niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Firstly, LastStateRNN is the classic RNN model, where the last state passes through an MLP and then the LR Layer estimates the corresponding probability. In contrast, in the AvgRNN model we consider the average vector of all states that come out of the cells. The AttentionRNN model is the one that it has been presented in BIBREF9. Moreover, we introduce the MultiAttentionRNN model for the harassment language detection, which instead of one attention, it includes four attentions, one for each category.
Output: What baseline model is used?
The Siamese neural network has two parallel convolutional networks, INLINEFORM0 , that share the same set of weights, INLINEFORM1 , as shown in Figure FIGREF5 (a).
Output: What is the architecture of the siamese neural network?
In our setup, our starting point is a base model, trained on NLI data. Rather than employing automated adversarial methods, here the model's “adversary” is a human annotator. Given a context (also often called a “premise” in NLI), and a desired target label, we ask the human writer to provide a hypothesis that fools the model into misclassifying the label. One can think of the writer as a “white hat” hacker, trying to identify vulnerabilities in the system. For each human-generated example that is misclassified, we also ask the writer to provide a reason why they believe it was misclassified.
Output: Do they use active learning to create their dataset?
The focus of this publication is on representing information that is valuable for these tasks but that hitherto has largely been ignored in machine learning approaches centering around simplified language, specifically, text structure (e.g., paragraphs, lines), typography (e.g., font type, font style), and image (content, position, and dimensions) information. Information on physical page segmentation (for PDFs only), paragraph segmentation, and line segmentation was added as part of a textspan element in the textstructure layer
Output: Which information about text structure is included in the corpus?
We perform experiments using the following state-of-the-art models: (1) SEQ2SEQ: a sequence-to-sequence model with attention mechanisms BIBREF21, (2) CVAE: a conditional variational auto-encoder model with KL-annealing and a BOW loss BIBREF2, (3) Transformer: an encoder-decoder architecture relying solely on attention mechanisms BIBREF22, (4) HRED: a generalized sequence-to-sequence model with the hierarchical RNN encoder BIBREF23, (5) DialogWAE: a conditional Wasserstein auto-encoder, which models the distribution of data by training a GAN within the latent variable space BIBREF6.
Output: What state of the art models were used in experiments?
As a document classifier we employ a word-based CNN similar to Kim consisting of the following sequence of layers: $ \texttt {Conv} \xrightarrow{} \texttt {ReLU} \xrightarrow{} \texttt {1-Max-Pool} \xrightarrow{} \texttt {FC} \\ $ Future work would include applying LRP to other neural network architectures (e.g. character-based or recurrent models) on further NLP tasks, as well as exploring how relevance information could be taken into account to improve the classifier's training procedure or prediction performance.
Output: Do the experiments explore how various architectures and layers contribute towards certain decisions?
We are using the dataset of the competition, which includes text from tweets having the aforementioned categories. 
Output: What dataset is used for this work?
According to the categories mentioned in BIBREF5 , irony can be classified into 3 classes: verbal irony by means of a polarity contrast, the sentences containing expression whose polarity is inverted between the intended and the literal evaluation; other types of verbal irony, the sentences that show no polarity contrast between the literal and intended meaning but are still ironic; and situational irony, the sentences that describe situations that fail to meet some expectations. As ironies in the latter two categories are obscure and hard to understand, we decide to only focus on ironies in the first category in this work.   Because of the lack of previous work and baselines on irony generation, we implement our model based on style transfer. 
Output: What are the difficulties in modelling the ironic pattern?
Models include both neural nets (e.g. RNNs, CNNs) and standard machine learning tools (e.g. Naive Bayes with Laplace Smoothing, k-clustering, SVM with linear kernel). 
Output: Which machine learning models are used?
First, workers were given a seed qualitative relation q+/-( INLINEFORM0 ) in the domain, expressed in English (e.g., “If a surface has more friction, then an object will travel slower”), and asked to enter two objects, people, or situations to compare. They then created a question, guided by a large number of examples, and were encouraged to be imaginative and use their own words. Second, the LFs were elicited using a novel technique of reverse-engineering them from a set of follow-up questions, without exposing workers to the underlying formalism. This is possible because of the constrained space of LFs. Referring to LF templates (1) and (2) earlier (Section SECREF13 ), these questions are as follows:

From this information, we can deduce the target LF ( INLINEFORM0 is the complement of INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , we arbitrarily set INLINEFORM3 =world1, hence all other variables can be inferred).
Output: How do they obtain the logical forms of their questions in their dataset?
The memory mechanism is adopted in order to enable the model to look beyond localized features and have access to the entire sequence.
Output: Which features do they use?
We distributed Dryhootch chosen surveys among 1,200 users (305 users are self claimed PTSD sufferers and rest of them are randomly chosen from previous 2,423 users) and received 210 successful responses.  Dryhootch defines the intensity of PTSD into four categories based on the weekly survey results of all three clinical survey tools (DOSPERT, BSSS and VIAS )
Output: Which clinically validated survey tools are used?
As a starting point, we used the DIP corpus BIBREF37 , a collection of 49 clusters of 100 web pages on educational topics (e.g. bullying, homeschooling, drugs) with a short description of each topic.
Output: Which collections of web documents are included in the corpus?
Ethnicity/race
One interesting pattern is that the ethnicity/race of babies doesn't seem to be mentioned unless the baby is black or asian. In other words: white seems to be the default, and others seem to be marked. How can we tell whether or not the data is actually biased?

