niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
To compensate for the exclusion of slot-specific parameters, we incorporate better feature representation of user utterance and dialogue states using syntactic information and convolutional neural networks (CNN).
Output: What network architecture do they use for SIM?
We compare our HR-VAE model with three strong baselines using VAE for text modelling:

VAE-LSTM-base: A variational autoencoder model which uses LSTM for both encoder and decoder. KL annealing is used to tackled the latent variable collapse issue BIBREF0;

VAE-CNN: A variational autoencoder model with a LSTM encoder and a dilated CNN decoder BIBREF7;

vMF-VAE: A variational autoencoder model using LSTM for both encoder and decoder where the prior distribution is the von Mises-Fisher (vMF) distribution rather than a Gaussian distribution BIBREF5.
Output: Do they compare against state of the art text generation?
The full dataset comprises both the sample mentioned above and the 819 pairs from our preliminary work, totalling 2677 pairs. We split the vSTS dataset into training, validation and test partitions sampling at random and preserving the overall score distributions. In total, we use 1338 pairs for training, 669 for validation, and the rest of the 670 pairs were used for the final testing.
Output: How big is vSTS training data?
We test the existing debiasing approaches, CDA and REG, as well but since BIBREF5 reported that results fluctuate substantially with different REG regularization coefficients, we perform hyperparameter tuning and report the best results in Table TABREF12 .
Output: which existing strategies are compared?
Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (HL7 FHIR)
FHIR BIBREF5 is a new open standard for healthcare data developed by the same company that developed HL7v2. Resource Description Framework (RDF)
RDF is the backbone of the semantic webBIBREF8.
Output: What do FHIR and RDF stand for?
o sufficiently utilize the large dataset $\mathcal {A}$ and $\mathcal {M}$, the model is pre-trained on CTC-based ASR task and MT task in the pre-training stage.
Output: What is the attention module pretrained on?
While the plan generation stage is guaranteed to be faithful to the input, the translation process from plans to text is based on a neural seq2seq model and may suffer from known issues with such models: hallucinating facts that do not exist in the input, repeating facts, or dropping facts. While the clear mapping between plans and text helps to reduce these issues greatly, the system in BIBREF0 still has 2% errors of these kinds. Recent work in neural text generation and summarization attempt to address these issues by trying to map the textual outputs back to structured predicates, and comparing these predicates to the input data.
Output: What is the effectiveness plan generation?
Note that we adopt a parsimonious design principle in our modelling: both Centroid and Naïve Bayes are parameter-free models, $k$NN only depends on the choice of $k$, and KDE uses a single bandwidth parameter $h$. A Centroid model summarizes each set of seed words by its expected vector in embedding space, and classifies concepts into the class of closest expected embedding in Euclidean distance following a softmax rule; A Naïve Bayes model considers both mean and variance, under the assumption of independence among embedding dimensions, by fitting a normal distribution with mean vector and diagonal covariance matrix to the set of seed words of each class;
Output: How does the parameter-free model work?
We download 210 users' all twitter posts who are war veterans and clinically diagnosed with PTSD sufferers as well which resulted a total 12,385 tweets. 
Output: How many twitter users are surveyed using the clinically validated survey?
A baseline model for automatic extraction of anglicisms was created using the annotated corpus we just presented as training material. As mentioned in Section 3, the task of detecting anglicisms can be approached as a sequence labeling problem where only certain spans of texts will be labeled as anglicism (in a similar way to an NER task). The chosen model was conditional random field model (CRF), which was also the most popular model in both Shared Tasks on Language Identification for Code-Switched Data BIBREF23, BIBREF24.
Output: Does the paper motivate the use of CRF as the baseline model?
Baseline Results ::: Speech Synthesis
In our previous work on building speech systems on found data in 700 languages, BIBREF7, we addressed alignment issues (when audio is not segmented into turn/sentence sized chunks) and correctness issues (when the audio does not match the transcription). We used the same techniques here, as described above.

For the best quality speech synthesis we need a few hours of phonetically-balanced, single-speaker, read speech. Our first step was to use the start and end points for each turn in the dialogues, and select those of the most frequent speaker, nmlch. This gave us around 18250 segments. We further automatically removed excessive silence from the start, middle and end of these turns (based on occurrence of F0). This gave us 13 hours and 48 minutes of speech.

