niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Recently, continuous space representations of words and phrases have been incorporated into SMT systems via neural networks. Specifically, addition of monolingual neural network language models BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , neural network joint models (NNJM) BIBREF4 , and neural network global lexicon models (NNGLM) BIBREF3 have been shown to be useful for SMT Grammatical error correction (GEC) is a challenging task due to the variability of the type of errors and the syntactic and semantic dependencies of the errors on the surrounding context. Most of the grammatical error correction systems use classification and rule-based approaches for correcting specific error types. However, these systems use several linguistic cues as features. The standard linguistic analysis tools like part-of-speech (POS) taggers and parsers are often trained on well-formed text and perform poorly on ungrammatical text. This introduces further errors and limits the performance of rule-based and classification approaches to GEC. As a consequence, the phrase-based statistical machine translation (SMT) approach to GEC has gained popularity because of its ability to learn text transformations from erroneous text to correct text from error-corrected parallel corpora without any additional linguistic information.  We conduct experiments by incorporating NNGLM and NNJM both independently and jointly into our baseline system On top of our baseline system described above, we incorporate the two neural network components, neural network global lexicon model (NNGLM) and neural network joint model (NNJM) as features. Both NNGLM and NNJM are trained using the parallel data used to train the translation model of our baseline system.
Output: How do they combine the two proposed neural network models?
We find that communities that are characterized by specialized, constantly-updating content have higher user retention rates, but also exhibit larger linguistic gaps that separate newcomers from established members. More closely examining factors that could contribute to this linguistic gap, we find that especially within distinctive communities, established users have an increased propensity to engage with the community's specialized content, compared to newcomers (Section SECREF5 ). 
Output: What patterns do they observe about how user engagement varies with the characteristics of a community?
We train three systems (S1, S2 and S3) with the corpora summarised in Table TABREF5. The first two systems are transformer models trained on different amounts of data (6M vs. 18M parallel sentences as seen in the Table). The third system includes a modification to consider the information of full coreference chains throughout a document augmenting the sentence to be translated with this information and it is trained with the same amount of sentence pairs as S1.
Output: Which three neural machine translation systems are analyzed?
Some authors use pretrained embeddings (especially when their data set is too small to train their own embeddings) or try to modify these embeddings and adjust to their set. But the biggest drawback of these approaches is that the corpus for training embeddings can be not related to the specific task where embeddings are utilized. A lot of medical concepts are not contained in well-known embeddings bases. Furthermore, the similarity of words may vary in different contexts. Then, we compute embeddings of concepts (by GloVe) for interview descriptions and for examination descriptions separately.
Output: Do they fine-tune the used word embeddings on their medical texts?
Our definition of bias is now: [Interpretive Bias] An interpretive bias in an epistemic ME game is the probability distribution over types given by the belief function of the conversationalists or players, or the Jury. Note that in an ME game there are typically several interpretive biases at work: each player has her own bias, as does the Jury.
Output: Which interpretative biases are analyzed in this paper?
The DDI corpus contains thousands of XML files, each of which are constructed by several records. For a sentence containing INLINEFORM0 drugs, there are INLINEFORM1 drug pairs.
Output: How big is the evaluated dataset?
As we only extracted references to other judicial decisions, we obtained 471,319 references from Supreme Court decisions, 167,237 references from Supreme Administrative Court decisions and 264,463 references from Constitutional Court Decisions. These are numbers of text spans identified as references prior the further processing described in Section SECREF3.
Output: How big is the dataset?
Results are shown in Table TABREF11 . Results show that incorporating self-attention mechanism in the encoder is beneficial for most tasks. However, original models were better in some tasks (CR, MPQA, MRPC), suggesting that self-attention mechanism could sometimes introduce noise in sentence features. Overall, utilizing self-attentive sentence representation further improves performances in 5 out of 8 tasks.
Output: How much better performing is the proposed method over the baselines?
Three incremental levels of document preprocessing are experimented with: raw text, text cleaning through document logical structure detection, and removal of keyphrase sparse sections of the document. In doing so, we present the first consistent comparison of different keyphrase extraction models and study their robustness over noisy text.
Output: what levels of document preprocessing are looked at?
This metric is used to evaluate the accuracy of dialogue belief tracker BIBREF1.

APRA: Action Per-Response Accuracy (APRA) evaluates the per-turn accuracy of the dialogue actions generated by dialogue policy maker. For baselines, APRA evaluates the classification accuracy of the dialogue policy maker. But our model actually generates each individual token of actions, and we consider a prediction to be correct only if every token of the model output matches the corresponding token in the ground truth.