 The numbers in Table TABREF22 are striking: there seems to be a real, systematic difference in ethnicity marking between the groups. We can take one step further and look at all the 697 pictures with the word `baby' in it. If there turn out to be disproportionately many white babies, this strengthens the conclusion that the dataset is biased.
Output: What biases are found in the dataset?
Each dataset consists of a collection of records with one QA problem per record. For each record, we include some question text, a context document relevant to the question, a set of candidate solutions, and the correct solution. The context document for each record consists of a list of ranked and scored pseudodocuments relevant to the question. Several baselines rely on the retrieved context to extract the answer to a question. For these, we refer to the fraction of instances for which the correct answer is present in the context as Search Accuracy. Naturally, the search accuracy increases as the context size increases, however at the same time reading performance decreases since the task of extracting the answer becomes harder for longer documents.
Output: Which retrieval system was used for baselines?
We have created a dataset of discharge summaries and nursing notes, all in the English language, with a focus on frequently readmitted patients, labeled with 15 clinical patient phenotypes believed to be associated with risk of recurrent Intensive Care Unit (ICU) readmission per our domain experts (co-authors LAC, PAT, DAG) as well as the literature. BIBREF10 BIBREF11 BIBREF12
Output: How many different phenotypes are present in the dataset?
In our experiments, the RNN takes in spectrograms of utterances, passing them through two 2D-convolutional layers, followed by seven bi-directional recurrent layers and a fully-connected layer with softmax activation. All recurrent layers are batch normalized. At each timestep, the softmax activations give a probability distribution over the characters. CTC loss BIBREF8 is then computed from the timestep-wise probabilities.
Output: Which model do they use for end-to-end speech recognition?
We evaluate our model on two public datasets, namely, Penn Treebank (PTB) BIBREF9 and the end-to-end (E2E) text generation corpus BIBREF10, which have been used in a number of previous works for text generation BIBREF0, BIBREF5, BIBREF11, BIBREF12. PTB consists of more than 40,000 sentences from Wall Street Journal articles whereas the E2E dataset contains over 50,000 sentences of restaurant reviews. The statistics of these two datasets are summarised in Table TABREF11.
Output: Which dataset do they use for text modelling?
To help the human representative quickly determine the cause of the escalation, we generate a visualization of the user's turns using the attention weights to highlight the turns influential in the escalation decision.
Output: Do they explain model predictions solely on attention weights?
Accordingly, marcheggiani2017 presented a neural model putting syntax aside for dependency-based SRL and obtain favorable results, which overturns the inherent belief that syntax is indispensable in SRL task BIBREF11 .
Output: Are there syntax-agnostic SRL models before?
As in the Sequicity framework, we report entity match rate, BLEU score and Success F1 score. 
Output: What were the evaluation metrics used?
Deep learning has unquestionably advanced the state of the art in many natural language processing tasks, from syntactic dependency parsing BIBREF0 to named-entity recognition BIBREF1 to machine translation BIBREF2 . The same certainly applies to language modeling, where recent advances in neural language models (NLMs) have led to dramatically better approaches as measured using standard metrics such as perplexity BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 .
Output: What is a commonly used evaluation metric for language models?
According to our observation, if a vernacular paragraph contains more poetic images used in classical literature, its generated poem usually achieves higher score. We also observed that poems generated from descriptive paragraphs achieve higher scores than from logical or philosophical paragraphs.
Output: What are some guidelines in writing input vernacular so model can generate
We start the training process by applying the rule INLINEFORM4 to a set of natural language questions INLINEFORM5 . The resulting dataset is considered as the training data to initialize both the semantic parser and the question generator. Afterwards, both models are improved following the back-translation protocol that target sequences should follow the real data distribution, yet source sequences can be generated with noises.
Output: How is the back-translation model trained?
In addition, we note that our approach can still lead to erroneous facts or even hallucinations. An interesting perspective might be to further constrain the model on the data structure in order to prevent inaccurate of even contradictory descriptions.
Output: What future possible improvements are listed?
The data for this project are two parts, the first part is the historical S&P 500 component stocks, which are downloaded from the Yahoo Finance. We use the data over the period of from 12/07/2017 to 06/01/2018. The second part is the news article from financial domain are collected with the same time period as stock data. Hence, only news article from financial domain are collected. The data is mainly taken from Webhose archived data, which consists of 306242 news articles present in JSON format, dating from December 2017 up to end of June 2018.
Output: What is the dataset used in the paper?
We asked for two distinct paraphrases of each sentence because we believe that a good sentence embedding should put paraphrases close together in vector space.