We phonetically aligned this data and built a speech clustergen statistical speech synthesizer BIBREF9 from all of this data. For speech recognition (ASR) we used Kaldi BIBREF11. We built neural end-to-end machine translation systems between Mapudungun and Spanish in both directions, using state-of-the-art Transformer architecture BIBREF14 with the toolkit of BIBREF15.
Output: What are the models used for the baseline of the three NLP tasks?
An acoustic word embedding is a function that takes as input a speech segment corresponding to a word, INLINEFORM0 , where each INLINEFORM1 is a vector of frame-level acoustic features, and outputs a fixed-dimensional vector representing the segment, INLINEFORM2 .
Output: How do they represent input features of their model to train embeddings?
The dataset needed to train the W2V was obtained using the information extracted from a dump of the Italian Wikipedia (dated 2019.04.01), from the main categories of Italian Google News (WORLD, NATION, BUSINESS, TECHNOLOGY, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, SCIENCE, HEALTH) and from some anonymized chats between users and a customer care chatbot (Laila).
Output: What dataset is used for training Word2Vec in Italian language?
The encoder is a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and the decoder is a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, as presented in Figure 2 . The image is passed through the encoder generating the image representation that is used by the decoder to know the content of the image and generate the description word by word.
Output: What model is used to encode the images?
We apply our adaptively sparse Transformers on four machine translation tasks.  IWSLT 2017 German $\rightarrow $ English BIBREF27: 200K sentence pairs.

KFTT Japanese $\rightarrow $ English BIBREF28: 300K sentence pairs.

WMT 2016 Romanian $\rightarrow $ English BIBREF29: 600K sentence pairs.

WMT 2014 English $\rightarrow $ German BIBREF30: 4.5M sentence pairs.
Output: What tasks are used for evaluation?
EmotionLines BIBREF6 is a dialogue dataset composed of two subsets, Friends and EmotionPush, according to the source of the dialogues.
Output: what datasets were used?
irremediable annotation discrepancies Some shortcomings of recall come from irremediable annotation discrepancies. Largely, we are hamstrung by differences in choice of attributes to annotate. When one resource marks gender and the other marks case, we can't infer the gender of the word purely from its surface form. The resources themselves would need updating to encode the relevant morphosyntactic information. Some languages had a very low number of overlapping forms, and no tag matches or near-matches between them: Arabic, Hindi, Lithuanian, Persian, and Russian. A full list of observed, irremediable discrepancies is presented alongside the codebase. We were able to find specific instances of incorrectly applied UniMorph annotation, as well as specific instances of cross-lingual inconsistency in both resources. 
Output: What are the main sources of recall errors in the mapping?
Questions: We make use of the 7,787 science exam questions of the Aristo Reasoning Challenge (ARC) corpus BIBREF31 , which contains standardized 3rd to 9th grade science questions from 12 US states from the past decade. 
Output: How was the dataset collected?
To ground moral sentiment in text, we leverage the Moral Foundations Dictionary BIBREF27. The MFD is a psycholinguistic resource that associates each MFT category with a set of seed words, which are words that provide evidence for the corresponding moral category in text. To implement the first tier of our framework and detect moral relevance, we complement our morally relevant seed words with a corresponding set of seed words approximating moral irrelevance based on the notion of valence, i.e., the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness of a stimulus. We refer to the emotional valence ratings collected by BIBREF28 for approximately 14,000 English words, and choose the words with most neutral valence rating that do not occur in the MFD as our set of morally irrelevant seed words, for an equal total number of morally relevant and morally irrelevant words. We divide historical time into decade-long bins, and use two sets of embeddings provided by BIBREF30, each trained on a different historical corpus of English:

Google N-grams BIBREF31: a corpus of $8.5 \times 10^{11}$ tokens collected from the English literature (Google Books, all-genres) spanning the period 1800–1999.

COHA BIBREF32: a smaller corpus of $4.1 \times 10^8$ tokens from works selected so as to be genre-balanced and representative of American English in the period 1810–2009.
Output: Which datasets are used in the paper?
We constructed our seed lexicon consisting of 15 positive words and 15 negative words, as shown in Section SECREF27. 
Output: How big is seed lexicon used for training?
We used four classification algorithms: 1) Logistic regression, which is conventionally used in sentiment classification. Other three algorithms which are relatively new and has shown great results on sentiment classification types of problems are: 2) Naïve Bayes with SVM (NBSVM), 3) Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and 4) FastText algorithm with Bidirectional LSTM (FastText-BiLSTM).
Output: What state of the art models are used in the experiments?
To further improve the performance of our models, we introduce in-house labeled data that we use to fine-tune BERT. For the gender classification task, we manually label an in-house dataset of 1,100 users with gender tags, including 550 female users, 550 male users. We obtain 162,829 tweets by crawling the 1,100 users' timelines. For the dialect identification task, we randomly sample 20,000 tweets for each class from an in-house dataset gold labeled with the same 15 classes as the shared task.
Output: What are the in-house data employed?
Moreover, to be able to make use of multiple answer styles within a single system, our model introduces an artificial token corresponding to the target style at the beginning of the answer sentence ( $y_1$ ), like BIBREF14 . At test time, the user can specify the first token to control the answer styles.
Output: Does their model also take the expected answer style as input?
First, we consider WeedsPrec BIBREF8 which captures the features of INLINEFORM0 which are included in the set of a broader term's features, INLINEFORM1 : DISPLAYFORM0

