niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
To derive contextualized representations from textual features, the book title and blurb are concatenated and then fed through BERT The non-text features are generated in a separate preprocessing step. The metadata features are represented as a ten-dimensional vector (two dimensions for gender, see Section SECREF10). Author embedding vectors have a length of 200 (see Section SECREF22). In the next step, all three representations are concatenated and passed into a MLP with two layers, 1024 units each and ReLu activation function.
Output: How do they combine text representations with the knowledge graph embeddings?
We used the annotated dataset reported by degen2015investigating, a dataset of the utterances from the Switchboard corpus of telephone dialogues BIBREF21 that contain the word some. The dataset consists of 1,362 unique utterances with a noun phrase containing some (some-NP). For each example with a some-NP, degen2015investigating collected inference strength ratings from at least 10 participants recruited on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Participants saw both the target utterance and ten utterances from the preceding discourse context. They then rated the similarity between the original utterance like (UNKREF8) and an utterance in which some was replaced with some, but not all like (UNKREF9), on a 7-point Likert scale with endpoints labeled “very different meaning” (1) and “same meaning” (7). Low similarity ratings thus indicate low inference strength, and high similarity ratings indicate high inference strength.
Output: Which dataset do they use?
the basic model yields good performance for recognizing explicit discourse relations as well, which is comparable with previous best result (92.05% macro F1-score and 93.09% accuracy as reported in BIBREF11 ). In summary, our full paragraph-level neural network model achieves the best macro-average F1-score of 48.82% in predicting implicit discourse relations, which outperforms previous neural tensor network models (e.g., BIBREF18 ) by more than 2 percents and outperforms the best previous system BIBREF19 by 1 percent. Then we also created ensemble models by applying majority voting to combine results of ten runs. From table 5 , each ensemble model obtains performance improvements compared with single model. The full model achieves performance boosting of (51.84 - 48.82 = 3.02) and (94.17 - 93.21 = 0.96) in macro F1-scores for predicting implicit and explicit discourse relations respectively. 
Output: How much does this model improve state-of-the-art?
The improvement over all benchmark datasets also shows that conditional BERT is a general augmentation method for multi-labels sentence classification tasks.
Output: Does the new objective perform better than the original objective bert is trained on?
In order to evaluate the models trained on generated data, we manually annotated a named entities dataset comprising 53453 tokens and 2566 sentences selected from over 250 news texts from ilur.am. During annotation, we generally relied on categories and guidelines assembled by BBN Technologies for TREC 2002 question answering track.
Output: did they use a crowdsourcing platform for manual annotations?
Generic Sarcasm. We first examine the different patterns learned on the Gen dataset.  We observe that the not-sarcastic patterns appear to capture technical and scientific language, while the sarcastic patterns tend to capture subjective language that is not topic-specific. We observe an abundance of adjective and adverb patterns for the sarcastic class, although we do not use adjective and adverb patterns in our regex retrieval method. Rhetorical Questions. We notice that while the not-sarcastic patterns generated for RQs are similar to the topic-specific not-sarcastic patterns we find in the general dataset, there are some interesting features of the sarcastic patterns that are more unique to the RQs.

Many of our sarcastic questions focus specifically on attacks on the mental abilities of the addressee. This generalization is made clear when we extract and analyze the verb, subject, and object arguments using the Stanford dependency parser BIBREF32 for the questions in the RQ dataset. Hyperbole. One common pattern for hyperbole involves adverbs and adjectives, as noted above. We did not use this pattern to retrieve hyperbole, but because each hyperbolic sarcastic utterance contains multiple cues, we learn an expanded class of patterns for hyperbole.  We learn a number of verbal patterns that we had not previously associated with hyperbole, as shown in Table TABREF34 . Interestingly, many of these instantiate the observations of CanoMora2009 on hyperbole and its related semantic fields: creating contrast by exclusion, e.g. no limit and no way, or by expanding a predicated class, e.g. everyone knows. Many of them are also contrastive. 
Output: What are the linguistic differences between each class?
We provide a hand-curated collection of complete inflection tables for 198 lemmata. The morphological tags follow the guidelines of the UniMorph schema BIBREF6, BIBREF7, in order to allow for the potential of cross-lingual transfer learning, and they are tagged with respect to:

Person: first (1), second (2), and third (3)

Number: singular (SG) ad plural (PL)

Inclusivity (only applicable to first person plural verbs: inclusive (INCL) and exclusive (EXCL)

Aspect/mood: completive (CPL), progressive (PROG), potential (POT), and habitual (HAB).
Output: How was annotation done?
In this subsection, we see the influence of each component of a model on performance by removing or replacing its components. the SNLI dataset is used for experiments, and the best performing configuration is used as a baseline for modifications. We consider the following variants: (i) models that use plain stacked LSTMs, (ii) models with different INLINEFORM0 , (iii) models without INLINEFORM1 , and (iv) models that integrate lower contexts via peephole connections.
Output: What were the baselines?
What is the impact of pre-trained representations with less transcribed data? In order to get a better understanding of this, we train acoustic models with different amounts of labeled training data and measure accuracy with and without pre-trained representations (log-mel filterbanks). The pre-trained representations are trained on the full Librispeech corpus and we measure accuracy in terms of WER when decoding with a 4-gram language model. Figure shows that pre-training reduces WER by 32% on nov93dev when only about eight hours of transcribed data is available. Pre-training only on the audio data of WSJ ( WSJ) performs worse compared to the much larger Librispeech ( Libri). This further confirms that pre-training on more data is crucial to good performance.
Output: Do they explore how much traning data is needed for which magnitude of improvement for WER?
Our prediction task is thus a straightforward binary classification task at the word level. We develop the following five groups of features to capture properties of how a word is used in the explanandum (see Table TABREF18 for the full list):

[itemsep=0pt,leftmargin=*,topsep=0pt]

Non-contextual properties of a word. These features are derived directly from the word and capture the general tendency of a word being echoed in explanations.

Word usage in an OP or PC (two groups). These features capture how a word is used in an OP or PC. As a result, for each feature, we have two values for the OP and PC respectively.

How a word connects an OP and PC. These features look at the difference between word usage in the OP and PC. We expect this group to be the most important in our task.

General OP/PC properties. These features capture the general properties of a conversation. They can be used to characterize the background distribution of echoing.

Table TABREF18 further shows the intuition for including each feature, and condensed $t$-test results after Bonferroni correction. Specifically, we test whether the words that were echoed in explanations have different feature values from those that were not echoed. In addition to considering all words, we also separately consider stopwords and content words in light of Figure FIGREF8. Here, we highlight a few observations:

[itemsep=0pt,leftmargin=*,topsep=0pt]
Output: What are their proposed features?
The best baseline model is NO-MOVE, reaching an accuracy of 30.3% on single sentences and 0.3 on complete paragraphs.
Output: How well did the baseline perform?
The task of attribute embedding lays is embedding every value in attribute triples into a continuous vector space while preserving the semantic information. To capture both high-order structural information of KGs, we used an attention-based embedding propagation method. The final embedding of entities, relations and values are feed into two different deep neural network for two different tasks including link predication and entity classification.
Output: How does KANE capture both high-order structural and attribute information of KGs in an efficient, explicit and unified manner?
We describe our rules for WikiSQL here. We first detect WHERE values, which exactly match to table cells. After that, if a cell appears at more than one column, we choose the column name with more overlapped words with the question, with a constraint that the number of co-occurred words is larger than 1. By default, a WHERE operator is INLINEFORM0 , except for the case that surrounding words of a value contain keywords for INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 . Then, we deal with the SELECT column, which has the largest number of co-occurred words and cannot be same with any WHERE column. By default, the SELECT AGG is NONE, except for matching to any keywords in Table TABREF8 . The coverage of our rule on training set is 78.4%, with execution accuracy of 77.9%. Our rule for KBQA is simple without using a curated mapping dictionary. The pipeline of rules in SequentialQA is similar to that of WikiSQL. Compared to the grammar of WikiSQL, the grammar of SequentialQA has additional actions including copying the previous-turn logical form, no greater than, no more than, and negation.
Output: How many rules had to be defined?
Each one of these tokenizers, we combine with some types of representation methods, including word to vector methods such as continuous bag of words BIBREF5, pre-trained embedding as fasttext (trained on Wiki Vietnamese language) BIBREF6 and sonvx (trained on Vietnamese newspaper) BIBREF7 The dataset in this HSD task is really imbalance. Clean class dominates with 91.5%, offensive class takes 5% and the rest belongs to hate class with 3.5%.
Output: What dataset do they use?
Let all word vectors be normalized and $W$ be the word matrix. Inspired by BIBREF21 , where vector space models are used for evaluating topic coherence, we suggest to estimate the interpretability of $k$ th component as $ \operatorname{interp}_k W = \sum _{i,j=1}^N W_{i,k} W_{j,k} \left(W_i \cdot W_j \right). $ 
Output: How do they evaluate interpretability in this paper?
For the low resource translation task, we used the BTEC corpus as the training data, which consists of 30k sentence pairs with 0.27M Chinese words and 0.33M English words. As development and test sets, we used the CSTAR03 and IWSLT04 held out sets, respectively.  We used the data from the NIST2008 Open Machine Translation Campaign. The training data consisted of 1.8M sentence pairs, the development set was nist02 (878 sentences), and the test sets are were nist05 (1082 sentences), nist06 (1664 sentences) and nist08 (1357 sentences).
Output: Which dataset do they use?
To evaluate the proposed LRC framework and the AutoJudge model, we carry out a series of experiments on the divorce proceedings, a typical yet complex field of civil cases. 
Output: what civil field is the dataset about?
We tried many configurations of our network models, but report results with only three configurations of Transformers.

Transformer Type 1: This network is a small to medium-sized network consisting of 4 Transformer layers. Each layer utilizes 8 attention heads with a depth of 512 and a feed-forward depth of 1024.

Transformer Type 2: The second model is small in size, using 2 Transformer layers. The layers utilize 8 attention heads with a depth of 256 and a feed-forward depth of 1024.

Transformer Type 3: The third type of model is minimal, using only 1 Transformer layer. This network utilizes 8 attention heads with a depth of 256 and a feed-forward depth of 512.
Output: What neural configurations are explored?
Evaluation is done using the development set, consisting of 22 documents and 1112 PIE candidates, and the test set, which consists of 23 documents and 1127 PIE candidates. For each method the best set of parameters and/or options is determined using the development set, after which the best variant by F1-score of each method is evaluated on the test set.

Since these documents in the corpus are exhaustively annotated for PIEs (see Section SECREF40), we can calculate true and false positives, and false negatives, and thus precision, recall and F1-score.
Output: Are PIEs extracted automatically subjected to human evaluation?
The behavior model was implemented using an RNN with LSTM units and trained with the Couples Therapy Corpus. Out of the 33 behavioral codes included in the corpus we applied the behaviors Acceptance, Blame, Negativity, Positivity, and Sadness to train our models. This is motivated from previous works which showed good separability in these behaviors as well as being easy to interpret. The behavior model is pre-trained to identify the presence of each behavior from a sequence of words using a multi-label classification scheme. The pre-trained portion of the behavior model was implemented using a single layer RNN with LSTM units with dimension size 50.
Output: How is module that analyzes behavioral state trained?
Experiments ::: Baselines
To comprehensively evaluate our AGDT, we compare the AGDT with several competitive models.
Output: Is the model evaluated against other Aspect-Based models?
Among the GLUE tasks, these state-of-the-art systems make their greatest gains on the acceptability task with the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability BIBREF0 . CoLA contains example sentences from linguistics publications labeled by experts for grammatical acceptability, and written to show subtle grammatical features. Because minimal syntactic differences can separate acceptable sentences from unacceptable ones (What did Bo write a book about? / *What was a book about written by Bo?), and acceptability classifiers are more reliable when trained on GPT and BERT than on recurrent models, it stands to reason that GPT and BERT have better implicit knowledge of syntactic features relevant to acceptability.
Output: Where does the data in CoLA come from?
In case of polysemous words, only the first word sense (usually the most common) is taken into account.
Output: How do they handle polysemous words in their entity library?
We draw our data from news publications, wine reviews, and Reddit, which in addition to large volume, also let us characterize binomials in new ways, and analyze differences in binomial orderings across communities and over time.  We develop new metrics for the agreement of binomial orderings across communities and the movement of binomial orderings over time. Using subreddits as communities, these metrics reveal variations in orderings, some of which suggest cultural change influencing language. We develop a null model to determine how much variation in binomial orderings we might expect across communities and across time, if binomial orderings were randomly ordered according to global asymmetry values. 
Output: How is order of binomials tracked across time?
With BERT, two fully unsupervised tasks are performed. The Masked Language Model and the Next Sentence Prediction (NSP).

