6), to predict the linking entity from the selected passages.
Output: What are two models' architectures in proposed solution?
We propose extended middle context, a new context representation for CNNs for relation classification. The contexts are split into three disjoint regions based on the two relation arguments: the left context, the middle context and the right context.  Hence, we propose to use two contexts: (1) a combination of the left context, the left entity and the middle context; and (2) a combination of the middle context, the right entity and the right context. The two contexts are processed by two independent convolutional and max-pooling layers. After pooling, the results are concatenated to form the sentence representation.
Output: How do they obtain the new context represetation?
Same as BIBREF5 , in the first sub-network, pinyin sequence is predicted from the video. Different from BIBREF5 , which predicts pinyin characters from video, pinyin is taken as a whole in CSSMCM, also known as syllables. As we know, Mandarin Chinese is a syllable-based language and syllables are their logical unit of pronunciation.
Output: What syntactic structure is used to model tones?
Therefore, in order to create fair systems it is necessary to take into account the representation problems in society that are going to be encapsulated in the data.
Output: What is the goal of investigating NLP gender bias specifically in the news broadcast domain and Anchor role?
The system consists of: (i) Local, shallow features based mostly on orthographic, word shape and n-gram features plus their context; and (ii) three types of simple clustering features, based on unigram matching: (i) Brown BIBREF32 clusters, taking the 4th, 8th, 12th and 20th node in the path; (ii) Clark BIBREF33 clusters and, (iii) Word2vec BIBREF34 clusters, based on K-means applied over the extracted word vectors using the skip-gram algorithm.
Output: What shallow local features are extracted?
We assess our dataset using traditional and deep learning methods. Our simplest model is a linear SVM trained on word unigrams. SVMs have produced state-of-the-art results for many text classification tasks BIBREF13 . We also train a bidirectional Long Short-Term-Memory (BiLSTM) model, which we adapted from the sentiment analysis system of sentimentSystem,rasooli2018cross and altered to predict offensive labels instead. It consists of (1) an input embedding layer, (2) a bidirectional LSTM layer, (3) an average pooling layer of input features. The concatenation of the LSTM's and average pool layer is passed through a dense layer and the output is passed through a softmax function. We set two input channels for the input embedding layers: pre-trained FastText embeddings BIBREF14 , as well as updatable embeddings learned by the model during training. Finally, we also apply a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model based on the architecture of BIBREF15 , using the same multi-channel inputs as the above BiLSTM.
Output: What models are used in the experiment?
We adapted BERTNLU from ConvLab-2.  We implemented a rule-based model (RuleDST) and adapted TRADE (Transferable Dialogue State Generator) BIBREF19 in this experiment.  We adapted a vanilla policy trained in a supervised fashion from ConvLab-2 (SL policy). 
Output: What are the benchmark models?
In particular, we aggregate documents from the CommonCrawl dataset that has the most overlapping n-grams with the questions. We name this dataset STORIES since most of the constituent documents take the form of a story with long chain of coherent events. Figure 5 -left and middle show that STORIES always yield the highest accuracy for both types of input processing.
Output: Which of their training domains improves performance the most?
Irony Classifier: We implement a CNN classifier trained with our irony dataset. Sentiment Classifier for Irony: We first implement a one-layer LSTM network to classify ironic sentences in our dataset into positive and negative ironies. Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony: Similar to the training process of the sentiment classifier for irony, we first implement a one-layer LSTM network trained with the dataset for the sentiment analysis of common twitters to classify the non-ironies into positive and negative non-ironies. In this section, we describe some additional experiments on the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences.
Output: What experiments are conducted?
The dataset comprises a total of 353 conversations from 40 speakers (11 nurses, 16 patients, and 13 caregivers) with consent to the use of anonymized data for research. In Section SECREF16 , we build templates and expression pools using linguistic analysis followed by manual verification.
Output: How big is their created dataset?
The 10-fold cross validation with this setting gave a token-level accuracy of roughly 71%. 
Output: Does the paper report translation accuracy for an automatic translation model for Tunisian to Arabish words?
Probing Methodology and Modeling ::: Task Definition and Modeling ::: Baselines and Sanity Checks.
When creating synthetic datasets, it is important to ensure that systematic biases, or annotation artifacts BIBREF41, are not introduced into the resulting probes and that the target datasets are sufficiently challenging (or good, in the sense of BIBREF42). To test for this, we use several of the MCQA baseline models first introduced in BIBREF0, which take inspiration from the LSTM-based models used in BIBREF43 for NLI and various partial-input baselines based on these models.
Output: How do they control for annotation artificats?
As indicated in its name, Recurrent Deep Stacking Network stacks and concatenates the outputs of previous frames into the input features of the current frame.
Output: What does recurrent deep stacking network do?
The question generation model provides each candidate answer with a score by measuring semantic relevance between the question and the generated question based on the semantics of the candidate answer. 
Output: Where is a question generation model used?
Internally, the ASR system maintains a rich hypothesis space in the form of speech lattices or confusion networks (cnets).
Output: What is a word confusion network?