Second, we consider invCL BIBREF11 which introduces a notion of distributional exclusion by also measuring the degree to which the broader term contains contexts not used by the narrower term. Although most unsupervised distributional approaches are based on the DIH, we also consider the distributional SLQS model based on on an alternative informativeness hypothesis BIBREF10 , BIBREF4 . For completeness, we also include cosine similarity as a baseline in our evaluation.
Output: Which distributional methods did they consider?
Our first task is the recently-introduced Visual Question Answering challenge (VQA) BIBREF22 . The next set of experiments we consider focuses on GeoQA, a geographical question-answering task first introduced by Krish2013Grounded.
Output: What benchmark datasets they use?
We compare with the following baselines:

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

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

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

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

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

(6) MMD: MMD has been widely used for minimizing domain discrepancy on images. In those works BIBREF9 , BIBREF13 , variants of deep CNNs are used for encoding images and the MMDs of multiple layers are jointly minimized. In NLP, adding more layers of CNNs may not be very helpful and thus those models from image-related tasks can not be directly applied to our problem. To compare with MMD-based method, we train a model that jointly minimize the classification loss INLINEFORM0 on the source domain and MMD between INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 . For computing MMD, we use a Gaussian RBF which is a common choice for characteristic kernel.
Output: What are the baseline methods?
Macaw also supports Wizard of Oz studies or intermediary-based information seeking studies. The architecture of Macaw for such setup is presented in FIGREF16. As shown in the figure, the seeker interacts with a real conversational interface that supports multi-modal and mixed-initiative interactions in multiple devices. The intermediary (or the wizard) receives the seeker's message and performs different information seeking actions with Macaw. All seeker-intermediary and intermediary-system interactions will be logged for further analysis.
Output: What is a wizard of oz setup?
Evaluation Metrics. To evaluate the strategy formulation ability, we introduce a measure called Coverage( INLINEFORM0 ), defined as the fraction of total query data instances, for which LiLi has successfully formulated strategies that lead to winning. If LiLi wins on all episodes for a given dataset, INLINEFORM1 is 1.0. To evaluate the predictive performance, we use Avg. MCC and avg. +ve F1 score.
Output: What metrics are used to establish that this makes chatbots more knowledgeable and better at learning and conversation?
In BIBREF14 , several word embedding models trained in a large Portuguese corpus are evaluated.  Using the word2vec model available in a public repository BIBREF14 , the proposal involves the analysis of the most similar analogies generated before and after the application of the BIBREF3 . 
Output: What were the word embeddings trained on?
In our method, we take an image as input and generate a natural question as output.
Output: What is the input to the differential network?
We view different varieties of Arabic as different domains, and hence introduce a simple, yet effective, `in-domain' training measure where we further pre-train BERT on a dataset closer to task domain (in that it involves dialectal tweet data).
Output: What in-domain data is used to continue pre-training?
In this section we discuss the state of the art on conversational systems in three perspectives: types of interactions, types of architecture, and types of context reasoning. ELIZA BIBREF11 was one of the first softwares created to understand natural language processing.  Right after ELIZA came PARRY, developed by Kenneth Colby, who is psychiatrist at Stanford University in the early 1970s. A.L.I.C.E. (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity) BIBREF12 appeared in 1995 but current version utilizes AIML, an XML language designed for creating stimulus-response chat robots BIBREF13 . Cleverbot (1997-2014) is a chatbot developed by the British AI scientist Rollo Carpenter. 
Output: What is the state of the art described in the paper?
We obtained 1260 unique utterances having commands to AMIE from our in-cabin data-set. We expanded this data-set via Amazon Mechanical Turk and ended up with 3347 utterances having intents. The annotations for intents and slots are obtained on the transcribed utterances by majority voting of 3 annotators.
Output: What is the size of their collected dataset?
We have also included the unlabelled set of 2472 telephone calls from both minor (Cebuano and Mandarin) and major (Tagalog and Cantonese) languages provided by NIST in the system training.
Output: Which are the novel languages on which SRE placed emphasis on?
While confirming the effectiveness of BT, our study also proposed significantly cheaper ways to improve the baseline performance, using a slightly modified copy of the target, instead of its full BT. 
Output: why are their techniques cheaper to implement?
Los resultados de la evaluación se presentan en la Tabla TABREF42, en la forma de promedios normalizados entre [0,1] y de su desviación estándar $\sigma $.
Output: What evaluation metrics did they look at?
the TransE model Embedding models The Unstructured model BIBREF22 The TransH model BIBREF26 DISTMULT BIBREF45 ConvE BIBREF51 and ConvKB BIBREF52 The Path Ranking Algorithm (PRA) BIBREF21
Output: What models does this overview cover?
We plotted the distribution of harassment incidents in each categorization dimension (Figure FIGREF19). It displays statistics that provide important evidence as to the scale of harassment and that can serve as the basis for more effective interventions to be developed by authorities ranging from advocacy organizations to policy makers. It provides evidence to support some commonly assumed factors about harassment: First, we demonstrate that harassment occurred more frequently during the night time than the day time. Second, it shows that besides unspecified strangers (not shown in the figure), conductors and drivers are top the list of identified types of harassers, followed by friends and relatives. Furthermore, we uncovered that there exist strong correlations between the age of perpetrators and the location of harassment, between the single/multiple harasser(s) and location, and between age and single/multiple harasser(s) (Figure FIGREF20).  We also found that the majority of young perpetrators engaged in harassment behaviors on the streets. These findings suggest that interventions with young men and boys, who are readily influenced by peers, might be most effective when education is done peer-to-peer. It also points to the locations where such efforts could be made, including both in schools and on the streets.  In contrast, we found that adult perpetrators of sexual harassment are more likely to act alone. Most of the adult harassers engaged in harassment on public transportation. These differences in adult harassment activities and locations, mean that interventions should be responsive to these factors. For example, increasing the security measures on transit at key times and locations. In addition, we also found that the correlations between the forms of harassment with the age, single/multiple harasser, type of harasser, and location (Figure FIGREF21). For example, young harassers are more likely to engage in behaviors of verbal harassment, rather than physical harassment as compared to adults. It was a single perpetrator that engaged in touching or groping more often, rather than groups of perpetrators. In contrast, commenting happened more frequently when harassers were in groups. Last but not least, public transportation is where people got indecently touched most frequently both by fellow passengers and by conductors and drivers. The nature and location of the harassment are particularly significant in developing strategies for those who are harassed or who witness the harassment to respond and manage the everyday threat of harassment. For example, some strategies will work best on public transport, a particular closed, shared space setting, while other strategies might be more effective on the open space of the street.
Output: What patterns were discovered from the stories?
