niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
To counter that, we use a left-to-right attention mask, similar to the one employed in the original Transformer decoder BIBREF1. For the input tokens in $X$, we apply such mask to all the target tokens $Y$ that were concatenated to $X$, so that input tokens can only attend to the other input tokens. Conversely, for target tokens $y_t$, we put an attention mask on all tokens $y_{>t}$, allowing target tokens $y_t$ to attend only to the input tokens and the already generated target tokens. 
 Question: What is different in BERT-gen from standard BERT?
Output: Abstractive
TABREF5 displays the output behavior of models that we damaged to resemble the damage that causes aphasia. Because the output languages in all of our domains use tokens to represent meanings in many cases, it is expected that the analog to Wernicke's area is responsible for maintaining a high precision. 
 Question: Do they perform a quantitative analysis of their model displaying knowledge distortions?
Output: Yes-no
We obtained 1260 unique utterances having commands to AMIE from our in-cabin data-set. We expanded this data-set via Amazon Mechanical Turk and ended up with 3347 utterances having intents. The annotations for intents and slots are obtained on the transcribed utterances by majority voting of 3 annotators. 
 Question: What is the size of their collected dataset?
Output: Abstractive
Firstly, LastStateRNN is the classic RNN model, where the last state passes through an MLP and then the LR Layer estimates the corresponding probability. In contrast, in the AvgRNN model we consider the average vector of all states that come out of the cells. The AttentionRNN model is the one that it has been presented in BIBREF9. Moreover, we introduce the MultiAttentionRNN model for the harassment language detection, which instead of one attention, it includes four attentions, one for each category. 
 Question: What baseline model is used?
Output: Extractive
For the future work, we plan to solve the triples with multiple entities as the second entity, which is excluded from problem scope in this paper. The input of QA4IE is a document $D$ with an existing knowledge base $K$ and the output is a set of relation triples $R = \lbrace e_i, r_{ij}, e_j\rbrace $ in $D$ where $e_i$ and $e_j$ are two individual entities and $r_{ij}$ is their relation. 
 Question: Can this approach model n-ary relations?
Output: Yes-no
In light of this, we suggest that care is needed when applying graph embeddings in NLP pipelines, and work needed to develop robust methods to debias such embeddings. 
 Question: Do they propose any solution to debias the embeddings?
Output: Yes-no
In natural language, subjectivity refers to the aspects of communication used to express opinions, evaluations, and speculationsBIBREF0, often influenced by one's emotional state and viewpoints. In this work, we investigate the application of BERT-based models for the task of subjective language detection. Experiments ::: Dataset and Experimental Settings
We perform our experiments on the WNC dataset open-sourced by the authors of BIBREF2. It consists of aligned pre and post neutralized sentences made by Wikipedia editors under the neutral point of view. It contains $180k$ biased sentences, and their neutral counterparts crawled from $423,823$ Wikipedia revisions between 2004 and 2019 
 Question: Which experiments are perfomed?
Output: Abstractive
We present LOG-Cad, a neural network-based description generator (Figure FIGREF1 ) to directly solve this task. Given a word with its context, our generator takes advantage of the target word's embedding, pre-trained from massive text (global contexts), while also encoding the given local context, combining both to generate a natural language description. 
 Question: Do they use pretrained word embeddings?
Output: Yes-no
