niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
While confirming the effectiveness of BT, our study also proposed significantly cheaper ways to improve the baseline performance, using a slightly modified copy of the target, instead of its full BT.  
 Question: why are their techniques cheaper to implement?
Output: Abstractive
First, we introduce a two-stage labeling strategy for sentiment texts. In the first stage, annotators are invited to label a large number of short texts with relatively pure sentiment orientations. Each sample is labeled by only one annotator. In the second stage, a relatively small number of text samples with mixed sentiment orientations are annotated, and each sample is labeled by multiple annotators.  
 Question: What is the new labeling strategy?
Output: Abstractive
In this work, we explore the applicability of our method to three popular architectures of this layer: the LSTM-based, the CNN-based, and the transformer-based. Table TABREF46 shows performance of our method with different sequence modeling architectures. From the table, we can first see that the LSTM-based architecture performed better than the CNN- and transformer- based architectures.  
 Question: Which are the sequence model architectures this method can be transferred across?
Output: Abstractive
We identified some limitations during the process, which we describe in this section.

When deciding publisher partisanship, the number of people from whom we computed the score was small. For example, de Stentor is estimated to reach 275K readers each day on its official website. Deciding the audience leaning from 55 samples was subject to sampling bias. Besides, the scores differ very little between publishers. None of the publishers had an absolute score higher than 1, meaning that even the most partisan publisher was only slightly partisan. Deciding which publishers we consider as partisan and which not is thus not very reliable.

The article-level annotation task was not as well-defined as on a crowdsourcing platform. We included the questions as part of an existing survey and didn't want to create much burden to the annotators. Therefore, we did not provide long descriptive text that explained how a person should annotate an article. We thus run under the risk of annotator bias. This is one of the reasons for a low inter-rater agreement. 
 Question: What limitations are mentioned?
Output: Abstractive
Once the S-V-O is generated, Text2Visual provides users with visual components that convey the S-V-O text meanings. 
 Question: Does their solution involve connecting images and text?
Output: Yes-no
MonaLog utilizes two auxiliary sets. First, a knowledge base ${K}$ that stores the world knowledge needed for inference, e.g., semanticist $\le $ linguist and swim $\le $ move, which captures the facts that $[\![\mbox{\em semanticist}]\!]$ denotes a subset of $[\![\mbox{\em linguist}]\!]$, and that $[\![\mbox{\em swim}]\!]$ denotes a subset of $[\![\mbox{\em move}]\!]$, respectively. Such world knowledge can be created manually for the problem at hand, or derived easily from existing resources such as WordNet BIBREF22. Note that we do not blindly add all relations from WordNet to our knowledge base, since this would hinge heavily on word sense disambiguation (we need to know whether the “bank” is a financial institution or a river bank to extract its relations correctly). In the current implementation, we avoid this by adding x $\le $ y or x $\perp $ y relations only if both x and y are words in the premise-hypothesis pair. Additionally, some relations that involve quantifiers and prepositions need to be hard-coded, since WordNet does not include them: every $=$ all $=$ each $\le $ most $\le $ many $\le $ a few $=$ several $\le $ some $=$ a; the $\le $ some $=$ a; on $\perp $ off; up $\perp $ down; etc. 
 Question: How do they select monotonicity facts?
Output: Abstractive
We compare our best F1 score with other state-of-the-art approaches in table TABREF39 , which shows our model has competitive advantage in dealing with drug-drug interaction extraction. 
 Question: By how much does their model outperform existing methods?
Output: Abstractive
Fourteen such feature extractors have been implemented which can be clubbed into 3 major categories:

[noitemsep]

Lexicon Features

Word Vectors

Syntax Features 
 Question: how many total combined features were there?
Output: Extractive
The NLG model is a seq2seq model with attention as described in section SECREF2. 
 Question: Do they use attention?
Output: Yes-no
For example, it can be used to extract features for usage with other machine learning tools, or to evaluate given features with the existing classifiers or regressors. Figure FIGREF19 demonstrates a simple feature extractor that retrieves the sentence length. 
 Question: Do they show an example of usage for INFODENS?
Output: Yes-no
We present a comparison of the proposed models to existing word embeddings approaches. These are: the Bernoulli embeddings (b-emb) BIBREF1 , continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) BIBREF5 , Distributed Memory version of Paragraph Vector (PV-DM) BIBREF11 and the Global Vectors (GloVe) BIBREF6 model. 
 Question: What word embeddings do they test?
Output: Extractive
Manual inspection of others examples also supports our claim. 
 Question: Do they perform manual evaluation?
Output: Yes-no
Results in Table TABREF13 show ten probes. Again, we see the performance of baseline ELMo-transformer and mSynC are similar, with mSynC doing slightly worse on 7 out of 9 tasks. As we would expect, on the probe for predicting chunk tags, mSynC achieves 96.9 $F_1$ vs. 92.2 $F_1$ for ELMo-transformer, indicating that mSynC is indeed encoding shallow syntax. Overall, the results further confirm that explicit shallow syntax does not offer any benefits over ELMo-transformer. 
 Question: What are improvements for these two approaches relative to ELMo-only baselines?
Output: Extractive
Compared to single-task baselines, performance improved on the low-resource En-De task and was comparable on high-resource En-Fr task. 
 Question: How big are negative effects of proposed techniques on high-resource tasks?
Output: Abstractive
Sentence classification combines natural language processing (NLP) with machine learning to identify trends in sentence structure, BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 . Each tweet is converted to a numeric word vector in order to identify distinguishing features by training an NLP classifier on a validated set of relevant tweets. The classifier acts as a tool to sift through ads, news, and comments not related to patients. Our scheme combines a logistic regression classifier, BIBREF16 , with a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , to identify self-reported diagnostic tweets.