Several modification types were specifically selected to constitute a thorough test of embeddings. In different meaning, the annotators should create a sentence with some other meaning using the same words as the original sentence. Other transformations which should be difficult for embeddings include minimal change, in which the sentence meaning should be significantly changed by using only very small modification, or nonsense, in which words of the source sentence should be shuffled so that it is grammatically correct, but without any sense.
Output: What annotations are available in the dataset?
Three clear domains can be noticed in the behavior of $\langle cc \rangle $ versus $\wp $, at $t_f$, as shown in Fig. FIGREF15 (blue squares). Phase I: $\langle cc \rangle $ increases smoothly for $\wp < 0.4$, indicating that for this domain there is a small correlation between word neighborhoods. Full vocabularies are attained also for $\wp < 0.4$; Phase II: a drastic transition appears at the critical domain $\wp ^* \in (0.4,0.6)$, in which $\langle cc \rangle $ shifts abruptly towards 1. An abrupt change in $V(t_f)$ versus $\wp $ is also found (Fig. FIGREF16) for $\wp ^*$; Phase III: single-word languages dominate for $\wp > 0.6$. The maximum value of $\langle cc \rangle $ indicate that word neighborhoods are completely correlated.
Output: What are three possible phases for language formation?
We evaluated our detection models on three benchmarks: the FCE test data (41K tokens) and the two alternative annotations of the CoNLL 2014 Shared Task dataset (30K tokens) BIBREF3 . 
Output: Which annotated corpus did they use?
Figure FIGREF10 illustrates the UTCNN model. As more than one user may interact with a given post, we first add a maximum pooling layer after the user matrix embedding layer and user vector embedding layer to form a moderator matrix embedding INLINEFORM0 and a moderator vector embedding INLINEFORM1 for moderator INLINEFORM2 respectively, where INLINEFORM3 is used for the semantic transformation in the document composition process, as mentioned in the previous section. The term moderator here is to denote the pseudo user who provides the overall semantic/sentiment of all the engaged users for one document. The embedding INLINEFORM4 models the moderator stance preference, that is, the pattern of the revealed user stance: whether a user is willing to show his preference, whether a user likes to show impartiality with neutral statements and reasonable arguments, or just wants to show strong support for one stance. Ideally, the latent user stance is modeled by INLINEFORM5 for each user. Likewise, for topic information, a maximum pooling layer is added after the topic matrix embedding layer and topic vector embedding layer to form a joint topic matrix embedding INLINEFORM6 and a joint topic vector embedding INLINEFORM7 for topic INLINEFORM8 respectively, where INLINEFORM9 models the semantic transformation of topic INLINEFORM10 as in users and INLINEFORM11 models the topic stance tendency. The latent topic stance is also modeled by INLINEFORM12 for each topic.

As for comments, we view them as short documents with authors only but without likers nor their own comments. Therefore we apply document composition on comments although here users are commenters (users who comment). It is noticed that the word embeddings INLINEFORM0 for the same word in the posts and comments are the same, but after being transformed to INLINEFORM1 in the document composition process shown in Figure FIGREF4 , they might become different because of their different engaged users. The output comment representation together with the commenter vector embedding INLINEFORM2 and topic vector embedding INLINEFORM3 are concatenated and a maximum pooling layer is added to select the most important feature for comments. Instead of requiring that the comment stance agree with the post, UTCNN simply extracts the most important features of the comment contents; they could be helpful, whether they show obvious agreement or disagreement. Therefore when combining comment information here, the maximum pooling layer is more appropriate than other pooling or merging layers. Indeed, we believe this is one reason for UTCNN's performance gains.