For this study, the NSP is used as a proxy for the relevance of response.
Output: was bert used?
We used Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to collect new labels and explanations for SNLI-VE. 2,060 workers participated in the annotation effort, with an average of 1.98 assignments per worker and a standard deviation of 5.54.
Output: How many annotators are used to write natural language explanations to SNLI-VE-2.0?
We explore an architecture based on a stack of dilated convolution layers, effectively operating on a broader scale than with standard convolutions while limiting model size. Standard convolutional networks cannot capture long temporal patterns with reasonably small models due to the increase in computational cost yielded by larger receptive fields. Dilated convolutions skip some input values so that the convolution kernel is applied over a larger area than its own. The network therefore operates on a larger scale, without the downside of increasing the number of parameters.
Output: What are dilated convolutions?
We choose Zulu (ZUL), a Bantoid language. In contrast to the first two, it is strongly prefixing.
Output: What is an example of a prefixing language?
In order to further analysis the embeddings learned by our method, we use t-SNE tool BIBREF27 to visualize the learned embedding.
Output: What further analysis is done?
For all experiments, the dimensions of word embeddings and recurrent hidden states are both set to 512.
Output: Do they use the same architecture as LSTM-s and GRUs with just replacing with the LAU unit?
SMT techniques require a parallel corpus in thr source and thr target language. A text-code parallel corpus similar to Fig. FIGREF12 is used in training. This parallel corpus has 18805 aligned data in it . In source data, the expression of each line code is written in the English language. In target data, the code is written in Python programming language.
Output: What dataset do they use?
Most of the above-discussed systems either shows high performance on (a) Twitter dataset or (b) Facebook dataset (given in the TRAC-2018), but not on both English code-mixed datasets. This may be due to the text style or level of complexities of both datasets.
Output: How have the differences in communication styles between Twitter and Facebook increase the complexity of the problem?
As a first experiment, we compare the quality of fastText embeddings trained on (high-quality) curated data and (low-quality) massively extracted data for Twi and Yorùbá languages. The huge ambiguity in the written Twi language motivates the exploration of different approaches to word embedding estimations. In this work, we compare the standard fastText methodology to include sub-word information with the character-enhanced approach with position-based clustered embeddings (CWE-LP as introduced in Section SECREF17).
Output: What two architectures are used?
With an intention to exploit the contribution of hashtag use to stance detection, we have also used the existence of hashtags in tweets as an additional feature to unigrams.
Output: What are hashtag features?
Each passage was labelled by 3 unique annotators.
Output: How many annotators were there?
There are three main components to the model: 1) input encoder 2) dynamic memory, and 3) output module. We will describe these three modules in details. The input encoder and output module implementations are similar to the Entity Network BIBREF17 and main novelty lies in the dynamic memory. We describe the operations executed by the network for a single example consisting of a document with $T$ sentences, where each sentence consists of a sequence of words represented with $K$ -dimensional word embeddings $\lbrace e_1, \ldots , e_N\rbrace $ , a question on the document represented as another sequence of words and an answer to the question.
Output: How is knowledge stored in the memory?
Cloze Track User Query Track
Output: What two types the Chinese reading comprehension dataset consists of?
We evaluated our model on three benchmark datasets, namely the CNN/DailyMail news highlights dataset BIBREF24, the New York Times Annotated Corpus (NYT; BIBREF25), and XSum BIBREF22.
Output: What are the datasets used for evaluation?
For this purpose, we construct a corpus of 172,815 articles from Tagalog Wikipedia which we call WikiText-TL-39 BIBREF18.
Output: What other datasets are used?