It is important to be wary of automated accounts (e.g. bots, spam) whose large output of tweets pollute relevant organic content, BIBREF19 , and can distort sentiment analyses, BIBREF20 . Prior to applying sentence classification, we removed tweets containing hyperlinks to remove automated content (some organic content is necessarily lost with this strict constraint). Twitter allows users to spread content from other users via `retweets'. We also removed these posts prior to classification to isolate tweets authored by patients. We also accounted for non-relevant astrological content by removing all tweets containing any of the following horoscope indicators: `astrology',`zodiac',`astronomy',`horoscope',`aquarius',`pisces',`aries',`taurus',`leo',`virgo',`libra', and `scorpio'. We preprocessed tweets by lowercasing and removing punctuation. We also only analyzed tweets for which Twitter had identified `en' for the language English. 
 Question: What machine learning and NLP methods were used to sift tweets relevant to breast cancer experiences?
Output: Abstractive
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 .  
 Question: what datasets did they use?
Output: Extractive
we apply our domain adaptation method to a neural captioning model and show performance improvement over other standard methods on several datasets and metrics.  
 Question: Did they only experiment with captioning task?
Output: Yes-no
Interesting prior work on quantifying social norm violation has taken a heavily data-driven focus BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 .  
 Question: Does this paper propose a new task that others can try to improve performance on?
Output: Abstractive
However, the coherence of the topics produced by LDA is poorer than expected.

To address this lack of coherence, we applied non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). 
 Question: How are prominent topics idenified in Dabiq and Rumiyah?
Output: Extractive
$\mathit {\texttt {+}PPMI}$ only falters on the RW and analogy tasks, and we hypothesize this is where $\mathit {\texttt {-}PMI}$ is useful: in the absence of positive information, negative information can be used to improve rare word representations and word analogies. 
 Question: What are the disadvantages to clipping negative PMI?
Output: Abstractive
In order to understand the latent topics of those #MeToo tweets for college followers, we first utilize Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to label universal topics demonstrated by the users. Since certain words frequently appear in those #MeToo tweets (e.g., sexual harassment, men, women, story, etc.), we transform our corpus using TF-IDF, a term-weighting scheme that discounts the influence of common terms. 
 Question: How are the topics embedded in the #MeToo tweets extracted?
Output: Abstractive
We employ two sources of e-book annotation data: (i) editor tags, and (ii) Amazon search terms. For editor tags, we collect data of 48,705 e-books from 13 publishers, namely Kunstmann, Delius-Klasnig, VUR, HJR, Diogenes, Campus, Kiwi, Beltz, Chbeck, Rowohlt, Droemer, Fischer and Neopubli.  For the Amazon search terms, we collect search query logs of 21,243 e-books for 12 months (i.e., November 2017 to October 2018).  
 Question: what dataset was used?
Output: Extractive
As a framework, we use the sentence classifier configuration of FLAIR BIBREF46 with a biLSTM encoder/classifier architecture fed by character and word level representations composed of a concatenation of fixed 300 dimensional GloVe embeddings BIBREF47, pre-trained contextualized FLAIR word embeddings, and pre-trained contextualized character embeddings from AllenNLP BIBREF48 with FLAIR's default hyperparameters. 
 Question: Are some models evaluated using this metric, what are the findings?
Output: Yes-no
To evaluate the proposed LRC framework and the AutoJudge model, we carry out a series of experiments on the divorce proceedings, a typical yet complex field of civil cases.  
 Question: what civil field is the dataset about?
Output: Extractive
For the CNN-Dailymail dataset, the Lead-3 model is considered a strong baseline; both the abstractive BIBREF16 and extractive BIBREF14 state-of-the art methods on this dataset beat this baseline only marginally. For the proxy report section of the AMR bank, we consider the Lead-1-AMR model as the baseline. 
 Question: Which other methods do they compare with?
Output: Extractive
We conduct our annotation study on Amazon Mechanical Turk, presenting Turkers with Human Intelligence Tasks (henceforth, HITs) consisting of a single conversation between a customer and an agent. In each HIT, we present Turkers with a definition of each dialogue act, as well as a sample annotated dialogue for reference. For each turn in the conversation, we allow Turkers to select as many labels from our taxonomy as required to fully characterize the intent of the turn. Additionally, annotators are asked three questions at the end of each conversation HIT, to which they could respond that they agreed, disagreed, or could not tell: 
 Question: How are customer satisfaction, customer frustration and overall problem resolution data collected?
Output: Abstractive
In this task English tweets from conversation threads, each associated to a newsworthy event and the rumours around it, are provided as data. The goal is to determine whether a tweet in the thread is supporting, denying, querying, or commenting the original rumour which started the conversation.  
 Question: Is this an English-language dataset?
Output: Yes-no
In Figure FIGREF15 , we plot the zero-resource German and Japanese test set accuracy as a function of the number of steps taken, with and without adversarial training. The plot shows that the variation in the test accuracy is reduced with adversarial training, which suggests that the cross-lingual performance is more consistent when adversarial training is applied. 
 Question: Do any of the evaluations show that adversarial learning improves performance in at least two different language families?
Output: Yes-no
d  Experiments on two benchmark data sets, the Stanford Sentiment Treebank BIBREF7 and the AG English news corpus BIBREF3 , show that 1) our method achieves very competitive accuracy, 2) some views distinguish themselves from others by better categorizing specific classes, and 3) when our base bag-of-words feature set is augmented with convolutional features, the method establishes a new state-of-the-art for both data sets.  Stanford Sentiment Treebank  AG English news corpus  
 Question: which benchmark tasks did they experiment on?
Output: Abstractive
We perform our experiments using ActivityNet Captions dataset BIBREF2 that is considered as the standard benchmark for dense video captioning task. The dataset contains approximately 20k videos from YouTube and split into 50/25/25 % parts for training, validation, and testing, respectively.  
 Question: What domain does the dataset fall into?
Output: Abstractive
In this work, we develop a technique to rapidly transfer an existing pre-trained model from English to other languages in an energy efficient way BIBREF8.  
 Question: How much training data from the non-English language is used by the system?
Output: Abstractive
Spoken-SQuAD is chosen as the target domain data for training and testing. Spoken-SQuAD BIBREF5 is an automatically generated corpus in which the document is in spoken form and the question is in text form. The reference transcriptions are from SQuAD BIBREF1 . There are 37,111 and 5,351 question answer pairs in the training and testing sets respectively, and the word error rate (WER) of both sets is around 22.7%.