We thus try to remove the language-specific information from the representations by centering the representations of sentences in each language so that their average lies at the origin of the vector space.
Output: Are language-specific and language-neutral components disjunctive?
In this work, we develop a technique to rapidly transfer an existing pre-trained model from English to other languages in an energy efficient way BIBREF8. 
Output: How much training data from the non-English language is used by the system?
This study focuses on Switchboard-300, a standard 300-hour English conversational speech recognition task.
Output: How big is Switchboard-300 database?
Since our methodology does not use a seed list of offensive words, it is not biased by topic, target, or dialect. Using our methodology, we tagged 10,000 Arabic tweet dataset for offensiveness, where offensive tweets account for roughly 19% of the tweets. Further, we labeled tweets as vulgar or hate speech. To date, this is the largest available dataset, which we plan to make publicly available along with annotation guidelines. We use this dataset to characterize Arabic offensive language to ascertain the topics, dialects, and users' gender that are most associated with the use of offensive language. 
Output: In what way is the offensive dataset not biased by topic, dialect or target?
We have two main interfaces that enable human interaction with the computer. There is cross-model interaction, where the machine does all the composition work, and displays three different versions of a story written by three distinct models for a human to compare. The user guides generation by providing a topic for story-writing and by tweaking decoding parameters to control novelty, or diversity. The second interface is intra-model interaction, where a human can select the model to interact with (potentially after having chosen it via cross-model), and can collaborate at all stages to jointly create better stories.
Output: How is human interaction consumed by the model?
Our corpus comprises a total of 6,127 scientific entities, including 2,112 Process, 258 Method, 2,099 Material, and 1,658 Data entities. 
Output: How large is the dataset?
For DQA four participants answered each question, therefore we took the average INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 values over the four evaluators as the result per question. The detailed answers by the participants and available online. To assess the correctness of the answers given both by participants in the DQA experiments, and by the QALD system, we use the classic information retrieval metrics of precision (P), recall (R), and F1. INLINEFORM0 measures the fraction of relevant (correct) answer (items) given versus all answers (answer items) given.
Output: Do they test performance of their approaches using human judgements?
The Title-to-Story system is a baseline, which generates directly from topic.
Output: What are the baselines?
As in the work of E. Tong et al. ( BIBREF9 ), we pre-train word embeddings using a skip-gram model BIBREF4 applied to unlabeled data from escort ads, however, we go further by analyzing the emojis' embeddings and thereby expand the trafficking lexicon.
Output: Do they use pretrained word embeddings?
For the datasets, we use Karpathy and Fei-Fei's split for MS-COCO dataset BIBREF10 .
Output: What dataset/corpus is this work evaluated over?
Our multi-task BERT models involve six different Arabic classification tasks. Author profiling and deception detection in Arabic (APDA). LAMA+DINA Emotion detection. Sentiment analysis in Arabic tweets.
Output: What are the tasks used in the mulit-task learning setup?
Our goal was to generate questions without templates and with minimal human involvement using machine learning transformers that have been demonstrated to train faster and better than RNNs. Such a system would benefit educators by saving time to generate quizzes and tests.
Output: What is the motivation behind the work? Why question generation is an important task?
Sememes are minimum semantic units of word meanings, and the meaning of each word sense is typically composed of several sememes, as is illustrated in Figure 1 .
Output: What is a sememe?
In this paper, we propose a simple and effective method for learning affective events that only requires a very small seed lexicon and a large raw corpus. As illustrated in Figure FIGREF1, our key idea is that we can exploit discourse relations BIBREF4 to efficiently propagate polarity from seed predicates that directly report one's emotions (e.g., “to be glad” is positive).
Output: How does their model learn using mostly raw data?
Based on the gained insights, we have improved the state-of-the-art in XNLI for the Translate-Test and Zero-Shot approaches by a substantial margin.
Output: Is the improvement over state-of-the-art statistically significant?
As the baseline, we simply judge the input token as IOCs on the basis of the spelling features described in BIBREF12 .
Output: What is used a baseline?
. We address various different challenges: dialogue act annotated data is not available for customer service on Twitter, the task of dialogue act annotation is subjective, existing taxonomies do not capture the fine-grained information we believe is valuable to our task, and tweets, although concise in nature, often consist of overlapping dialogue acts to characterize their full intent.
Output: Which dialogue acts are more suited to the twitter domain?
Table TABREF19 shows the comparison of our proposed system with the existing state-of-the-art system of SemEval 2016 Task 6 for the sentiment dataset. BIBREF7 used feature-based SVM, BIBREF39 used keyword rules, LitisMind relied on hashtag rules on external data, BIBREF38 utilized a combination of sentiment classifiers and rules, whereas BIBREF37 used a maximum entropy classifier with domain-specific features. We also compare our system with the state-of-the-art systems proposed by BIBREF15 on the emotion dataset. The comparison is demonstrated in Table TABREF22. Maximum entropy, SVM, LSTM, Bi-LSTM, and CNN were the five individual systems used by BIBREF15.
Output: What is the previous state-of-the-art model?
We use the Ultrax Typically Developing dataset (UXTD) from the publicly available UltraSuite repository BIBREF19 . This dataset contains synchronized acoustic and ultrasound data from 58 typically developing children, aged 5-12 years old (31 female, 27 male). The data was aligned at the phone-level, according to the methods described in BIBREF19 , BIBREF25 . The data was recorded using an Ultrasonix SonixRP machine using Articulate Assistant Advanced (AAA) software at INLINEFORM0 121fps with a 135 field of view. A single ultrasound frame consists of 412 echo returns from each of the 63 scan lines (63x412 raw frames).
Output: What are the characteristics of the dataset?
In this paper, we describe and evaluate Nefnir BIBREF0 , a new open source lemmatizer for Icelandic. Nefnir uses suffix substitution rules derived (learned) from the Database of Modern Icelandic Inflection (DMII) BIBREF1 , which contains over 5.8 million inflectional forms.
Output: How are the substitution rules built?
For a word belonging to any one of the word-groups representing these concepts, the modified cost term favors an increase for the value of this word's embedding vector dimension corresponding to the concept that the particular word belongs to. 
Output: Along which dimension do the semantically related words take larger values?
On inspection, the drop in performance between translated and original Japanese was often a result of translations that were reasonable but not consistent with the labels. For example, when translating the first example in Figure FIGREF2, both machine translations map “UTF8min風邪”, which means cold (the illness), into “UTF8min寒さ”, which means cold (low temperature). Another example is where the Japanese pseudo-tweet “UTF8min花粉症の時期はすごい疲れる。” was provided alongside an English pseudo-tweet “Allergy season is so exhausting.”. Here, the Japanese word for hay fever “UTF8min花粉症。” has been manually mapped to the less specific word “allergies” in English; the machine translation maps back to Japanese using the word for “allergies” i.e. “UTF8minアレルギー” in the katakana alphabet (katakana is used to express words derived from foreign languages), since there is no kanji character for the concept of allergies.
Output: Is there any explanation why some choice of language pair is better than the other?
Baselines. We use one strong non-DNN baseline, NBSVM (with unigrams or bigrams features) BIBREF23 and six DNN baselines. The first DNN baseline is CNN BIBREF25, which does not handle noisy labels. The other five were designed to handle noisy labels.