Finally, the pooled comment representation, together with user vector embedding INLINEFORM0 , topic vector embedding INLINEFORM1 , and document representation are fed to a fully connected network, and softmax is applied to yield the final stance label prediction for the post.
Output: How many layers does the UTCNN model have?
In recent years, researchers have proposed various filter based feature selection methods to raise the performance of document text classification BIBREF19.  Furthermore, in order to rank the terms based on their discriminative power among the classes, we use filter based feature selection method named as Normalized Difference Measure (NDM)BIBREF5. Considering the features contour plot, Rehman et al. BIBREF5 suggested that all those features which exist in top left, and bottom right corners of the contour are extremely significant as compared to those features which exist around diagonals. State-of-the-art filter based feature selection algorithms such as ACC2 treat all those features in the same fashion which exist around the diagonals BIBREF5.
Output: Is the filter based feature selection (FSE) a form of regularization?
We defined the intents with guidance from queries collected using a scoping crowdsourcing task, which prompted crowd workers to provide questions and commands related to topic domains in the manner they would interact with an artificially intelligent assistant. We manually grouped data generated by scoping tasks into intents. 
Output: How was the dataset annotated?
We ran UTD over all 104 telephone calls, which pair 11 hours of audio with Spanish transcripts and their crowdsourced English translations. The transcripts contain 168,195 Spanish word tokens (10,674 types), and the translations contain 159,777 English word tokens (6,723 types).
Output: what is the size of the speech corpus?
his reduces significantly the needed training time: SBERT can be tuned in less than 20 minutes, while yielding better results than comparable sentence embedding methods.
Output: How much time takes its training?
Looking into the future, an excellent extension from the works surveyed in this paper would be to give more independence to the several learning methods (e.g. less human intervention) involved in the studies as well as increasing the size of the output images.
Output: What challenges remain unresolved?
Deeply moved readers shed tears or get chills and goosebumps even in lab settings BIBREF4. In cases like these, the emotional response actually implies an aesthetic evaluation: narratives that have the capacity to move readers are evaluated as good and powerful texts for this very reason. Similarly, feelings of suspense experienced in narratives not only respond to the trajectory of the plot's content, but are also directly predictive of aesthetic liking (or disliking). Emotions that exhibit this dual capacity have been defined as “aesthetic emotions” BIBREF2.
Output: What are the aesthetic emotions formalized?
The Bi-LSTM model consists of a Bi-LSTM layer followed by a linear layer to extract input features. The Bi-LSTM layer has a 300-dimensional hidden state for each direction. For the final classification, an additional linear layer is added to output predicted class distributions. The BERT model is obtained by fine-tuning the pre-trained BERT embeddings on NER data with an additional untrained CRF classifier. We fine-tuned all the parameters of BERT including that of the CRF end-to-end.
Output: What classifiers were used in experiments?
Our Pointer-Gen+ARL-SEN model achieves the best performance of 60.8%. This is an absolute improvement of 18.2% over the Pointer-Gen baseline.
Output: What is this method improvement over the best performing state-of-the-art?
Our full dataset consists of all subreddits on Reddit from January 2013 to December 2014, for which there are at least 500 words in the vocabulary used to estimate our measures, in at least 4 months of the subreddit's history. 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: How did the select the 300 Reddit communities for comparison?
Our data collection setup uses a dialogue simulator to generate dialogue outlines first and then paraphrase them to obtain natural utterances.
Output: Where is the dataset from?
Given a news Twitter account, we read its tweets from the account's timeline. Then we sort the tweets by the posting date in ascending way and we split them into $N$ chunks. Each chunk consists of a sorted sequence of tweets labeled by the label of its corresponding account. Consequently, we investigate ways to detect suspicious accounts by considering their tweets in groups (chunks). Our hypothesis is that suspicious accounts have a unique pattern in posting tweet sequences. Since their intention is to mislead, the way they transition from one set of tweets to the next has a hidden signature, biased by their intentions. Therefore, reading these tweets in chunks has the potential to improve the detection of the fake news accounts.
Output: How are chunks defined?
Given a pair of ultrasound and audio segments we can calculate the distance between them using our model. To predict the synchronisation offset for an utterance, we consider a discretised set of candidate offsets, calculate the average distance for each across utterance segments, and select the one with the minimum average distance. 
Output: Does their neural network predict a single offset in a recording?
We used the public tool, word2vec, released by Mikolov-2013 to obtain the word embeddings. Their neural network approach is similar to the feed-forward neural networks BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 . In the Skip-gram model architecture we used, we have chosen 200 as the dimension of the obtained word vectors.
Output: What type and size of word embeddings were used?
Our dataset is constructed via distant supervision from Twitter.
Output: Where did they get the data for this project?
In this section, we evaluate our method and compare its performance against the competitive approaches. We use INLINEFORM0 -fold evaluation protocol with INLINEFORM1 with random dataset split. We measure the performance using standard accuracy metric which we define as a ratio between correctly classified data samples from test dataset and all test samples.
Output: What evaluation metrics are used?
In order to train a neural g2p system, one needs a large quantity of pronunciation data. A standard dataset for g2p is the Carnegie Mellon Pronouncing Dictionary BIBREF12 . However, that is a monolingual English resource, so it is unsuitable for our multilingual task. Instead, we use the multilingual pronunciation corpus collected by deri2016grapheme for all experiments. This corpus consists of spelling–pronunciation pairs extracted from Wiktionary. It is already partitioned into training and test sets. Corpus statistics are presented in Table TABREF10 In addition to the raw IPA transcriptions extracted from Wiktionary, the corpus provides an automatically cleaned version of transcriptions. Cleaning is a necessary step because web-scraped data is often noisy and may be transcribed at an inconsistent level of detail. The data cleaning used here attempts to make the transcriptions consistent with the phonemic inventories used in Phoible BIBREF4 . 
Output: what datasets did they use?
The dataset contains approximately 30M utterances of fictional characters.
Output: How large is the dataset?
We draw on a recently released corpus of state speeches delivered during the annual UN General Debate that provides the first dataset of textual output from states that is recorded at regular time-series intervals and includes a sample of all countries that deliver speeches BIBREF11 . 
Output: Which dataset do they use?
Corpus Embedding
Suppose that INLINEFORM0 is the target low-resource corpus, we are interested in optimizing the acoustic model with a much larger training corpora set INLINEFORM1 where INLINEFORM2 is the number of corpora and INLINEFORM3 . Each corpus INLINEFORM4 is a collection of INLINEFORM5 pairs where INLINEFORM6 is the input features and INLINEFORM7 is its target.