In this work, we evaluate three publicly-available off-the-shelf coreference resolution systems, representing three different machine learning paradigms: rule-based systems, feature-driven statistical systems, and neural systems. We evaluate examples of each of the three coreference system architectures described in "Coreference Systems" : the BIBREF5 sieve system from the rule-based paradigm (referred to as RULE), BIBREF6 from the statistical paradigm (STAT), and the BIBREF11 deep reinforcement system from the neural paradigm (NEURAL).
Output: Which coreference resolution systems are tested?
We also consider the following baselines. BOW-Tags represents locations using a bag-of-words representation, using the same tag weighting as the embedding model. BOW-KL(Tags) uses the same representation but after term selection, using the same KL-based method as the embedding model. BOW-All combines the bag-of-words representation with the structured information, encoded as proposed in BIBREF7 . GloVe uses the objective from the original GloVe model for learning location vectors, i.e. this variant differs from EGEL-Tags in that instead of INLINEFORM1 we use the number of co-occurrences of tag INLINEFORM2 near location INLINEFORM3 , measured as INLINEFORM4 .
Output: what are the existing approaches?
Besides, we report the sentiment accuracy (Senti ACC) which measures whether the output sentence has the same sentiment polarity as the input sentence based on our standardized sentiment classifiers. The BLEU score BIBREF25 between the input sentences and the output sentences is calculated to evaluate the content preservation performance. In order to evaluate the overall performance of different models, we also report the geometric mean (G2) and harmonic mean (H2) of the sentiment accuracy and the BLEU score. As for the irony accuracy, we only report it in human evaluation results because it is more accurate for the human to evaluate the quality of irony as it is very complicated.
Output: Who judged the irony accuracy, sentiment preservation and content preservation?
Causal documents were chosen to contain one occurrence only of the exact unigrams: `caused', `causing', or `causes'.
Output: What are the selection criteria for "causal statements"?
Causal documents were chosen to contain one occurrence only of the exact unigrams: `caused', `causing', or `causes'.
Output: How do they extract causality from text?
We address this tension by training vector space models to represent the data, in which each unique word in a large corpus is represented by a vector (embedding) in high-dimensional space. The geometry of the resulting vector space captures many semantic relations between words.  We address this tension by training vector space models to represent the data, in which each unique word in a large corpus is represented by a vector (embedding) in high-dimensional space. The geometry of the resulting vector space captures many semantic relations between words. 
Output: Do they model semantics
Compared to using external models for confidence modeling, an advantage of the proposed method is that the base model does not change: the binary classification loss just provides additional supervision. For supervised open IE systems, the confidence score of an assertion is typically computed based on its extraction likelihood given by the model BIBREF3 , BIBREF5  We follow the evaluation metrics described by Stanovsky:2016:OIE2016: area under the precision-recall curve (AUC) and F1 score.
Output: How does this compare to traditional calibration methods like Platt Scaling?
Eventually, we have a balanced testing dataset, where each term-sense pair has around 15 samples for testing (on average, each pair has 14.56 samples and the median sample number is 15), and a comparison with training dataset is shown in Figure FIGREF11. Due to the difficulty for collecting the testing dataset, we decided to only collect for a random selection of 30 terms. 
Output: How big is dataset for testing?
Depechemood is a lexicon-based emotion detection method gathered from crowd-annotated news BIBREF24. Drawing on approximately 23.5K documents with average of 500 words per document from rappler.com, researchers asked subjects to report their emotions after reading each article. They then multiplied the document-emotion matrix and word-document matrix to derive emotion-word matrix for these words. 
Output: How id Depechemood trained?
For the input, we build a parallel monolingual corpus by translating the mixed language sequence using Google NMT to English ( INLINEFORM0 ) and Mandarin ( INLINEFORM1 ) sequences.
Output: What parallel corpus did they use?
Three annotators, who have no knowledge about which system the response is from, are then required to evaluate among win (response$_1$ is better), loss (response$_2$ is better) and tie (they are equally good or bad) independently, considering four aspects: coherence, logical consistency, fluency and diversity.
Output: What human judgement metrics are used?
Three datasets annotated with emotions are commonly used for the development and evaluation of emotion detection systems, namely the Affective Text dataset, the Fairy Tales dataset, and the ISEAR dataset. A summary is provided in Table TABREF8 , which also shows, in the bottom row, what role each dataset has in our experiments: apart from the development portion of the Affective Text, which we used to develop our models (Section SECREF4 ), all three have been used as benchmarks for our evaluation.
Output: Which existing benchmarks did they compare to?
We compare with three baseline methods. $({1})$ SC-LSTM BIBREF3 is a canonical model and a strong baseline that uses an additional dialog act vector and a reading gate to guide the utterance generation. $({2})$ GPT-2 BIBREF6 is used to directly fine-tune on the domain-specific labels, without pre-training on the large-scale corpus of (dialog act, response) pairs. $({3})$ HDSA BIBREF7 is a state-of-the-art model on MultiWOZ. It leverages dialog act structures to enable transfer in the multi-domain setting, showing superior performance than SC-LSTM.
Output: What existing methods is SC-GPT compared to?
Table TABREF16 shows the recognition performance of naive multilingual approach using BLSTMP and VGG model against a monolingual model trained with BLSTMP. The results clearly indicate that having a better architecture such as VGG-BLSTM helps in improving multilingual performance. We used a character-level RNNLM, which was trained with 2-layer LSTM on character sequences.
Output: What architectures are explored to improve the seq2seq model?
Below, we explore different ways to back off when the ScRNN predicts UNK (a frequent outcome for rare and unseen words):