The original SQuAD, Text-SQuAD, is chosen as the source domain data, where only question answering pairs appearing in Spoken-SQuAD are utilized. In our task setting, during training we train the proposed QA model on both Text-SQuAD and Spoken-SQuAD training sets. While in the testing stage, we evaluate the performance on Spoken-SQuAD testing set. 
 Question: Which datasets did they use for evaluation?
Output: Extractive
When we annotate dialogues, we should read dialogues from begin to the end. For each utterance, we should find its one parent node at least from all its previous utterances. We assume that the discourse structure is a connected graph and no utterance is isolated. We propose three questions for eache dialogue and annotate the span of answers in the input dialogue. As we know, our dataset is the first corpus for multi-party dialogues reading comprehension.

We construct following questions and answers for the dialogue in Example 1:

Q1: When does Bdale leave?

A1: Fri morning

Q2: How to get people love Mark in Mjg59's opinion.

A2: Hire people to work on reverse-engineering closed drivers.

On the other hand, to improve the difficulty of the task, we propose $ \frac{1}{6}$ to $ \frac{1}{3}$ unanswerable questions in our dataset. We annotate unanswerable questions and their plausible answers (PA). Each plausible answer comes from the input dialogue, but is not the answer for the plausible question.

Q1: Whis is the email of daniels?