BLEU BIBREF19: The metric evaluates the quality of the final response generated by natural language generator. The metric is usually used to measure the performance of the task-oriented dialogue system.
Output: What metrics are used to measure performance of models?
We first describe our models individually and then the ensembling technique that we employ. In the following, MN denotes Memory Networks to encode conversational history, RCNN signify R-CNN for object level representations of an image, Wt represents additional linear layer in the decoder, and LF a late fusion mechanism as defined in BIBREF0.

Models ::: LF-RCNN
Late fusion encoder BIBREF0 with concatenated history. We use two-layered LSTMs with 512 hidden units for embedding questions and history. The object-level features are weighed using only question embeddings. The word embeddings from Glove vectors are frozen and are not fine-tuned. Figure FIGREF6 gives an overview of the architecture.

Models ::: MN-RCNN
Memory network encoder BIBREF0 with bi-directional GRUs and word embeddings fine-tuned. Object-level features are weighed by question and caption embedding. The rest of the scheme is same as above. (Figure FIGREF6)

Models ::: MN-RCNN-Wt
Same as above but with an additional linear layer applied to the dot product of candidate answer and encoder output, and gated using tanh function. Compare Figure FIGREF6 with Figure FIGREF6
Output: Which three discriminative models did they use?
With this challenge in mind, we introduce Torch-Struct with three specific contributions:

Modularity: models are represented as distributions with a standard flexible API integrated into a deep learning framework.

Completeness: a broad array of classical algorithms are implemented and new models can easily be added in Python.

Efficiency: implementations target computational/memory efficiency for GPUs and the backend includes extensions for optimization.
Output: Is this library implemented into Torch or is framework agnostic?
We carried out two human evaluations using Mechanical Turk to compare the performance of our model and the baseline.
Output: Is there any human evaluation involved in evaluating this famework?
The study of the mathematical structure of grammar has indicated that the fundamental things making up sentences are not the words, but some atomic grammatical types, such as the noun-type and the sentence-type BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 . The transitive verb-type is not an atomic grammatical type, but a composite made up of two noun-types and one sentence-type. Hence, particularly interesting here is that atomic doesn't really mean smallest...

On the other hand, just like in particle physics where we have particles and anti-particles, the atomic types include types as well as anti-types. But unlike in particle physics, there are two kinds of anti-types, namely left ones and right ones. This makes language even more non-commutative than quantum theory!
Output: Do they break down word meanings into elementary particles as in the standard model of quantum theory?
Second, we compute three metrics on the extracted information:

$\bullet $ Relation Generation (RG) estimates how well the system is able to generate text containing factual (i.e., correct) records. We measure the precision and absolute number (denoted respectively RG-P% and RG-#) of unique relations $r$ extracted from $\hat{y}_{1:T}$ that also appear in $s$.

$\bullet $ Content Selection (CS) measures how well the generated document matches the gold document in terms of mentioned records. We measure the precision and recall (denoted respectively CS-P% and CS-R%) of unique relations $r$ extracted from $\hat{y}_{1:T}$ that are also extracted from $y_{1:T}$.

$\bullet $ Content Ordering (CO) analyzes how well the system orders the records discussed in the description. We measure the normalized Damerau-Levenshtein distance BIBREF36 between the sequences of records extracted from $\hat{y}_{1:T}$ that are also extracted from $y_{1:T}$.
Output: Which qualitative metric are used for evaluation?
As a first baseline we use Bag-of-Words, a well-known and robust text representations used in various domains BIBREF21 , combined with a standard shallow classifier, namely, a Support Vector Machine with linear kernel. We used LIBSVM implementation of SVM.
Output: Which shallow approaches did they experiment with?
Although we create new models for tasks such as sentiment analysis and gender detection as part of AraNet, our focus is more on putting together the toolkit itself and providing strong baselines that can be compared to. Hence, although we provide some baseline models for some of the tasks, we do not explicitly compare to previous research since most existing works either exploit smaller data (and so it will not be a fair comparison), use methods pre-dating BERT (and so will likely be outperformed by our models) . For many of the tasks we model, there have not been standard benchmarks for comparisons across models. This makes it difficult to measure progress and identify areas worthy of allocating efforts and budgets.
Output: What models did they compare to?
We leveraged an existing, annotated Twitter dataset that was constructed based on a hierarchical model of depression-related symptoms BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 . The dataset contains 9,473 annotations for 9,300 tweets.
Output: What dataset is used for this study?
The training dataset contains 2,815 examples, where 1,940 (i.e., 69%) are fake news and 1,968 (i.e., 70%) are click-baits; we further have 761 testing examples.
Output: what datasets were used?
We conduct experiments on our self-collected CAIS to evaluate the generalizability in different language. We apply two baseline models for comparison, one is the popular BiLSTMs + CRF architecture BIBREF36 for sequence labeling task, and the other one is the more powerful sententce-state LSTM BIBREF21. The results listed in Table TABREF50 demonstrate the generalizability and effectiveness of our CM-Net when handling various domains and different languages.
Output: What were the baselines models?
We further explore the effect of INLINEFORM0 -gram length in our model (i.e., the filter size for the covolutional layers used by the attention parsing module). In Figure FIGREF39 we plot the AUC scores for link prediction on the Cora dataset against varying INLINEFORM1 -gram length. 
Output: Do they measure how well they perform on longer sequences specifically?
Finally, we performed hyperparameter tuning by adjusting the number of coattention blocks, the batch size, and the number of epochs trained and ensembled our three best networks.
Output: What hyperparameters have been tuned?
We compared our models with the following state-of-the-art baselines:

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

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

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

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

HLSTM+Contextual Attention(CA): Contextual attention is applied to represent commonsense knowledge.
Output: Did they compare to Transformer based large language models?
We compared our models with the following state-of-the-art baselines:

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

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

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

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

HLSTM+Contextual Attention(CA): Contextual attention is applied to represent commonsense knowledge.
Output: Which baselines are they using?
We employ the standard ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L metrics BIBREF29 to evaluate all summarization models. Following BIBREF22, BIBREF23, we use F-measure ROUGE on XSUM and CNN/DailyMail, and use limited-length recall-measure ROUGE on NYT and DUC.
Output: What metric was used in the evaluation step?
We suspect the absence of decoding in maximum likelihood estimation as a cause behind this inconsistency, and suggest investigating sequence-level learning as an alternative in the future. Inconsistency may arise from the lack of decoding in solving this optimization problem. Maximum likelihood learning fits the model $p_{\theta }$ using the data distribution, whereas a decoded sequence from the trained model follows the distribution $q_{\mathcal {F}}$ induced by a decoding algorithm. Based on this discrepancy, we make a strong conjecture: we cannot be guaranteed to obtain a good consistent sequence generator using maximum likelihood learning and greedy decoding.
Output: Is infinite-length sequence generation a result of training with maximum likelihood?
Our approach consists of structuring input to the transformer network to use and guide the self-attention of the transformers, conditioning it on the entity. Our main mode of encoding the input, the entity-first method, is shown in Figure FIGREF4.  We also have an entity-last variant where the entity is primarily observed just before the classification token to condition the [CLS] token's self-attention accordingly.  As an additional variation, we can either run the transformer once per document with multiple [CLS] tokens (a document-level model as shown in Figure FIGREF4) or specialize the prediction to a single timestep (a sentence-level model).
Output: In what way is the input restructured?
With regards to complexity and intangibility of ethics and morals, we restrict ourselves to a rather basic implementation of this construct, following the theories of deontological ethics. These ask which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted instead of asking which kind of a person we should be or which consequences of our actions are to be preferred. Thus, norms are understood as universal rules of what to do and what not to do. Therefore, we focus on the valuation of social acceptance in single verbs and single verbs with surrounding context information —e.g. trust my friend or trust a machine— to figure out which of them represent a Do and which tend to be a Don't. 
Output: How do the authors define deontological ethical reasoning?
Fenerbahçe We have decided to consider tweets about popular sports clubs as our domain for stance detection.  Hence we have determined our targets as Galatasaray (namely Target-1) and Fenerbahçe (namely, Target-2) which are two of the most popular football clubs in Turkey.  Then, we have annotated the stance information in the tweets for these targets as Favor or Against. For the purposes of the current study, we have not annotated any tweets with the Neither class.
Output: How were the tweets annotated?
After averaging over all concepts, we lose information on the lexical variation that each concept presents but on the other hand one can now investigate which regions show similar geolectal variation, yielding well defined linguistic varieties. Those cells that have similar colors in either figure FIGREF16 or figure FIGREF17 are expected to be ascribed to the same dialect zone. Thus, we can distinguish two main regions or clusters in the maps. The purple background covers most of the map and represents rural regions with small, scattered population. Our analysis shows that this group of cells possesses more specific words in their lexicon. In contrast, the green and yellow cells form a second cluster that is largely concentrated on the center and along the coastline, which correspond to big cities and industrialized areas. In these cells, the use of standard Spanish language is widespread due probably to school education, media, travelers, etc. The character of its vocabulary is more uniform as compared with the purple group. While the purple cluster prefer particular utterances, the lexicon of the urban group includes most of the keywords.
Output: What are the characteristics of the city dialect?
When we include the LM embeddings in our system overall performance increases from 90.87% to 91.93% INLINEFORM0 for the CoNLL 2003 NER task, a more then 1% absolute F1 increase, and a substantial improvement over the previous state of the art. We also establish a new state of the art result (96.37% INLINEFORM1 ) for the CoNLL 2000 Chunking task.
Output: what results do they achieve?
The aim of this section is to validate the applicability of our theoretical results—which state that self-attention can perform convolution—and to examine whether self-attention layers in practice do actually learn to operate like convolutional layers, when being trained on standard image classification tasks. In particular, we study the relationship between self-attention and convolution with quadratic and learned relative positional encodings. We find that for both cases, the attention probabilities learned tend to respect the conditions of Lemma UNKREF15, corroborating our hypothesis. Nevertheless, to validate that our model learns a meaningful classifier we compare it to the standard ResNet18 BIBREF14 on the CIFAR-10 dataset BIBREF15.
Output: What numerical experiments they perform?
In the VQABQ model, there are two main modules, the basic question generation module (Module 1) and co-attention visual question answering module (Module 2). 
Output: What two main modules their approach consists of?
Compared to the in-context-parsing-based system, the combination with exact string matching yields a gain in recall of over 6%, and the combination with inflectional string matching yields an even bigger gain of almost 8%, at precision losses of 0.6% and 0.8%, respectively.
Output: What compleentary PIE extraction methods are used to increase reliability further?
We use 300 Dimensional Glove Common Crawl Embeddings (840B Token) BIBREF11 and fine tune them for the task
Output: What embedding algorithm and dimension size are used?
Our model consists of two neural network modules, i.e. an extractor and abstractor. The extractor encodes a source document and chooses sentences from the document, and then the abstractor paraphrases the summary candidates.  The extractor is based on the encoder-decoder framework. We adapt BERT for the encoder to exploit contextualized representations from pre-trained transformers. We use LSTM Pointer Network BIBREF22 as the decoder to select the extracted sentences based on the above sentence representations.  Our abstractor is practically identical to the one proposed in BIBREF8.
Output: What's the method used here?
We evaluate the quality of the document embeddings learned by MPAD on 10 document classification datasets, covering the topic identification, coarse and fine sentiment analysis and opinion mining, and subjectivity detection tasks. We briefly introduce the datasets next. Their statistics are reported in Table TABREF21.