The RelNet model achieves a mean error of 0.285% across tasks which is better than the results of the EntNet model BIBREF17 . The RelNet model is able to achieve 0% test error on 11 of the tasks, whereas the EntNet model achieves 0% error on 7 of the tasks. The RelNet model achieves a mean error of 0.285% across tasks which is better than the results of the EntNet model BIBREF17 . The RelNet model is able to achieve 0% test error on 11 of the tasks, whereas the EntNet model achieves 0% error on 7 of the tasks.
Output: What are the relative improvements observed over existing methods?
We provide three simple baselines for the RUN task: (1) NO-MOVE: the only position considered is the starting point; (2) RANDOM: As in BIBREF4, turn to a randomly selected heading, then execute a number of *WALK actions of an average route; (3) JUMP: at each sentence, extract entities from the map and move between them in the order they appear. 
Output: What is the baseline?
In this paper we proposed a methodology to identify words that could lead to confusion at any given node of a speech recognition based system. We used edit distance as the metric to identifying the possible confusion between the active words.  There is a significant saving in terms of being able to identify recognition bottlenecks in a menu based speech solution through this analysis because it does not require actual people testing the system.  Actual use of this analysis was carried out for a speech solution developed for Indian Railway Inquiry System to identify bottlenecks in the system before its actual launch.
Output: what bottlenecks were identified?
We created our own causal explanation dataset by collecting 3,268 random Facebook status update messages.
Output: What types of social media did they consider?
We train $\mathcal {F}$ and $\mathcal {G}$ jointly and introduce two regularizers. Formally, we hope that $\mathcal {G}(\mathcal {F}(X))$ is similar to $X$ and $\mathcal {F}(\mathcal {G}(Y))$ is similar to $Y$. We implement this constraint as a cycle consistency loss. As a result, the proposed model has two learning objectives: i) an adversarial loss ($\ell _{adv}$) for each model as in the baseline. ii) a cycle consistency loss ($\ell _{cycle}$) on each side to avoid $\mathcal {F}$ and $\mathcal {G}$ from contradicting each other.
Output: What regularizers were used to encourage consistency in back translation cycles?
What similarities and/or differences do these topics have with non-violent, non-Islamic religious material addressed specifically to women? As these questions suggest, to understand what, if anything, makes extremist appeals distinctive, we need a point of comparison in terms of the outreach efforts to women from a mainstream, non-violent religious group. For this purpose, we rely on an online Catholic women's forum. Comparison between Catholic material and the content of ISIS' online magazines allows for novel insight into the distinctiveness of extremist rhetoric when targeted towards the female population. To accomplish this task, we employ topic modeling and an unsupervised emotion detection method.
Output: How are similarities and differences between the texts from violent and non-violent religious groups analyzed?
In Table TABREF26 we report the results of our model on the three datasets standardly used for the evaluation of emotion classification, which we have described in Section SECREF3 .
Output: What was their performance on emotion detection?
One way to analyze the model is to compute model gradients with respect to input features BIBREF26, BIBREF25. Figure FIGREF37 shows that in this particular example, the most important model inputs are verbs possibly associated with the entity butter, in addition to the entity's mentions themselves. It further shows that the model learns to extract shallow clues of identifying actions exerted upon only the entity being tracked, regardless of other entities, by leveraging verb semantics.
Output: What evidence do they present that the model attends to shallow context clues?
Inspired by the line of work reported in these studies, we propose to use modified objective functions for a different purpose: learning more interpretable dense word embeddings. By doing this, we aim to incorporate semantic information from an external lexical resource into the word embedding so that the embedding dimensions are aligned along predefined concepts. This alignment is achieved by introducing a modification to the embedding learning process. In our proposed method, which is built on top of the GloVe algorithm BIBREF2 , the cost function for any one of the words of concept word-groups is modified by the introduction of an additive term to the cost function. 
Output: What is the additive modification to the objective function?