Pass-through: word-recognizer passes on the (possibly misspelled) word as is.

Backoff to neutral word: Alternatively, noting that passing $\colorbox {gray!20}{\texttt {UNK}}$ -predicted words through unchanged exposes the downstream model to potentially corrupted text, we consider backing off to a neutral word like `a', which has a similar distribution across classes.

Backoff to background model: We also consider falling back upon a more generic word recognition model trained upon a larger, less-specialized corpus whenever the foreground word recognition model predicts UNK. Figure 1 depicts this scenario pictorially.
Output: How do the backoff strategies work?
In this scenario we have a paired dataset that contains article-comment parallel contents INLINEFORM0 , and an unpaired dataset that contains the documents (articles or comments) INLINEFORM1 . The supervised model is trained on INLINEFORM2 so that we can learn the matching or mapping between articles and comments. By sharing the encoder of the supervised model and the unsupervised model, we can jointly train both the models with a joint objective function: DISPLAYFORM0
Output: Which paired corpora did they use in the other experiment?
For the English version, we performed both a thorough manual analysis and automatic evaluation across three commonly used TS datasets from two different domains in order to assess the performance of our framework with regard to the sentence splitting subtask. The results show that our proposed sentence splitting approach outperforms the state of the art in structural TS, returning fine-grained simplified sentences that achieve a high level of grammaticality and preserve the meaning of the input. The full evaluation methodology and detailed results are reported in niklaus-etal-2019-transforming. In addition, a comparative analysis with the annotations contained in the RST Discourse Treebank BIBREF6 demonstrates that we are able to capture the contextual hierarchy between the split sentences with a precision of almost 90% and reach an average precision of approximately 70% for the classification of the rhetorical relations that hold between them. The evaluation of the German version is in progress.
Output: Is the model evaluated?
Information Gathering: At step $t$ of the information gathering phase, the agent can issue one of the following four actions to interact with the paragraph $p$, where $p$ consists of $n$ sentences and where the current observation corresponds to sentence $s_k,~1 \le k \le n$:

previous: jump to $ \small {\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll} s_n & \text{if $k = 1$,}\\ s_{k-1} & \text{otherwise;} \end{array}\right.} $

next: jump to $ \small {\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll} s_1 & \text{if $k = n$,}\\ s_{k+1} & \text{otherwise;} \end{array}\right.} $

Ctrl+F $<$query$>$: jump to the sentence that contains the next occurrence of “query”;

stop: terminate information gathering phase.
Output: What commands does their setup provide to models seeking information?
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.
Output: What datasets did they use?
Suppose we are given a specific language model such as GPT-2 BIBREF6, GROVER BIBREF8, or CTRL BIBREF7, and it is characterized in terms of estimates of either cross-entropy $H(P,Q)$ or perplexity $\mathrm {PPL}(P,Q)$.

We can see directly that the Neyman-Pearson error of detection in the case of i.i.d. tokens is:

and similar results hold for ergodic observations.

Since we think of $H(P)$ as a constant, we observe that the error exponent for the decision problem is precisely an affine shift of the cross-entropy. Outputs from models that are better in the sense of cross-entropy or perplexity are harder to distinguish from authentic text.

Thus we see that intuitive measures of generative text quality match a formal operational measure of indistinguishability that comes from the hypothesis testing limit.
Output: Which language models generate text that can be easier to classify as genuine or generated?
In this work, we use the datasets released by BIBREF1 and HEOT dataset provided by BIBREF0 .  Both the HEOT and BIBREF1 datasets contain tweets which are annotated in three categories: offensive, abusive and none (or benign)
Output: Do they perform some annotation?
The flexibility of the DNN model allowed us to include many more surface level features such as affixes, leading and trailing characters in words and stems, and the presence of words in large gazetteers of named entities. As we show later, these additional features significantly lowered CEER.
Output: what surface-level features are used?