The comparison results are shown in Table TABREF12. From the results, we can make the following observations. (1) Our NetAb model achieves the best ACC and F1 on all datasets except for F1 of negative class on Laptop.
Output: Is the model evaluated against a CNN baseline?
Using an encoder-decoder backbone, our model may be regarded as an extension of the constituent parsing model of BIBREF18 as shown in Figure FIGREF4. The difference is that in our model both constituent and dependency parsing share the same token representation and shared self-attention layers and each has its own individual Self-Attention Layers and subsequent processing layers. Our model includes four modules: token representation, self-attention encoder, constituent and dependency parsing decoder. Constituent Parsing Decoder Dependency Parsing Decoder
Output: What are the models used to perform constituency and dependency parsing?
We performed the annotation with freely available tools for the Portuguese language.
Output: Are the annotations automatic or manually created?
. We could observe that compared with the base model, we have an improvement of 7.36% on accuracy and 9.69% on F1 score. 
Output: How big are improvements of small-scale unbalanced datasets when sentence representation is enhanced with topic information?
Pretraining. We collect three years of online news articles from June 2016 to June 2019. We filter out articles overlapping with the evaluation data on media domain and time range. We then conduct several data cleaning strategies.
Output: What did they pretrain the model on?
We use four systems to evaluate the difficulty of this dataset.  The first two are an information retrieval system and a word-association method, following the designs of BIBREF26 Clark2016CombiningRS. These are naive baselines that do not parse the question, but nevertheless may find some signal in a large corpus of text that helps guess the correct answer. The third is a CCG-style rule-based semantic parser written specifically for friction questions (the QuaRel INLINEFORM0 subset), but prior to data being collected. The last is a state-of-the-art neural semantic parser. We briefly describe each in turn.
Output: Which off-the-shelf tools do they use on QuaRel?
We introduce a new model for difficulty prediction combining learned representations induced via a pre-trained `universal' sentence encoder BIBREF6 , and a sentence encoder learned from scratch for this task. In total, this resulted in 57,505 and 2,428 sentences in the train and test set abstracts, respectively.
Output: How much data is needed to train the task-specific encoder?
Analysis of challenges from UTD
Our system relies on the pseudotext produced by ZRTools (the only freely available UTD system we are aware of), which presents several challenges for MT.  Assigning wrong words to a cluster
Since UTD is unsupervised, the discovered clusters are noisy.  Splitting words across different clusters
Although most UTD matches are across speakers, recall of cross-speaker matches is lower than for same-speaker matches. As a result, the same word from different speakers often appears in multiple clusters, preventing the model from learning good translations. UTD is sparse, giving low coverage We found that the patterns discovered by ZRTools match only 28% of the audio. This low coverage reduces training data size, affects alignment quality, and adversely affects translation, which is only possible when pseudoterms are present.
Output: what challenges are identified?
For the first coarse-tuning stage with NLI tasks, we use MultiNLI BIBREF15 and SNLI BIBREF16 as the out-of-domain source datasets. 
Output: What out of domain datasets authors used for coarse-tuning stage?
We evaluate the effectiveness of our LAN model on two typical knowledge graph completion tasks, i.e., link prediction and triplet classification.
Output: Which knowledge graph completion tasks do they experiment with?
In task 1, there are two top categories, namely, chit-chat and task-oriented dialogue.
Output: How many intents were classified?
Our dataset contains tweets about `ObamaCare' in USA collected during march 2010. 
Output: What dataset of tweets is used?
The release of the FEVER fact extraction and verification dataset BIBREF0 provides a large-scale challenge that tests a combination of retrieval and textual entailment capabilities. To verify a claim in the dataset as supported, refuted, or undecided, a system must retrieve relevant articles and sentences from Wikipedia. Then it must decide whether each of those sentences, or some combination of them, entails or refutes the claim, which is an entailment problem. Systems are evaluated on the accuracy of the claim predictions, with credit only given when correct evidence is submitted. As entailment data, premises in FEVER data differ substantially from those in the image caption data used as the basis for the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) BIBREF1 dataset. Sentences are longer (31 compared to 14 words on average), vocabulary is more abstract, and the prevalence of named entities and out-of-vocabulary terms is higher. The retrieval aspect of FEVER is not straightforward either. A claim may have small word overlap with the relevant evidence, especially if the claim is refuted by the evidence.
Output: What is the FEVER task?
Two datasets are exploited in this article. Both datasets consist of plain text containing clinical narrative written in Spanish, and their respective manual annotations of sensitive information in BRAT BIBREF13 standoff format. NUBes BIBREF4 is a corpus of around 7,000 real medical reports written in Spanish and annotated with negation and uncertainty information. In order to avoid confusion between the two corpus versions, we henceforth refer to the version relevant in this paper as NUBes-PHI (from `NUBes with Personal Health Information'). The organisers of the MEDDOCAN shared task BIBREF3 curated a synthetic corpus of clinical cases enriched with sensitive information by health documentalists
Output: What are the clinical datasets used in the paper?
The embeddings for words and POS tags were pre-trained on a large unannotated corpus consisting of the first 1 billion characters from Wikipedia.
Output: Do they use pretrained models as part of their parser?
An emerging body of work in natural language processing and computational social science has investigated how NLP systems can detect moral sentiment in online text. For example, moral rhetoric in social media and political discourse BIBREF19, BIBREF20, BIBREF21, the relation between moralization in social media and violent protests BIBREF22, and bias toward refugees in talk radio shows BIBREF23 have been some of the topics explored in this line of inquiry. In contrast to this line of research, the development of a formal framework for moral sentiment change is still under-explored, with no existing systematic and formal treatment of this topic BIBREF16.
Output: Does the paper discuss previous models which have been applied to the same task?
A simple, yet recurrent text model is the well-known word co-occurrence network. After optional textual pre-processing steps, in a co-occurrence network each different word becomes a node and edges are established via co-occurrence in a desired window. A common strategy connects only adjacent words in the so called word adjacency networks.
Output: On what model architectures are previous co-occurence networks based?
Second, we provide an extensive analysis of the state-of-the-art model for the NLI task and show that our methods reveal interesting insights not available from traditional methods of inspecting attention and word saliency.
Output: Did they use the state-of-the-art model to analyze the attention?
We evaluate three models of the image attention mechanism INLINEFORM0 of equation EQREF11 . Soft attention Hard Stochastic attention Local Attention
Output: Which attention mechanisms do they compare?
One common point in all the approaches yet has been the use of only textual features available in the dataset. Our model not only incorporates textual features, modeled using BiLSTM and augmented with an attention mechanism, but also considers related images for the task.
Output: What are the differences with previous applications of neural networks for this task?
The train and test data have divided into 70-30 ratio and we got these results as shown in Table TABREF17 for the individual dataset and the combination of both. The pre-trained network was already trained and we used the target data Queensland flood which provided 96% accuracy with 0.118 Test loss in only 11 seconds provided we used only 70% of training labeled data. The second target data is Alberta flood with the same configuration of train-test split which provided 95% accuracy with 0.118 Test loss in just 19 seconds.
Output: What were the model's results on flood detection?
Many NLP tasks utilize POS as features, but human annotated POS sequences are difficult and expensive to obtain. Thus, it is important to know if we can learn sentences-level syntactic embeddings for low-sources languages without treebanks.