PA: +61 403 505 896 
 Question: Is annotation done manually?
Output: Yes-no
Results in Table TABREF13 show ten probes. Again, we see the performance of baseline ELMo-transformer and mSynC are similar, with mSynC doing slightly worse on 7 out of 9 tasks. 
 Question: For how many probe tasks the shallow-syntax-aware contextual embedding perform better than ELMo’s embedding?
Output: Extractive
Following these methods, we evaluate NCEL on the following five datasets: (1) CoNLL-YAGO BIBREF22 : the CoNLL 2003 shared task including testa of 4791 mentions in 216 documents, and testb of 4485 mentions in 213 documents. (2) TAC2010 BIBREF39 : constructed for the Text Analysis Conference that comprises 676 mentions in 352 documents for testing. (3) ACE2004 BIBREF23 : a subset of ACE2004 co-reference documents including 248 mentions in 35 documents, which is annotated by Amazon Mechanical Turk. (4) AQUAINT BIBREF40 : 50 news articles including 699 mentions from three different news agencies. (5) WW BIBREF19 : a new benchmark with balanced prior distributions of mentions, leading to a hard case of disambiguation. It has 6374 mentions in 310 documents automatically extracted from Wikipedia. 
 Question: Which datasets do they use?
Output: Extractive
GP-GNNs first build a fully-connected graph $\mathcal {G} = (\mathcal {V}, \mathcal {E})$ , where $\mathcal {V}$ is the set of entities, and each edge $(v_i, v_j) \in \mathcal {E}, v_i, v_j \in \mathcal {V}$ corresponds to a sequence $s = x_0^{i,j}, x_1^{i,j}, \dots , x_{l-1}^{i,j}$ extracted from the text.  
 Question: So this paper turns unstructured text inputs to parameters that GNNs can read?
Output: Yes-no
The lexicon is built over all the data and therefore includes the vocabulary from both the training and testing sets. 
 Question: Is the lexicon the same for all languages?
Output: Yes-no
In a second step, we will train a neural monolingual translation system, that translates from the output of the PBMT system INLINEFORM0 to a better target sentence INLINEFORM1 . 
 Question: Do they train the NMT model on PBMT outputs?
Output: Yes-no
We train our models on Sentiment140 and Amazon product reviews. Both of these datasets concentrates on sentiment represented by a short text.  For training the softmax model, we divide the text sentiment to two kinds of emotion, positive and negative. And for training the tanh model, we convert the positive and negative emotion to [-1.0, 1.0] continuous sentiment score, while 1.0 means positive and vice versa.  
 Question: Was the introduced LSTM+CNN model trained on annotated data in a supervised fashion?
Output: Yes-no
Our analysis shows that attention models traditional alignment in some cases more closely while it captures information beyond alignment in others. For instance, attention agrees with traditional alignments to a high degree in the case of nouns. However, it captures other information rather than only the translational equivalent in the case of verbs. One can see that attention loss varies substantially across different POS tags. In particular, we focus on the cases of NOUN and VERB which are the most frequent POS tags in the dataset. As shown, the attention of NOUN is the closest to alignments on average. But the average attention loss for VERB is almost two times larger than the loss for NOUN. 
 Question: What useful information does attention capture?
Output: Extractive
Methods ::: Length Token Method
Our first approach to control the length is inspired by target forcing in multilingual NMT BIBREF15, BIBREF16. We first split the training sentence pairs into three groups according to the target/source length ratio (in terms of characters). Ideally, we want a group where the target is shorter than the source (short), one where they are equally-sized (normal) and a last group where the target is longer than the source (long). In practice, we select two thresholds $t_\text{min}$ and $t_\text{max}$ according to the length ratio distribution. All the sentence pairs with length ratio between $t_\text{min}$ and $t_\text{max}$ are in the normal group, the ones with ratio below $t_\text{min}$ in short and the remaining in long. At training time we prepend a length token to each source sentence according to its group ($<$short$>$, $<$normal$>$, or $<$long$>$), in order to let a single network to discriminate between the groups (see Figure FIGREF2). At inference time, the length token is used to bias the network to generate a translation that belongs to the desired length group. 
 Question: How do they condition the output to a given target-source class?
Output: Abstractive
Our resulting model obtains state of the art results on both the VQA dataset and the bAbI-10k text question-answering dataset, proving the framework can be generalized across input domains. 
 Question: Does the DMN+ model establish state-of-the-art ?
Output: Yes-no
Most of the above-discussed systems either shows high performance on (a) Twitter dataset or (b) Facebook dataset (given in the TRAC-2018), but not on both English code-mixed datasets. This may be due to the text style or level of complexities of both datasets. 
 Question: How have the differences in communication styles between Twitter and Facebook increase the complexity of the problem?
Output: Abstractive
The average classification accuracy results are summarised in Table TABREF9. 
 Question: What evaluation metric is used?
Output: Extractive
The Word2Vec architecture has inspired a great deal of research in the bio/cheminformatics domains. The Word2Vec algorithm has been successfully applied for determining protein classes BIBREF44 and protein-protein interactions (PPI) BIBREF56. 
 Question: Is there any concrete example in the paper that shows that this approach had huge impact on drug discovery?
Output: Yes-no
Besides, we also use two of its adversarial sets, namely AddSent and AddOneSent BIBREF6 , to evaluate the robustness to noise of MRC models. The passages in the adversarial sets contain misleading sentences, which are aimed at distracting MRC models.  Specifically, we not only evaluate the performance of KAR on the development set and the test set, but also do this on the adversarial sets.  
 Question: How do the authors examine whether a model is robust to noise or not?
Output: Abstractive
For sentence encoding models, we chose a simple one-layer bidirectional LSTM with max pooling (BiLSTM-max) with the hidden size of 600D per direction, used e.g. in InferSent BIBREF17 , and HBMP BIBREF18 . For the other models, we have chosen ESIM BIBREF19 , which includes cross-sentence attention, and KIM BIBREF2 , which has cross-sentence attention and utilizes external knowledge. We also selected two model involving a pre-trained language model, namely ESIM + ELMo BIBREF20 and BERT BIBREF0 . 
 Question: Which models were compared?
Output: Abstractive
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 
 Question: Which information about text structure is included in the corpus?
Output: Extractive
to answer how offensive they thought the tweet was on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (Not offensive at all) to 6 (Very offensive). If they answered 4 or higher, the participants had the option to state which particular words they found offensive. 
 Question: Was the degree of offensiveness taken as how generally offensive the text was, or how personally offensive it was to the annotator?
Output: Abstractive
At the end of the annotation process, we have annotated 700 tweets, where 175 tweets are in favor of and 175 tweets are against Target-1, and similarly 175 tweets are in favor of and 175 are against Target-2.  
 Question: How many tweets did they collect?
Output: Extractive
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  
 Question: How was the training data translated?
Output: Extractive
We evaluated our attention transformations on three language pairs. We use the IWSLT 2014 corpus for De-En, the KFTT corpus for Ja-En BIBREF19 , and the WMT 2016 dataset for Ro-En. 
 Question: What are the language pairs explored in this paper?
Output: Extractive
Since our objective is to compare character-based and word-based approaches, we have also implemented a simple word-level encoder for tweets. The input tweet is first split into tokens along white-spaces. A more sophisticated tokenizer may be used, but for a fair comparison we wanted to keep language specific preprocessing to a minimum. The encoder is essentially the same as tweet2vec, with the input as words instead of characters. A lookup table stores word vectors for the $V$ (20K here) most common words, and the rest are grouped together under the `UNK' token. 
 Question: what is the word level baseline they compare to?
Output: Extractive
We have observed that the conflict model is very sensitive to even minor differences and compensates in such cases where attention poses high bias towards similarities already there in the sequences.