Our purpose here is to compute the embedding INLINEFORM0 for each corpus INLINEFORM1 where INLINEFORM2 is expected to encode information about its corpus INLINEFORM3 . Those embeddings can be jointly trained with the standard multilingual model BIBREF4 . First, the embedding matrix INLINEFORM4 for all corpora is initialized, the INLINEFORM5 -th row of INLINEFORM6 is corresponding to the embedding INLINEFORM7 of the corpus INLINEFORM8 . Next, during the training phase, INLINEFORM9 can be used to bias the input feature INLINEFORM10 as follows. DISPLAYFORM0

where INLINEFORM0 is an utterance sampled randomly from INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 is its hidden features, INLINEFORM3 is the parameter of the acoustic model and Encoder is the stacked bidirectional LSTM as shown in Figure. FIGREF5 . Next, we apply the language specific softmax to compute logits INLINEFORM4 and optimize them with the CTC objective BIBREF29 . The embedding matrix INLINEFORM5 can be optimized together with the model during the training process.
Output: How do they compute corpus-level embeddings?
We also looked at where there was complete agreement by all annotators that a triple extraction was incorrect. In total there were 138 of these triples originating from 76 unique sentences. 
Output: What is the most common error type?
Mathur et al. in their paper for detecting offensive tweets proposed a Ternary Trans-CNN model where they train a model architecture comprising of 3 layers of Convolution 1D having filter sizes of 15, 12 and 10 and kernel size of 3 followed by 2 dense fully connected layer of size 64 and 3. The first dense FC layer has ReLU activation while the last Dense layer had Softmax activation. They were able to train this network on a parallel English dataset provided by Davidson et al. The authors were able to achieve Accuracy of 83.9%, Precision of 80.2%, Recall of 69.8%.

The approach looked promising given that the dataset was merely 3189 sentences divided into three categories and thus we replicated the experiment but failed to replicate the results. The results were poor than what the original authors achieved. But, most of the model hyper-parameter choices where inspired from this work.
Output: What is the previous work's model?
Here I would use Informap algorithm BIBREF12. To make a comparison to this method, I am using CCM and SCA for distance measurement in this experiment, too. UPGMA algorithm would be used accordingly in these two cases.
Output: Is the proposed method compared to previous methods?
WikiTableQuestions contains 22,033 questions and is an order of magnitude larger than previous state-of-the-art datasets. Its questions were not designed by predefined templates but were hand crafted by users, demonstrating high linguistic variance.
Output: How do they gather data for the query explanation problem?
To this goal, we select a diverse set of eight source languages from different language families – Basque, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Navajo, Turkish, and Quechua – and three target languages – English, Spanish and Zulu. 
Output: What are the tree target languages studied in the paper?
In this paper, we propose three different types of CRU models: shallow fusion, deep fusion and deep-enhanced fusion, from the most fundamental one to the most expressive one. The most simple one is to directly apply a CNN layer after the embedding layer to obtain blended contextual representations. Then a GRU layer is applied afterward.
Output: How is CNN injected into recurent units?
45 clinically interpretable features per admission were extracted as inputs to the readmission risk classifier. These features can be grouped into three categories (See Table TABREF5 for complete list of features):

Sociodemographics: gender, age, marital status, etc.

Past medical history: number of previous admissions, history of suicidality, average length of stay (up until that admission), etc.

Information from the current admission: length of stay (LOS), suicidal risk, number and length of notes, time of discharge, evaluation scores, etc.

The Current Admission feature group has the most number of features, with 29 features included in this group alone. These features can be further stratified into two groups: `structured' clinical features and `unstructured' clinical features.

Feature Extraction ::: Structured Features
Structure features are features that were identified on the EHR using regular expression matching and include rating scores that have been reported in the psychiatric literature as correlated with increased readmission risk, such as Global Assessment of Functioning, Insight and Compliance:

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): The psychosocial functioning of the patient ranging from 100 (extremely high functioning) to 1 (severely impaired) BIBREF13.

Insight: The degree to which the patient recognizes and accepts his/her illness (either Good, Fair or Poor).

Compliance: The ability of the patient to comply with medication and to follow medical advice (either Yes, Partial, or None).

These features are widely-used in clinical practice and evaluate the general state and prognosis of the patient during the patient's evaluation.

Feature Extraction ::: Unstructured Features
Unstructured features aim to capture the state of the patient in relation to seven risk factor domains (Appearance, Thought Process, Thought Content, Interpersonal, Substance Use, Occupation, and Mood) from the free-text narratives on the EHR. These seven domains have been identified as associated with readmission risk in prior work BIBREF14.