We performed zero-shot transfer of the syntactic embeddings for French, Portuguese and Indonesian. French and Portuguese are simulated low-resource languages, while Indonesian is a true low-resource language.
Output: Do they evaluate on downstream tasks?
The Gallup survey asked for opinions on legality of “homosexual relations" until 2008, but then changed the wording to “gay and lesbian relations". This was likely because many people who identify as gay and lesbian find the word homosexual to be outdated and derogatory.
Output: Do they analyze specific derogatory words?
The Word2Vec architecture has inspired a great deal of research in the bio/cheminformatics domains. The Word2Vec algorithm has been successfully applied for determining protein classes BIBREF44 and protein-protein interactions (PPI) BIBREF56.
Output: Is there any concrete example in the paper that shows that this approach had huge impact on drug discovery?
In order to understand the latent topics of those #MeToo tweets for college followers, we first utilize Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to label universal topics demonstrated by the users. Since certain words frequently appear in those #MeToo tweets (e.g., sexual harassment, men, women, story, etc.), we transform our corpus using TF-IDF, a term-weighting scheme that discounts the influence of common terms.
Output: How are the topics embedded in the #MeToo tweets extracted?
The most intuitive way to evaluate the text answer is to directly compute the Exact Match (EM) and Macro-averaged F1 scores (F1) between the predicted text answer and the ground-truth text answer.
Output: What evaluation metrics were used?
At training time, we use the plan-to-DFS mapping to perform the correct sequence of traversals, and train a neural classifier to act as a controller, choosing which action to perform at each step.
Output: How is neural planning component trained?
More than 2,100 texts were paired with 15 questions each, resulting in a total number of approx. 32,000 annotated questions. For 13% of the questions, the workers did not agree on one of the 4 categories with a 3 out of 5 majority, so we did not include these questions in our dataset.