(1) Reuters. This dataset contains stories collected from the Reuters news agency in 1987. Following common practice, we used the ModApte split and considered only the 10 classes with the highest number of positive training examples. We also removed documents belonging to more than one class and then classes left with no document (2 classes).

(2) BBCSport BIBREF30 contains documents from the BBC Sport website corresponding to 2004-2005 sports news articles.

(3) Polarity BIBREF31 features positive and negative labeled snippets from Rotten Tomatoes.

(4) Subjectivity BIBREF32 contains movie review snippets from Rotten Tomatoes (subjective sentences), and Internet Movie Database plot summaries (objective sentences).

(5) MPQA BIBREF33 is made of positive and negative phrases, annotated as part of the summer 2002 NRRC Workshop on Multi-Perspective Question Answering.

(6) IMDB BIBREF34 is a collection of highly polarized movie reviews from IMDB (positive and negative). There are at most 30 reviews for each movie.

(7) TREC BIBREF35 consists of questions that are classified into 6 different categories.

(8) SST-1 BIBREF36 contains the same snippets as Polarity. The authors used the Stanford Parser to parse the snippets and split them into multiple sentences. They then used Amazon Mechanical Turk to annotate the resulting phrases according to their polarity (very negative, negative, neutral, positive, very positive).

(9) SST-2 BIBREF36 is the same as SST-1 but with neutral reviews removed and snippets classified as positive or negative.