These unstructured features include: 1) the relative number of sentences in the admission notes that involve each risk factor domain (out of total number of sentences within the admission) and 2) clinical sentiment scores for each of these risk factor domains, i.e. sentiment scores that evaluate the patient’s psychosocial functioning level (positive, negative, or neutral) with respect to each of these risk factor domain.
Output: What features are used?
Our novelties include:

Using self-play learning for the neural response ranker (described in detail below).

Optimizing neural models for specific metrics (e.g. diversity, coherence) in our ensemble setup.

Training a separate dialog model for each user, personalizing our socialbot and making it more consistent.

Using a response classification predictor and a response classifier to predict and control aspects of responses such as sentiment, topic, offensiveness, diversity etc.

Using a model predictor to predict the best responding model, before the response candidates are generated, reducing computational expenses.

Using our entropy-based filtering technique to filter all dialog datasets, obtaining higher quality training data BIBREF3.

Building big, pre-trained, hierarchical BERT and GPT dialog models BIBREF6, BIBREF7, BIBREF8.

Constantly monitoring the user input through our automatic metrics, ensuring that the user stays engaged.
Output: What is novel in author's approach?
The character sets of these 7 languages have little overlap except that (i) they all include common basic Latin alphabet, and (ii) both Hindi and Marathi use Devanagari script. We took the union of 7 character sets therein as the multilingual grapheme set (Section SECREF2), which contained 432 characters.
Output: How much of the ASR grapheme set is shared between languages?
Hashtag prediction for social media has been addressed earlier, for example in BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 . BIBREF15 also use a neural architecture, but compose text embeddings from a lookup table of words.
Output: Is this hashtag prediction task an established task, or something new?
Most lexical resources for sentiment analysis are in English. To still be able to benefit from these sources, the lexicons in the AffectiveTweets package were translated to Spanish, using the machine translation platform Apertium BIBREF5 
Output: How was the training data translated?
JESSI is trained using only the datasets given on the shared task, without using any additional external data.
Output: What datasets were used?
We evaluate the TN topic model quantitatively with standard topic model measures such as test-set perplexity, likelihood convergence and clustering measures. Qualitatively, we evaluate the model by visualizing the topic summaries, authors' topic distributions and by performing an automatic labeling task.
Output: What are the measures of "performance" used in this paper?
this paper proposes to use the most relevant samples from the source dataset to train on the target dataset. One way to find the most similar samples is finding the pair-wise distance between all samples of the development set of the target dataset and source dataset. we propose using a clustering algorithm on the development set. The clustering algorithm used ihere is a hierarchical clustering algorithm. The cosine similarity is used as a criteria to cluster each question and answer. Therefore, these clusters are representative of the development set of the target dataset and the corresponding center for each cluster is representative of all the samples on that cluster. In the next step, the distance of each center is used to calculate the cosine similarity. Finally, the samples in the source dataset which are far from these centers are ignored. In other words, the outliers do not take part in transfer learning.
Output: How do they transfer the model?
We evaluate the proposed approach on the Chinese social media text summarization task, based on the sequence-to-sequence model. Large-Scale Chinese Short Text Summarization Dataset (LCSTS) is constructed by BIBREF1 . The dataset consists of more than 2.4 million text-summary pairs in total, constructed from a famous Chinese social media microblogging service Weibo. 
Output: Are results reported only for English data?
As pointed out in the section “sec:coalitionpolicy”, there is a strong separation in two blocks between supporters and opponents of European integration, which is even more clearly observed in Fig FIGREF42 B. In the area of State and Evolution of the Union we again observe a strong division in two blocks (see Fig FIGREF42 E). This is different to the Economic and monetary system, however, where we observe a far-left and far-right cooperation, where the division is along the traditional left-right axis.