The distribution of category labels on the remaining 87% is shown in Table TABREF10 . 14,074 (52%) questions could be answered. Out of the answerable questions, 10,160 could be answered from the text directly (text-based) and 3,914 questions required the use of commonsense knowledge (script-based). After removing 135 questions during the validation, the final dataset comprises 13,939 questions, 3,827 of which require commonsense knowledge (i.e. 27.4%). This ratio was manually verified based on a random sample of questions.
Output: what dataset statistics are provided?
Metrics. We use tolerance accuracy BIBREF16, which measures how far away the predicted span is from the gold standard span, as a metric. The rationale behind the metric is that, in practice, it suffices to recommend a rough span which contains the answer – a difference of a few seconds would not matter much to the user. Metrics. We used accuracy and MRR (Mean Reciprocal Ranking) as metrics.  Metrics. To evaluate our pipeline approach we use overall accuracy after filtering and accuracy given that the segment is in the top 10 videos. 
Output: What evaluation metrics were used in the experiment?
replacing this single GRU with two different components first component is a sentence reader second component is the input fusion layer
Output: What changes they did on input module?
To assess the consistency of annotations and also eliminate coincidental annotations, we used agreement rates, which is calculated by dividing the number of senses under each category where the annotators annotate consistently by the total number of each kind of sense. And considering the potential impact of unbalanced distribution of senses, we also used the Kappa value.
Output: Which inter-annotator metric do they use?
As a benchmark, we will use the results of the systems by Burckhardt et al. BIBREF22 , Liu et al. BIBREF18 , Dernoncourt et al. BIBREF9 and Yang et al. BIBREF10 on the i2b2 dataset and the performance of Burckhardt et al. on the nursing corpus.
Output: What is their baseline?
The primary feed for the analysis collected INLINEFORM0 million tweets containing the keywords `breast' AND `cancer'. 
Output: How were breast cancer related posts compiled from the Twitter streaming API?
From the chart, it is clear that there is a higher chance of fake news coming from unverified accounts. Notice that accounts spreading viral tweets with fake news have, on average, a larger ratio of friends/followers.  Figure FIGREF24 shows that, in contrast to other kinds of viral tweets, those containing fake news were created more recently.
Output: What are the characteristics of the accounts that spread fake news?
Our model improves the F1 score by almost 2%, which corresponds to a 12.3% error rate reduction.
Output: How better is proposed model compared to baselines?
As can be seen, the proposed DSC loss outperforms the best baseline results by a large margin, i.e., outperforming BERT-tagger by +1.86 in terms of F1 score on CTB5, +1.80 on CTB6 and +2.19 on UD1.4.
Output: What are method's improvements of F1 w.r.t. baseline BERT tagger for Chinese POS datasets?
Our visual model is based on fine-tuning an Inception V3 model BIBREF1 over visual renderings of documents, while our textual model is based on a hierarchical biLSTM. We further combine the two into a joint model.  We applied neural network models to capture visual features given visual renderings of documents. Experimental results show that we achieve a 2.9% higher accuracy than state-of-the-art approaches based on textual features over Wikipedia, and performance competitive with or surpassing state-of-the-art approaches over arXiv. We further proposed a joint model, combining textual and visual representations, to predict the quality of a document. 
Output: What kind of model do they use?
They perform data augmentation by back translation between English and Chinese, which seems to be one of the distinguishing factors resulting in a much higher accuracy.
Output: What data augmentation techniques are used?
Moreover, this work also handles the cases of singular/plural, subject pronoun/object pronoun, etc. For instance, the pronoun “he" is used for the subject as “he" but is used for the object as “him".
Output: What else is tried to be solved other than 12 tenses, model verbs and negative form?
The approaches we use and what we mean by `success' are thus guided by our research questions.