(10) Yelp2013 BIBREF26 features reviews obtained from the 2013 Yelp Dataset Challenge.
Output: Which datasets are used?
Among commercial NLP toolkits (e.g., BIBREF14, BIBREF15, BIBREF16), we selected BIBREF17 and BIBREF18 for our experiments, which, to the best of our knowledge, are the only publicly accessible commercial APIs for the task of entity-level sentiment analysis that is agnostic to the text domain. We also report results of TensiStrength BIBREF13, TwitterNLP BIBREF6, BIBREF19, CogComp-NLP BIBREF20, and Stanford NLP NER BIBREF21.
Output: Which toolkits do they use?
In Table TABREF15 we measure BLEU BIBREF19, NIST BIBREF20, METEOR BIBREF21, ROUGE-L BIBREF22 and CIDEr BIBREF23 metrics on the 2018 E2E NLG Challenge test data using the evaluation script provided by the organizers.  We use the gold standard selection during training and validation of the text generation model, as well as the automatic evaluation. As we deploy our text generation model for manual evaluation, we use a Conditional Random Field (CRF) model to predict which events to mention. The second human evaluation aimed at judging the acceptability of the output for production use in a news agency.  In the minimum edit evaluation, carried out by the annotator who created the news corpus, only factual mistakes and grammatical errors are corrected, resulting in text which may remain awkward or unfluent. The word error rate (WER) of the generated text compared to its corrected variant as a reference is 5.6% (6.2% disregarding punctuation).  The factual errors and their types are summarized in Table TABREF23. From the total of 510 game events generated by the system, 78 of these contained a factual error, i.e. 84.7% were generated without factual errors. Most fluency issues relate to the overall flow and structure of the report. Addressing these issues would require the model to take into account multiple events in a game, and combine the information more flexibly to avoid repetition.  The second human evaluation aimed at judging the acceptability of the output for production use in a news agency. The output is evaluated in terms of its usability for a news channel labelled as being machine-generated, i.e. not aiming at the level of a human journalist equipped with substantial background information. The evaluation was carried out by two journalists from the STT agency, who split the 59 games among themselves approximately evenly.
Output: What evaluation criteria and metrics were used to evaluate the generated text?
For sentiment classification, we systematically study the effect of character-level adversarial attacks on two architectures and four different input formats.  We also consider the task of paraphrase detection.
Output: What end tasks do they evaluate on?
As shown in Table TABREF48, our two models show competitive results compared to the state-of-the-art on the Visual Dialog challenge 2018 (DL-61 was the winner of the Visual Dialog challenge 2018). 
Output: What model was winner of the Visual Dialog challenge 2018?
Even if LangID-High does not present a more accurate result, it does present a more compact one: LangID-High is 15.4 MB, while the combined wFST high resource models are 197.5 MB.
Output: how is model compactness measured?
The policies trained with the NUS achieved an average success rate (SR) of 94.0% and of 96.6% when tested on the ABUS and the NUS, respectively.
Output: by how much did nus outperform abus?
Outlier Detection. The Outlier Detection task BIBREF0 is to determine which word in a list INLINEFORM0 of INLINEFORM1 words is unrelated to the other INLINEFORM2 which were chosen to be related. For each INLINEFORM3 , one can compute its compactness score INLINEFORM4 , which is the compactness of INLINEFORM5 . Sentiment analysis. We also consider sentiment analysis as described by BIBREF31 .
Output: Do they test their word embeddings on downstream tasks?
Datasets
For training English-Hindi NMT systems, we use the IITB English-Hindi parallel corpus BIBREF22 ( INLINEFORM0 sentences from the training set) and the ILCI English-Hindi parallel corpus ( INLINEFORM1 sentences). The ILCI (Indian Language Corpora Initiative) multilingual parallel corpus BIBREF23 spans multiple Indian languages from the health and tourism domains. We use the 520-sentence dev-set of the IITB parallel corpus for validation. For each child task, we use INLINEFORM2 sentences from ILCI corpus as the test set.
Output: Which dataset(s) do they experiment with?
We measure how contextual a word representation is using three different metrics: self-similarity, intra-sentence similarity, and maximum explainable variance.
Output: What experiments are proposed to test that upper layers produce context-specific embeddings?
Besides the Baseline and Oracle, where only ASR 1-best hypothesis is considered, we also perform experiments to utilize ASR $n$-best hypotheses during evaluation.
Output: What are the series of simple models?
For generating a poem from images we use an existing actor-critic architecture BIBREF1. For Shakespearizing modern English texts, we experimented with various types of sequence to sequence models. We use a sequence-to-sequence model which consists of a single layer unidrectional LSTM encoder and a single layer LSTM decoder and pre-trained retrofitted word embeddings shared between source and target sentences. Since a pair of corresponding Shakespeare and modern English sentences have significant vocabulary overlap we extend the sequence-to-sequence model mentioned above using pointer networks BIBREF11 that provide location based attention and have been used to enable copying of tokens directly from the input.
Output: What models are used for painting embedding and what for language style transfer?
Adaptation to food domain captioning Consequently, the food dataset has 3,806 images for training and 1,775 for validation. The non-food dataset has 78,976 images for training and 38,749 for validation.
Output: How many examples are there in the target domain?
It thus seems feasible that by using a similar model, we can produce text samples that are conditioned upon a set of user-specified keywords. To illustrate by example, say a user desires the generated output to contain the keywords, $\lbrace subway, manhattan\rbrace $ . 
Output: What are the user-defined keywords?
As before, the training and test sets contain some 30,000 and 5,000 sentence pairs, respectively
Output: How many samples did they generate for the artificial language?
While $\beta $-VAE offers regularizing the ELBO via an additional coefficient $\beta \in {\rm I\!R}^+$, a simple extension BIBREF16 of its objective function incorporates an additional hyperparameter $C$ to explicitly control the magnitude of the KL term,