Sequence 1: What are the best ways to learn French ?

Sequence 2: How do I learn french genders ?

Attention only: 1

Attention+Conflict: 0

Ground Truth: 0

Sequence 1: How do I prevent breast cancer ?

Sequence 2: Is breast cancer preventable ?

Attention only: 1

Attention+Conflict: 0

Ground Truth: 0

We provide two examples with predictions from the models with only attention and combination of attention and conflict. Each example is accompanied by the ground truth in our data. 
 Question: Do they show on which examples how conflict works better than attention?
Output: Yes-no
Our submissions ranked second (EI-Reg), second (EI-Oc), fourth (V-Reg) and fifth (V-Oc), demonstrating that the proposed method is accurate in automatically determining the intensity of emotions and sentiment of Spanish tweets. 
 Question: What subtasks did they participate in?
Output: Abstractive
Analysis of challenges from UTD
Our system relies on the pseudotext produced by ZRTools (the only freely available UTD system we are aware of), which presents several challenges for MT.  Assigning wrong words to a cluster
Since UTD is unsupervised, the discovered clusters are noisy.  Splitting words across different clusters
Although most UTD matches are across speakers, recall of cross-speaker matches is lower than for same-speaker matches. As a result, the same word from different speakers often appears in multiple clusters, preventing the model from learning good translations. UTD is sparse, giving low coverage We found that the patterns discovered by ZRTools match only 28% of the audio. This low coverage reduces training data size, affects alignment quality, and adversely affects translation, which is only possible when pseudoterms are present. 
 Question: what challenges are identified?
Output: Extractive
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. 
 Question: What biases are found in the dataset?
Output: Abstractive
As explained in Section SECREF15 , the corruption introduced in Doc2VecC acts as a data-dependent regularization that suppresses the embeddings of frequent but uninformative words. In contrast, Doc2VecC manages to clamp down the representation of words frequently appear in the training set, but are uninformative, such as symbols and stop words. 
 Question: How do they determine which words are informative?
Output: Abstractive
For all the tasks in our experimental study, we use 36 millions English tweets collected between August and September 2017.  
 Question: Do they report results only on English datasets?
Output: Yes-no
This layer consists of two submodules: the Multi-Head Attention (MHA) and the Point-wise Convolution Transformation (PCT). 
 Question: Do they use multi-attention heads?
Output: Yes-no
Two datasets are exploited in this article. Both datasets consist of plain text containing clinical narrative written in Spanish, and their respective manual annotations of sensitive information in BRAT BIBREF13 standoff format. NUBes BIBREF4 is a corpus of around 7,000 real medical reports written in Spanish and annotated with negation and uncertainty information. In order to avoid confusion between the two corpus versions, we henceforth refer to the version relevant in this paper as NUBes-PHI (from `NUBes with Personal Health Information'). The organisers of the MEDDOCAN shared task BIBREF3 curated a synthetic corpus of clinical cases enriched with sensitive information by health documentalists 
 Question: What are the clinical datasets used in the paper?
Output: Extractive
The choice of two methods for our empirical study is motivated by the best performance achieved by Logistic Regression in question-question similarity at SemEval 2017 (best system BIBREF37 and second best system BIBREF38 ), and the high performance achieved by neural networks on larger datasets such as SNLI BIBREF13 , BIBREF39 , BIBREF40 , BIBREF41  
 Question: What machine learning and deep learning methods are used for RQE?
Output: Extractive
The main reason is that the datasets only contain a small portion of multi-aspect sentences with different polarities. The distraction of attention will not impact the sentiment prediction much in single-aspect sentences or multi-aspect sentences with the same polarities. 
 Question: Is the model evaluated against the baseline also on single-aspect sentences?
Output: Yes-no
We use the Bayesian model of garg2012unsupervised as our base monolingual model. The semantic roles are predicate-specific. 
 Question: What does an individual model consist of?
Output: Extractive
In contrast to other work, we do not show the documents to the workers at all, but provide only a description of the document cluster's topic along with the propositions. This ensures that tasks are small, simple and can be done quickly (see Figure FIGREF4 ). 
 Question: How were crowd workers instructed to identify important elements in large document collections?
Output: Extractive
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. 
 Question: What dataset did they use?
Output: Abstractive
We evaluate sentence-level semantics using averaged bag of vectors (BoV) representations on the Semantic Textual Similarity (STSB) task BIBREF21 and Word Content (WC) probing task (identify from a list of words which is contained in the sentence representation) from SentEval BIBREF22. Syntax: Similarly, we use the Google Syntactic analogies (GSyn) BIBREF9 to evaluate word-level syntactic information, and Depth (Dep) and Top Constituent (TopC) (of the input sentence's constituent parse tree) probing tasks from SentEval BIBREF22 for sentence-level syntax. 
 Question: What semantic and syntactic tasks are used as probes?
Output: Extractive
Our Recurrent +ELMo model uses the language model from BIBREF9 to provide contextualized embeddings to the baseline model outlined above, as recommended by the authors.