The patterns of coalitions forming on Twitter closely resemble those in the European Parliament.
Output: Does the analysis find that coalitions are formed in the same way for different policy areas?
More generally, we know little about the types of development issues that different countries prioritise, or whether country-specific factors such as wealth or democracy make countries more likely to push for specific development issues to be put on the global political agenda.  We find that discussion of Topic 2 is not significantly impacted by country-specific factors, such as wealth, population, democracy, levels of ODA, and conflict (although there are regional effects). 
Output: What are the country-specific drivers of international development rhetoric?
Ternary and fine-grained sentiment classification were part of the SemEval-2016 “Sentiment Analysis in Twitter” task BIBREF16 . We use the high-quality datasets the challenge organizers released.
Output: What dataset did they use?
Our goal is to supply an NMT system with knowledge regarding the speaker and interlocutor of first-person sentences, in order to produce the desired target-side morphology when the information is not available in the source sentence. The approach we take in the current work is that of black-box injection, in which we attempt to inject knowledge to the input in order to influence the output of a trained NMT system, without having access to its internals or its training procedure as proposed by vanmassenhove-hardmeier-way:2018:EMNLP. To verify this, we experiment with translating the sentences with the following variations: No Prefix—The baseline translation as returned by the GMT system. “He said:”—Signaling a male speaker. We expect to further skew the system towards masculine forms. “She said:”—Signaling a female speaker and unknown audience. As this matches the actual speaker's gender, we expect an improvement in translation of first-person pronouns and verbs with first-person pronouns as subjects. “I said to them:”—Signaling an unknown speaker and plural audience. “He said to them:”—Masculine speaker and plural audience. “She said to them:”—Female speaker and plural audience—the complete, correct condition. We expect the best translation accuracy on this setup. “He/she said to him/her”—Here we set an (incorrect) singular gender-marked audience, to investigate our ability to control the audience morphology.
Output: What are the components of the black-box context injection system?
In this paper we propose two neural embedding models in order to learn continuous concept vectors based on the skip-gram model BIBREF11 . Our first model is the Concept Raw Context model (CRC) which utilizes concept mentions in a large scale KB to jointly learn embeddings of both words and concepts. Our second model is the Concept-Concept Context model (3C) which learns the embeddings of concepts from their conceptual contexts (i.e., contexts containing surrounding concepts only). 
Output: What are the two neural embedding models?
We use two different unsupervised approaches for word sense disambiguation.  The second, called `dense model', represents synsets and contexts in a dense, low-dimensional space by averaging word embeddings. In the synset embeddings model approach, we follow SenseGram BIBREF14 and apply it to the synsets induced from a graph of synonyms.  We observe that the SenseGram-based approach for word sense disambiguation yields substantially better results in every case (Table TABREF25 ). The primary reason for that is the implicit handling of similar words due to the averaging of dense word vectors for semantically related words. 
Output: Do the authors offer any hypothesis about why the dense mode outperformed the sparse one?
In this study, we investigate the efficacy of bias reduction during training by introducing a new loss function which encourages the language model to equalize the probabilities of predicting gendered word pairs like he and she. 
Output: what kinds of male and female words are looked at?
We use the MedWeb (“Medical Natural Language Processing for Web Document”) dataset BIBREF4 that was provided as part of a subtask at the NTCIR-13 Conference BIBREF5. The data is summarised in Table TABREF1. There are a total of 2,560 pseudo-tweets in three different languages: Japanese (ja), English (en) and Chinese (zh).
Output: How big is dataset used for fine-tuning model for detection of red flag medical symptoms in individual statements?
To ensure the universality and general applicability of the curriculum, we perform an in-depth investigation on three publicly available conversation corpora, PersonaChat BIBREF12, DailyDialog BIBREF13 and OpenSubtitles BIBREF7, consisting of 140 248, 66 594 and 358 668 real-life conversation samples, respectively.
Output: What three publicly available coropora are used?
DNN based models coupled with transfer learning beat the best-known results for all three datasets. Previous best F1 scores for Wikipedia BIBREF4 and Twitter BIBREF8 datasets were 0.68 and 0.93 respectively. We achieve F1 scores of 0.94 for both these datasets using BLSTM with attention and feature level transfer learning (Table TABREF25 ). For Formspring dataset, authors have not reported F1 score. Their method has accuracy score of 78.5% BIBREF2 . We achieve F1 score of 0.95 with accuracy score of 98% for the same dataset.
Output: What were their performance results?
We extract user's age by applying regular expression patterns to profile descriptions (such as "17 years old, self-harm, anxiety, depression") BIBREF41 . We compile "age prefixes" and "age suffixes", and use three age-extraction rules: 1. I am X years old 2. Born in X 3. X years old, where X is a "date" or age (e.g., 1994). We selected a subset of 1464 users INLINEFORM0 from INLINEFORM1 who disclose their gender in their profile description.
Output: Where does the information on individual-level demographics come from?
We conduct our experiments on $\sim $ 8.7M annotated anonymised user utterances. They are annotated and derived from requests across 23 domains.
Output: Over which datasets/corpora is this work evaluated?
In our profile verification process, we observed that most gang member profiles portray a context representative of gang culture. Some examples of these profile pictures are shown in Figure FIGREF32 , where the user holds or points weapons, is seen in a group fashion which displays a gangster culture, or is showing off graffiti, hand signs, tattoos and bulk cash.
Output: What are the differences in the use of images between gang member and the rest of the Twitter population?
Gazetteers: 6)Contributor first names; 7)Contributor last names; 8)Contributor types ("soprano", "violinist", etc.); 9)Classical work types ("symphony", "overture", etc.); 10)Musical instruments; 11)Opus forms ("op", "opus"); 12)Work number forms ("no", "number"); 13)Work keys ("C", "D", "E", "F" , "G" , "A", "B", "flat", "sharp"); 14)Work Modes ("major", "minor", "m").
Output: What task-specific features are used?
We use the following subset of GLUE tasks BIBREF4 for fine-tuning:

MRPC: the Microsoft Research Paraphrase Corpus BIBREF13

STS-B: the Semantic Textual Similarity Benchmark BIBREF14

SST-2: the Stanford Sentiment Treebank, two-way classification BIBREF15

QQP: the Quora Question Pairs dataset

RTE: the Recognizing Textual Entailment datasets

QNLI: Question-answering NLI based on the Stanford Question Answering Dataset BIBREF3