where $C\!\! \in \!\! {\rm I\!R}^+$ and $| . |$ denotes the absolute value.
Output: How does explicit constraint on the KL divergence term that authors propose looks like?
Our annotation scheme introduces opportunities for the educational community to conduct further research on the relationship between features of student talk, student learning, and discussion quality. Once automated classifiers are developed, such relations between talk and learning can be examined at scale. Also, automatic labeling via a standard coding scheme can support the generalization of findings across studies, and potentially lead to automated tools for teachers and students.  The development of an annotation scheme explicitly designed for this problem is the first step towards collecting and annotating corpora that can be used by the NLP community to advance the field in this particular area.
Output: what opportunities are highlighted?
Word embeddings have risen in popularity for NLP applications due to the success of models designed specifically for the big data setting.  Note that “big” datasets are not always available, particularly in computational social science NLP applications, where the data of interest are often not obtained from large scale sources such as the internet and social media, but from sources such as press releases BIBREF11 , academic journals BIBREF10 , books BIBREF12 , and transcripts of recorded speech BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 , BIBREF15  have proposed a model-based method for training interpretable corpus-specific word embeddings for computational social science, using mixed membership representations, Metropolis-Hastings-Walker sampling, and NCE. Experimental results for prediction, supervised learning, and case studies on state of the Union addresses and NIPS articles, indicate that high-quality embeddings and topics can be obtained using the method. The results highlight the fact that big data is not always best, as domain-specific data can be very valuable, even when it is small.
Output: Why is big data not appropriate for this task?
We cluster the embeddings with INLINEFORM0 -Means. 
Output: How were the cluster extracted?
On Twitter we can see results that are consistent with the RCV results for the left-to-center political spectrum. The exception, which clearly stands out, is the right-wing groups ENL and EFDD that seem to be the most cohesive ones. This is the direct opposite of what was observed in the RCV data. We speculate that this phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that European right-wing groups, on a European but also on a national level, rely to a large degree on social media to spread their narratives critical of European integration.
Output: Do the authors mention any possible confounds in their study?
Inspired by the psycholinguistic studies BIBREF5 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF7 proposed a semi-character based RNN (ScRNN) that processes a sentence of words with misspelled characters, predicting the correct words at each step. Let $s = \lbrace w_1, w_2, \dots , w_n\rbrace $ denote the input sentence, a sequence of constituent words $w_i$ . Each input word ( $w_i$ ) is represented by concatenating (i) a one hot vector of the first character ( $\mathbf {w_{i1}}$ ); (ii) a one hot representation of the last character ( $\mathbf {w_{il}}$ , where $l$ is the length of word $w_i$ ); and (iii) a bag of characters representation of the internal characters ( $\sum _{j=2}^{l-1}\mathbf {w_{ij}})$ . ScRNN treats the first and the last characters individually, and is agnostic to the ordering of the internal characters. Each word, represented accordingly, is then fed into a BiLSTM cell. At each sequence step, the training target is the correct corresponding word (output dimension equal to vocabulary size), and the model is optimized with cross-entropy loss.
Output: What is a semicharacter architecture?
We validate our approach on the Gigaword corpus, which comprises of a training set of 3.8M article headlines (considered to be the full text) and titles (summaries), along with 200K validation pairs, and we report test performance on the same 2K set used in BIBREF7. 
Output: What dataset they use for evaluation?
In this section, we describe the data augmentation methods we use to increase the amount of training data in order to make our NMT systems suffer less from the low-resourced situation in Japanese INLINEFORM0 Vietnamese translation. Back Translation
One of the approaches to leverage the monolingual data is to use a machine translation system to translate those data in order to create a synthetic parallel data. Normally, the monolingual data in the target language is translated, thus the name of the method: Back Translation BIBREF11 . Mix-Source Approach
Another data augmentation method considered useful in this low-resourced setting is the mix-source method BIBREF12 .
Output: what methods were used to reduce data sparsity effects?
To validate the effectiveness of AEM for extracting events from social media (e.g. Twitter) and news media sites (e.g. Google news), three datasets (FSD BIBREF12 , Twitter, and Google datasets) are employed.
Output: What datasets are used?
Logistic regression: To produce the representation of the input, we concatenate the Bag-Of-Words representation of the document with the Bag-Of-Words representation of the question. LSTM: We start with a concatenation of the sequence of indexes of the document with the sequence of indexes of the question. Them we feed an LSTM network with this vector and use the final state as the representation of the input. Finally, we apply a logistic regression over this representation to produce the final decision. End-to-end memory networks: This architecture is based on two different memory cells (input and output) that contain a representation of the document. Deep projective reader: This is a model of our own design, largely inspired by the efficient R-net reader BIBREF12 .
Output: What baselines are presented?
We performed experiments on synthetically generated dataset since it gives us a better control over the distribution of the data. Specifically we compared the gains obtained using our approach versus the variance of the distribution. We created dataset from the following generative process. [H] Generative Process [1] Generate data