Our OpenAI GPT model fine-tunes the 12 layer 768 dimensional uni-directional transformer from BIBREF27 , which has been pre-trained as a language model on the Books corpus BIBREF36 . 
 Question: did they use other pretrained language models besides bert?
Output: Yes-no
Given that words from texts of the same class belong to the same context, it is possible to model word vectors of each class as word subspaces and efficiently compare them in terms of similarity by using canonical angles between the word subspaces.  
 Question: What can word subspace represent?
Output: Abstractive
We carried out a reliability study for the proposed scheme using two pairs of expert annotators, P1 and P2.  
 Question: do they use a crowdsourcing platform?
Output: Yes-no
We introduce a list of 8 different competencies that a reading system should master in order to process reviews and text documents in general. These 8 tasks require different competencies and a different level of understanding of the document to be well answered. For instance, detecting if an aspect is mentioned in a review will require less understanding of the review than predicting explicitly the rating of this aspect. Table TABREF10 presents the 8 tasks we have introduced in this dataset with an example of a question that corresponds to each task. 
 Question: What kind of questions are present in the dataset?
Output: Extractive
We recruited 100 crowdworkers on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) and measured completion times and accuracies for typing randomly sampled sentences from the Yelp corpus.  
 Question: What user variations have been tested?
Output: Extractive
Currently, the following WSD models induced from a text corpus are available: Word senses based on cluster word features. This model uses the cluster words from the induced word sense inventory as sparse features that represent the sense.

Word senses based on context word features. This representation is based on a sum of word vectors of all cluster words in the induced sense inventory weighted by distributional similarity scores.

Super senses based on cluster word features. To build this model, induced word senses are first globally clustered using the Chinese Whispers graph clustering algorithm BIBREF9 . The edges in this sense graph are established by disambiguation of the related words BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 . The resulting clusters represent semantic classes grouping words sharing a common hypernym, e.g. “animal”. This set of semantic classes is used as an automatically learned inventory of super senses: There is only one global sense inventory shared among all words in contrast to the two previous traditional “per word” models. Each semantic class is labeled with hypernyms. This model uses words belonging to the semantic class as features.