MNLI: the Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference Corpus, matched section BIBREF16
Output: What subset of GLUE tasks is used?
GE-FL reduces the heavy load of instance annotation and performs well when we provide prior knowledge with no bias. In our experiments, we observe that comparable numbers of labeled features for each class have to be supplied. We randomly select $t \in [1, 20]$ features from the feature pool for one class, and only one feature for the other. Our methods are also evaluated on datasets with different unbalanced class distributions. We manually construct several movie datasets with class distributions of 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 by randomly removing 50%, 67%, 75% positive documents. Incorporating KL divergence is robust enough to control unbalance both in the dataset and in labeled features while the other three methods are not so competitive.
Output: How do they define robustness of a model?
In the proposed model, in addition to the co-occurrence edges, we link two nodes (words) if the corresponding word embedding representation is similar.
Output: Do the use word embeddings alone or they replace some previous features of the model with word embeddings?
We sampled all papers published in the Computer Science subcategories of Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI), Machine Learning (cs.LG), Social and Information Networks (cs.SI), Computational Linguistics (cs.CL), Computers and Society (cs.CY), Information Retrieval (cs.IR), and Computer Vision (CS.CV), the Statistics subcategory of Machine Learning (stat.ML), and Social Physics (physics.soc-ph). We filtered for papers in which the title or abstract included at least one of the words “machine learning”, “classif*”, or “supervi*” (case insensitive). We then filtered to papers in which the title or abstract included at least “twitter” or “tweet” (case insensitive), which resulted in 494 papers. We used the same query on Elsevier's Scopus database of peer-reviewed articles, selecting 30 randomly sampled articles, which mostly selected from conference proceedings. One paper from the Scopus sample was corrupted, so only 29 papers were examined.
Output: How were the machine learning papers from ArXiv sampled?
We use the following cheap ways to generate pseudo-source texts:

copy: in this setting, the source side is a mere copy of the target-side data. copy-marked: another way to integrate copies without having to deal with OOVs is to augment the source vocabulary with a copy of the target vocabulary.  copy-dummies: instead of using actual copies, we replace each word with “dummy” tokens. 
Output: what data simulation techniques were introduced?
Multiple turns: The average number of utterances per dialog is about 23 which ensures context-rich language behaviors.
Output: What is the average number of turns per dialog?
There are two aspects that we defer to future work. First, the systems designed here assumed that the input are valid claim sentences. To make use of such systems, one needs to develop mechanisms to recognize valid argumentative structures. In addition, we ignore trustworthiness and credibility issues, important research issues that are addressed in other works.
Output: What challenges are highlighted?
For the MT task, we use the WMT 2014 En $\leftrightarrow $ Fr parallel corpus. The dataset contains 36 million En $\rightarrow $ Fr sentence pairs. We swapped the source and target sentences to obtain parallel data for the Fr $\rightarrow $ En translation task. We use these two datasets (72 million sentence pairs) to train a single multilingual NMT model to learn both these translation directions simultaneously. 
Output: What data were they used to train the multilingual encoder?
BIBREF6 introduce the KG-A2C, which uses a knowledge graph based state-representation to aid in the section of actions in a combinatorially-sized action-space—specifically they use the knowledge graph to constrain the kinds of entities that can be filled in the blanks in the template action-space. They test their approach on Zork1, showing the combination of the knowledge graph and template action selection resulted in improvements over existing methods. They note that their approach reaches a score of 40 which corresponds to a bottleneck in Zork1 where the player is eaten by a “grue” (resulting in negative reward) if the player has not first lit a lamp.
Output: What are the baselines?
This work analyzes the understanding of pretrained language models of factual and commonsense knowledge stored in negated statements. To this end, we introduce the negated LAMA dataset. We construct it by simply inserting negation elements (e.g., “not”) in LAMA cloze statement (e.g., “The theory of relativity was not developed by [MASK].”).
Output: How did they extend LAMA evaluation framework to focus on negation?
Therefore, in our analysis, we focus on the chain features related to the phenomena of shining through and explicitation.
Output: Which coreference phenomena are analyzed?
Language Model (LM): We train a two layer recurrent neural language model with GRU cells of hidden size 512.

 Sequence-to-Sequence Attention Model (S2S): We train a two layer neural sequence to sequence model equipped with bi-linear attention function with GRU cells of hidden size 512.  Linear Dynamical System (LDS): We also train a linear dynamical system as discussed in Section SECREF1 as one of our baselines for fair comparisons. Semi-Supervised SLDS (SLDS-X%): To gauge the usability of semi-supervision, we also train semi-supervised SLDS models with varying amount of labelled sentiment tags unlike the original model which uses 100% tagged data. 
Output: What baselines are used?
To deal with this problem, BIBREF1 introduced a semantically conditioned generation model using Hierarchical Disentangled Self-Attention (HDSA) .
Output: what semantically conditioned models did they compare with?