Domain experts and fellow researchers can provide feedback on questions and help with dynamically revising them. Sometimes we also hope to connect to multiple disciplines. Questions about potential “dual use” may also arise.
Output: What approaches do they use towards text analysis?
Conditional Random Fields (CRF) BIBREF15 have been extensively used for tasks of sequential nature. In this paper, we propose as one of the competitive baselines a CRF classifier trained with sklearn-crfsuite for Python 3.5 and the following configuration: algorithm = lbfgs; maximum iterations = 100; c1 = c2 = 0.1; all transitions = true; optimise = false. spaCy is a widely used NLP library that implements state-of-the-art text processing pipelines, including a sequence-labelling pipeline similar to the one described by strubell2017fast. spaCy offers several pre-trained models in Spanish, which perform basic NLP tasks such as Named Entity Recognition (NER). In this paper, we have trained a new NER model to detect NUBes-PHI labels. As the simplest baseline, a sensitive data recogniser and classifier has been developed that consists of regular-expressions and dictionary look-ups. For each category to detect a specific method has been implemented. For instance, the Date, Age, Time and Doctor detectors are based on regular-expressions; Hospital, Sex, Kinship, Location, Patient and Job are looked up in dictionaries. The dictionaries are hand-crafted from the training data available, except for the Patient's case, for which the possible candidates considered are the 100 most common female and male names in Spain according to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE; Spanish Statistical Office).
Output: What are the other algorithms tested?
We adopt the annotation machinery of BIBREF5 implemented using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and annotate each predicate by 2 trained workers independently, while a third consolidates their annotations into a final set of roles and arguments. 
Output: How was the previous dataset annotated?
The parameters of the entire MSD (auxiliary-task) decoder are shared across languages.

Since a grouping of the languages based on language family would have left several languages in single-member groups (e.g. Russian is the sole representative of the Slavic family), we experiment with random groupings of two to three languages. Multilingual training is performed by randomly alternating between languages for every new minibatch.
Output: How do they perform multilingual training?