Super senses based on context word features. This model relies on the same semantic classes as the previous one but, instead, sense representations are obtained by averaging vectors of words sharing the same class. 
 Question: Do they use a neural model for their task?
Output: Yes-no
To discover topics from the collected tweets, we used a topic modeling approach that fuzzy clusters the semantically related words such as assigning “diabetes", “cancer", and “influenza" into a topic that has an overall “disease" theme BIBREF44 , BIBREF45 . Among topic models, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) BIBREF49 is the most popular effective model BIBREF50 , BIBREF19 as studies have shown that LDA is an effective computational linguistics model for discovering topics in a corpus BIBREF51 , BIBREF52 . We used the Mallet implementation of LDA BIBREF49 , BIBREF56 with its default settings to explore opinions in the tweets. 
 Question: How were topics of interest about DDEO identified?
Output: Abstractive
Although the competition proposes two different scenarios, in fact, both are guided by the snomed ct ontology —for subtask 1, entities must be identified with offsets and mapped to a predefined set of four classes (PROTEINAS, NORMALIZABLES, NO_NORMALIZABLES and UNCLEAR); for subtask 2, a list of all snomed ct ids (sctid) for entities occurring in the text must be given, which has been called concept indexing by the shared task organizers. 
 Question: What are the two PharmaCoNER subtasks?
Output: Abstractive
While domain transfer is not new, compared to prior summarization studies BIBREF6, BIBREF7, our training (news) and tuning (student reflection) domains are quite dissimilar, and the in-domain data is small. 
 Question: Is the student reflection data very different from the newspaper data?  
Output: Yes-no
In our final system, after pre-training the forward and backward LMs separately, we remove the top layer softmax and concatenate the forward and backward LM embeddings to form bidirectional LM embeddings, i.e., INLINEFORM0 .  
 Question: how are the bidirectional lms obtained?
Output: Abstractive
For the Russian language, with its rich morphology, lemmatizing the training and testing data for ELMo representations yields small but consistent improvements in the WSD task.  
 Question: What other examples of morphologically-rich languages do the authors give?
Output: Extractive
The improved performance of our attention models that actively select their optimal context, over a model with the complete thread as context, hLSTM, shows that the context inference improves intervention prediction over using the default full context. 
 Question: What aspects of discussion are relevant to instructor intervention, according to the attention mechanism?
Output: Extractive
We also explored clustering 12742 STRENGTH sentences directly using CLUTO BIBREF19 and Carrot2 Lingo BIBREF20 clustering algorithms.  
 Question: What clustering algorithms were used?
Output: Extractive
Experimental results on public datasets show that our CRU model could substantially outperform various systems by a large margin, and set up new state-of-the-art performances on related datasets. 
 Question: Are there some results better than state of the art on these tasks?
Output: Yes-no
the basic model yields good performance for recognizing explicit discourse relations as well, which is comparable with previous best result (92.05% macro F1-score and 93.09% accuracy as reported in BIBREF11 ). In summary, our full paragraph-level neural network model achieves the best macro-average F1-score of 48.82% in predicting implicit discourse relations, which outperforms previous neural tensor network models (e.g., BIBREF18 ) by more than 2 percents and outperforms the best previous system BIBREF19 by 1 percent. Then we also created ensemble models by applying majority voting to combine results of ten runs. From table 5 , each ensemble model obtains performance improvements compared with single model. The full model achieves performance boosting of (51.84 - 48.82 = 3.02) and (94.17 - 93.21 = 0.96) in macro F1-scores for predicting implicit and explicit discourse relations respectively.  
 Question: How much does this model improve state-of-the-art?
Output: Extractive
The English online magazine of ISIS was named Dabiq and first appeared on the dark web on July 2014 and continued publishing for 15 issues. This publication was followed by Rumiyah which produced 13 English language issues through September 2017. Looking through both Dabiq and Rumiyah, many issues of the magazines contain articles specifically addressing women, usually with “ to our sisters ” incorporated into the title. 
 Question: Do they report results only on English data?
Output: Yes-no
Because our approach is specifically intended to yield sentences that are grammatical, we additionally consider the following log ratio (i.e., the grammatical phrase over the ungrammatical phrase): 
 Question: How do they measure grammaticality?
Output: Abstractive
INLINEFORM0 in the subsampled BIBREF2 training corpus and incrementing cell INLINEFORM1 for every context word INLINEFORM2 appearing within this window (forming a INLINEFORM3 pair). LexVec adjusts the PPMI matrix using context distribution smoothing BIBREF3 . We compare 1) the use of n-gram subwords, like fastText, and 2) unsupervised morphemes identified using Morfessor BIBREF11 to learn whether more linguistically motivated subwords offer any advantage over simple n-grams. 
 Question: What types of subwords do they incorporate in their model?
Output: Extractive
We illustrate the concept by discussing some instantiations that we have recently experimented with. The design also provides for a clear “relevance place” at which an opportunity arises for semantic negotiation, namely, before the final decision is made. An example of this is shown in the example below.   As SECREF12 shows, even in cases where a decision can be reached quickly, there can be an explicit mutual confirmation step, before the (silent) decision signal is sent. A third setting that we have explored BIBREF19 brings conceptual negotiation more clearly into the foreground. In that game, the players are presented with images of birds of particular species and are tasked with coming up with a description of common properties. Again, the final answer has to be approved by both participants. As SECREF13 shows, this can lead to an explicit negotiation of conceptual content. 
 Question: Do the authors perform experiments using their proposed method?
Output: Yes-no
We have evaluated our models considering the F1 Score, which is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. We have run ten times the experiment for each model and considered the average F1 Score. The results are mentioned in Table TABREF11. Considering F1 Macro the models that include the multi-attention mechanism outperform the others and particularly the one with the Projected Layer has the highest performance. In three out of four pairs of models, the ones with the Projected Layer achieved better performance, so in most cases the addition of the Projected Layer had a significant enhancement.