Pick k points INLINEFORM0 as domain -1 means and a corresponding set of k points INLINEFORM1 as domain-2 means, and covariance matrices INLINEFORM2

iter INLINEFORM0 upto num INLINEFORM1 samples Sample class INLINEFORM2 Sample INLINEFORM3 Sample INLINEFORM4 Add q and a so sampled to the list of q,a pairs We generated the dataset from the above sampling process with means selected on a 2 dimensional grid of size INLINEFORM5 with variance set as INLINEFORM6 in each dimension.10000 sample points were generated. The parameter INLINEFORM7 of the above algorithm was set to 0.5 and k was set to 9 (since the points could be generated from one of the 9 gaussians with centroids on a INLINEFORM8 grid).
Output: How do they generate the synthetic dataset?
n this section, we first describe the phenomenon of mention of political parties names in the profile attributes of users. This is followed by the analysis of profiles that make specific mentions of political handles in their profile attributes. Both of these constitute an organic way of showing support to a party and does not involve any direct campaigning by the parties We opine that the whole campaign of adding Chowkidar to the profile attributes show an inorganic behavior, with political leaders acting as the catalyst. We believe, the effect of changing the profile attribute in accordance with Prime Minister's campaign is an example of inorganic behavior contagion BIBREF6, BIBREF9.   However, we argue that the addition of election campaign related keywords to the profile is a form of inorganic behavior. 
Output: What are the organic and inorganic ways to show political affiliation through profile changes?
Given a proof state $= (_, _)$ , where $_$ and $_$ denote a substitution set and a proof score, respectively, unification is computed as follows: The resulting proof score of $g$ is given by:

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

where $f \triangleq [f_{p}, f_{s}, f_{o}]$ is a fact in $\mathcal {K}$ denoting a relationship of type $f_{p}$ between $f_{s}$ and $f_{o}$ , $_{s:}$ is the embedding representation of a symbol $s$ , $$ denotes the initial proof score, and $\operatorname{k}({}\cdot {}, {}\cdot {})$ denotes the RBF kernel.
Output: How are proof scores calculated?
The first type of classifier we evaluate in this work are feedforward neural networks (DNNs) consisting of 3 hidden layers, each with 512 rectified linear units (ReLUs) with a softmax activation function.  As a second classifier to evaluate, we use convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with 2 convolutional and max pooling layers, followed by 2 fully-connected ReLU layers with 512 nodes. 
Output: What model do they use to classify phonetic segments?
We would like to thank the organizers of the WASSA-2017 Shared Task on Emotion Intensity, for providing the data, the guidelines and timely support.
Output: what dataset was used?
The UCL team had access to micro-narratives, as well as context specific meta-data such as demographic information and project details. For a cross-national comparison for policy-makers, the team translated the responses in multiple languages into English using machine translation, in this case Translate API (Yandex Technologies). As a pre-processing step, words without functional meaning (e.g. `I'), rare words that occurred in only one narrative, numbers, and punctuation were all removed. The remaining words were stemmed to remove plural forms of nouns or conjugations of verbs.
Output: What elements of natural language processing are proposed to analyze qualitative data?
For instance, we observed that winter words were together and far away from summer ones. Week days were grouped as well and far from week-end days.
Output: What geometric properties do embeddings display?
LiLi should have the following capabilities:
Output: What are the components of the general knowledge learning engine?
Across all 26 datasets, RCRN outperforms not only standard BiLSTMs but also 3L-BiLSTMs which have approximately equal parameterization.
Output: Does their model have more parameters than other models?
Concerning logical inferences, monotonicity reasoning BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 , which is a type of reasoning based on word replacement, requires the ability to capture the interaction between lexical and syntactic structures.
Output: What is monotonicity reasoning?
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). The dataset (composed of 2.6 GB of raw text) includes $421\,829\,960$ words divided into $17\,305\,401$ sentences. All the words were then transformed to lowercase (to avoid a double presence) finally producing a vocabulary of $618\,224$ words.
Output: What is the dataset used as input to the Word2Vec algorithm?
Our WordDecoding (WDec) model achieves F1 scores that are $3.9\%$ and $4.1\%$ higher than HRL on the NYT29 and NYT24 datasets respectively. Similarly, our PtrNetDecoding (PNDec) model achieves F1 scores that are $3.0\%$ and $1.3\%$ higher than HRL on the NYT29 and NYT24 datasets respectively.
Output: How higher are F1 scores compared to previous work?
Our WordDecoding (WDec) model achieves F1 scores that are $3.9\%$ and $4.1\%$ higher than HRL on the NYT29 and NYT24 datasets respectively. Similarly, our PtrNetDecoding (PNDec) model achieves F1 scores that are $3.0\%$ and $1.3\%$ higher than HRL on the NYT29 and NYT24 datasets respectively.
Output: Which one of two proposed approaches performed better in experiments?
We first conduct experiments to compare the performance of FlowSeq with strong baseline models, including NAT w/ Fertility BIBREF6, NAT-IR BIBREF7, NAT-REG BIBREF25, LV NAR BIBREF26, CTC Loss BIBREF27, and CMLM BIBREF8.
Output: What non autoregressive NMT models are used for comparison?
There have been many taxonomies for dialogue acts: speech acts BIBREF14 refer to the utterance, not only to present information but to the action at is performed. Speech acts were later modified into five classes (Assertive, Directive, Commissive, Expressive, Declarative) BIBREF15. There are many such standard taxonomies and schemes to annotate conversational data, and most of them follow the discourse compositionality. These schemes have proven their importance for discourse or conversational analysis BIBREF16. During the increased development of dialogue systems and discourse analysis, the standard taxonomy was introduced in recent decades, called Dialogue Act Markup in Several Layers (DAMSL) tag set. According to DAMSL, each DA has a forward-looking function (such as Statement, Info-request, Thanking) and a backwards-looking function (such as Accept, Reject, Answer) BIBREF17.
Output: How were dialogue act labels defined?
The overall performance of BERT was significantly better than the other models, having the lowest average difference in accuracy of 22.5 points.
Output: Which model generalized the best?
We call these techniques Recurrence over BERT (RoBERT) and Transformer over BERT (ToBERT). We observed that ToBERT outperforms RoBERT on pre-trained BERT features and fine-tuned BERT features for all our tasks. 
Output: On top of BERT does the RNN layer work better or the transformer layer?
Named Entity Recognition (NER) in the Biomedical domain usually includes recognition of entities such as proteins, genes, diseases, treatments, drugs, etc. 
Output: What is NER?
Our system significantly out-performed the baseline on the joint task, as the baseline scored significantly lower for the gender task than for the variety task.
Output: On which task does do model do best?
Detection: In hypernymy detection, the task is to classify whether pairs of words are in a hypernymy relation. For this task, we evaluate all models on five benchmark datasets: First, we employ the noun-noun subset of bless, which contains hypernymy annotations for 200 concrete, mostly unambiguous nouns. Second, we evaluate on leds BIBREF13 , which consists of 2,770 noun pairs balanced between positive hypernymy examples, and randomly shuffled negative pairs. Direction: In direction prediction, the task is to identify which term is broader in a given pair of words. For this task, we evaluate all models on three datasets described by BIBREF16 : On bless, the task is to predict the direction for all 1337 positive pairs in the dataset. Pairs are only counted correct if the hypernymy direction scores higher than the reverse direction, i.e. INLINEFORM0 . We reserve 10% of the data for validation, and test on the remaining 90%. On wbless, we follow prior work BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 and perform 1000 random iterations in which 2% of the data is used as a validation set to learn a classification threshold, and test on the remainder of the data. We report average accuracy across all iterations. Finally, we evaluate on bibless BIBREF16 , a variant of wbless with hypernymy and hyponymy pairs explicitly annotated for their direction. Graded Entailment: In graded entailment, the task is to quantify the degree to which a hypernymy relation holds. For this task, we follow prior work BIBREF19 , BIBREF18 and use the noun part of hyperlex BIBREF20 , consisting of 2,163 noun pairs which are annotated to what degree INLINEFORM0 is-a INLINEFORM1 holds on a scale of INLINEFORM2 .
Output: Which benchmark datasets are used?
We evaluate our method on two widely-studied datasets provided by Waseem and Hovey BIBREF5 and Davidson et al. BIBREF9.
Output: Which publicly available datasets are used?
Compared to reading comprehension based QA (RCQA) setup where the answers to a question is usually found in the given small paragraph, in the OpenBookQA setup the open book part is much larger (than a small paragraph) and is not complete as additional common knowledge may be required. 
Output: How is OpenBookQA different from other natural language QA?
The CreateDebate dataset was collected from an English online debate forum discussing four topics: abortion (ABO), gay rights (GAY), Obama (OBA), and marijuana (MAR). 
Output: What topics are included in the debate data?
For the training data, we use Daily Mail news articles released by BIBREF9 . 
Output: what dataset was used?