 
 Question: Which variation provides the best results on this dataset?
Output: Abstractive
We first run our experiment on BiLSTM, BiLSTM-CNN, BiLSTM-CRF BiLSTM-CNN-CRF using the hyper-parameters mentioned in Table TABREF30.  
 Question: Which machine learning models do they explore?
Output: Extractive
Our evaluation comprises of a rich set of 19 different algorithms to recommend tags for e-books, which we group into (i) popularity-based, (ii) similarity-based (i.e., using content information), and (iii) hybrid approaches. 
 Question: what algorithms did they use?
Output: Extractive
Our system was ranked second in the competition only 0.3 BLEU points behind the winning team UPC-TALP. The relative low BLEU and high TER scores obtained by all teams are due to out-of-domain data provided in the competition which made the task equally challenging to all participants. The fact that out-of-domain data was provided by the organizers resulted in a challenging but interesting scenario for all participants. 
 Question: Does the use of out-of-domain data improve the performance of the method?
Output: Yes-no
We use a standard set of supervised as well as unsupervised benchmark tasks from the literature to evaluate our trained models, following BIBREF16 Sentence embeddings are evaluated for various supervised classification tasks as follows. The predefined training split is used to tune the L2 penalty parameter using cross-validation and the accuracy and F1 scores are computed on the test set.  We perform unsupervised evaluation of the learnt sentence embeddings using the sentence cosine similarity, on the STS 2014 BIBREF31 and SICK 2014 BIBREF32 datasets. These similarity scores are compared to the gold-standard human judgements using Pearson's INLINEFORM0 BIBREF33 and Spearman's INLINEFORM1 BIBREF34 correlation scores.  
 Question: What metric is used to measure performance?
Output: Abstractive
The stance towards vaccination was categorized into `Negative’, `Neutral’, `Positive’ and `Not clear’. 
 Question: Do they allow for messages with vaccination-related key terms to be of neutral stance?
Output: Yes-no
We consider 5 major profile attributes for further analysis. These attributes are username, display name, profile image, location and description respectively. 
 Question: What profile metadata is used for this analysis?
Output: Extractive
We thus adapt an off-the-shelf reward learning algorithm BIBREF7 to the supervised setting for automated data manipulation. 
 Question: What off-the-shelf reward learning algorithm from RL for joint data manipulation learning and model training is adapted?
Output: Extractive
In general, the baseline model CAEVO is outperformed by both NN models, and NN model with BERT embedding achieves the greatest performance. 
 Question: Do the BERT-based embeddings improve results?
Output: Yes-no
As shown in Figure FIGREF7 , KAR is an end-to-end MRC model consisting of five layers:

Lexicon Embedding Layer. This layer maps the words to the lexicon embeddings. Context Embedding Layer. This layer maps the lexicon embeddings to the context embeddings. Coarse Memory Layer. This layer maps the context embeddings to the coarse memories. Refined Memory Layer. This layer maps the coarse memories to the refined memories. Answer Span Prediction Layer. This layer predicts the answer start position and the answer end position based on the above layers. 
 Question: What type of model is KAR?
Output: Extractive
In this paper we proposed a methodology to identify words that could lead to confusion at any given node of a speech recognition based system. We used edit distance as the metric to identifying the possible confusion between the active words.  There is a significant saving in terms of being able to identify recognition bottlenecks in a menu based speech solution through this analysis because it does not require actual people testing the system.  Actual use of this analysis was carried out for a speech solution developed for Indian Railway Inquiry System to identify bottlenecks in the system before its actual launch. 
 Question: what bottlenecks were identified?
Output: Abstractive
This paper experimented with two different models and compared them against each other.  
 Question: what was the baseline?
Output: Abstractive
In this experiment, we compute the correlation of the proposed NED measure with the patient-perceived emotional bond ratings. Since the proposed measure is asymmetric in nature, we compute the measures for both patient-to-therapist and therapist-to-patient entrainment. We report Pearson's correlation coefficients ( INLINEFORM0 ) for this experiment in Table TABREF26 along with their INLINEFORM1 -values.  
 Question: How do they correlate NED with emotional bond levels?
Output: Abstractive
With a single text, we were already able to predict the electricity consumption with a relative error of less than 5% for both data sets. 
 Question: How accurate is model trained on text exclusively?
Output: Abstractive
We train an LSTM with and without attention on the training set. After training, we take the best model in terms of BLEU score BIBREF16 on the development set and calculate the BLEU score on the test set.  
 Question: How is the generative model evaluated?
Output: Abstractive
the attention heads in the proposed adaptively sparse Transformer can specialize more and with higher confidence In particular, we analyzed how the attention heads in the proposed adaptively sparse Transformer can specialize more and with higher confidence. 
 Question: How does their model improve interpretability compared to softmax transformers?
Output: Extractive
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 $ .  
 Question: What are the user-defined keywords?
Output: Abstractive