First, in order to deal with the unseen relations, we propose to break the relation names into word sequences for question-relation matching. Second, noticing that original relation names can sometimes help to match longer question contexts, we propose to build both relation-level and word-level relation representations. Third, we use deep bidirectional LSTMs (BiLSTMs) to learn different levels of question representations in order to match the different levels of relation information. Finally, we propose a residual learning method for sequence matching, which makes the model training easier and results in more abstract (deeper) question representations, thus improves hierarchical matching. 
 Question: What they use in their propsoed framework?
Output: Extractive
The retweeting behavior of MEPs is captured by their retweet network. Each MEP active on Twitter is a node in this network. An edge in the network between two MEPs exists when one MEP retweeted the other. The weight of the edge is the number of retweets between the two MEPs We measure the cohesion of a political group INLINEFORM0 as the average retweets, i.e., the ratio of the number of retweets between the MEPs in the group INLINEFORM1 to the number of MEPs in the group INLINEFORM2  
 Question: Do they authors account for differences in usage of Twitter amongst MPs into their model?
Output: Yes-no
Our semi-supervised approach is quite straightforward: first a model is trained on the training set and then this model is used to predict the labels of the silver data. This silver data is then simply added to our training set, after which the model is retrained. However, an extra step is applied to ensure that the silver data is of reasonable quality. 
 Question: What semi-supervised learning is applied?
Output: Extractive
The resource is composed of data from two different surveys. In both surveys subjects were asked to draw on a map (displayed under a Mercator projection) a polygon representing a given geographical descriptor, in the context of the geography of Galicia in Northwestern Spain (see Fig. FIGREF1 ). The first survey was run in order to obtain a high number of responses to be used as an evaluation testbed for modeling algorithms. It was answered by 15/16 year old students in a high school in Pontevedra (located in Western Galicia). 99 students provided answers for a list of 7 descriptors (including cardinal points, coast, inland, and a proper name). The second survey was addressed to meteorologists in the Galician Weather Agency BIBREF12 . 
 Question: Which two datasets does the resource come from?
Output: Abstractive
Specifically, we take the CORD-19 dataset BIBREF2, which contains over 45,000 scholarly articles, including over 33,000 with full text, about COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and related coronaviruses. We develop sentence classification methods to identify all sentences narrating radiological findings from COVID-19.  
 Question: What is the CORD-19 dataset?
Output: Extractive
The task of Word Sense Induction (WSI) can be seen as an unsupervised version of WSD. WSI aims at clustering word senses and does not require to map each cluster to a predefined sense. Instead of that, word sense inventories are induced automatically from the clusters, treating each cluster as a single sense of a word. We suggest a more advanced procedure of graph construction that uses the interpretability of vector addition and subtraction operations in word embedding space BIBREF6 while the previous algorithm only relies on the list of nearest neighbours in word embedding space. The key innovation of our algorithm is the use of vector subtraction to find pairs of most dissimilar graph nodes and construct the graph only from the nodes included in such “anti-edges”. 
 Question: Is the method described in this work a clustering-based method?
Output: Yes-no
his reduces significantly the needed training time: SBERT can be tuned in less than 20 minutes, while yielding better results than comparable sentence embedding methods. 
 Question: How much time takes its training?
Output: Extractive
In this case, the decoding function is a linear projection, which is $= f_{\text{de}}()=+ $ , where $\in ^{d_\times d_}$ is a trainable weight matrix and $\in ^{d_\times 1}$ is the bias term. A family of bijective transformation was designed in NICE BIBREF17 , and the simplest continuous bijective function $f:^D\rightarrow ^D$ and its inverse $f^{-1}$ is defined as:

$$h: \hspace{14.22636pt} _1 &= _1, & _2 &= _2+m(_1) \nonumber \\ h^{-1}: \hspace{14.22636pt} _1 &= _1, & _2 &= _2-m(_1) \nonumber $$ (Eq. 15)

where $_1$ is a $d$ -dimensional partition of the input $\in ^D$ , and $m:^d\rightarrow ^{D-d}$ is an arbitrary continuous function, which could be a trainable multi-layer feedforward neural network with non-linear activation functions. It is named as an `additive coupling layer' BIBREF17 , which has unit Jacobian determinant. To allow the learning system to explore more powerful transformation, we follow the design of the `affine coupling layer' BIBREF24 :

$$h: \hspace{5.69046pt} _1 &= _1, & _2 &= _2 \odot \text{exp}(s(_1)) + t(_1) \nonumber \\ h^{-1}: \hspace{5.69046pt} _1 &= _1, & _2 &= (_2-t(_1)) \odot \text{exp}(-s(_1)) \nonumber $$ (Eq. 16)

where $s:^d\rightarrow ^{D-d}$ and $t:^d\rightarrow ^{D-d}$ are both neural networks with linear output units.

The requirement of the continuous bijective transformation is that, the dimensionality of the input $$ and the output $$ need to match exactly. 
 Question: What are the two decoding functions?
Output: Abstractive
Our system, including software and corpus, is available as an open source project for free research purpose and we believe that it is a good baseline for the development and comparison of future Vietnamese SRL systems.  
 Question: Are their corpus and software public?
Output: Yes-no
In order to fully leverage gloss information, we propose GlossBERT to construct context-gloss pairs from all possible senses of the target word in WordNet, thus treating WSD task as a sentence-pair classification problem. 
 Question: Do they incoprorate WordNet into the model?
Output: Extractive
Table 2 lists the accuracies of the all methods on two classifier architectures. The results show that, for various datasets on different classifier architectures, our conditional BERT contextual augmentation improves the model performances most. BERT can also augments sentences to some extent, but not as much as conditional BERT does. 
 Question: Do the authors report performance of conditional bert on tasks without data augmentation?
Output: Yes-no
With the goal of building a generalizable sentiment analysis model, we used three different training sets as provided in Table TABREF5 . One of these three datasets (Amazon reviews BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 ) is larger and has product reviews from several different categories including book reviews, electronics products reviews, and application reviews. The other two datasets are to make the model more specialized in the domain. In this paper we focus on restaurant reviews as our domain and use Yelp restaurant reviews dataset extracted from Yelp Dataset Challenge BIBREF25 and restaurant reviews dataset as part of a Kaggle competition BIBREF26 . 
 Question: what dataset was used for training?
Output: Extractive
In this paper, we propose a simple and effective method for learning affective events that only requires a very small seed lexicon and a large raw corpus. As illustrated in Figure FIGREF1, our key idea is that we can exploit discourse relations BIBREF4 to efficiently propagate polarity from seed predicates that directly report one's emotions (e.g., “to be glad” is positive). 
 Question: How does their model learn using mostly raw data?
Output: Abstractive
In this study, we focused on the LDA approaches to recommendation systems and given the importance of research, we have studied recent impressive articles on this subject and presented a taxonomy of recommendation systems based on LDA of the recent research. we evaluated ISWC and WWW conferences articles from DBLP website and used the Gibbs sampling algorithm as an evaluation parameter. We succeeded in discovering the relationship between LDA topics and paper features and also obtained the researchers' interest in research field. To perform approximate inference and learning LDA, there are many inference methods for LDA topic model such as Gibbs sampling, collapsed Variational Bayes, Expectation Maximization. Gibbs sampling is a popular technique because of its simplicity and low latency. However, for large numbers of topics, Gibbs sampling can become unwieldy. In this paper, we use Gibbs Sampling in our experiment in section 5. 
 Question: How they utilize LDA and Gibbs sampling to evaluate ISWC and WWW publications?
Output: Extractive
We evaluate our model on a publicly available dataset, KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw). The dataset consists of 14 participants, with each prompt presented 11 times to each individual.  
 Question: How many subjects does the EEG data come from?
Output: Extractive
We analyze which discourse phenomena are hard to capture using monolingual data only. Among the four phenomena in the test sets we use (deixis, lexical cohesion, VP ellipsis and ellipsis which affects NP inflection) we find VP ellipsis to be the hardest phenomenon to be captured using round-trip translations. 
 Question: what phenomena do they mention is hard to capture?
Output: Abstractive
We crowd-sourced the collection of the dataset on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). 
 Question: Did the authors use crowdsourcing platforms?
Output: Yes-no
We train both of the systems on the WMT15 German-to-English training data, see Table TABREF18 for some statistics. For this purpose, we use manual alignments provided by RWTH German-English dataset as the hard alignments. 
 Question: What datasets are used?
Output: Extractive
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. 
 Question: What are the characteristics of the city dialect?
Output: Abstractive
To enable this, we use a bifocal attention mechanism which computes an attention over fields at a macro level and over values at a micro level. We then fuse these attention weights such that the attention weight for a field also influences the attention over the values within it. Fused Bifocal Attention Mechanism
Intuitively, when a human writes a description from a table she keeps track of information at two levels. At the macro level, it is important to decide which is the appropriate field to attend to next and at a micro level (i.e., within a field) it is important to know which values to attend to next. To capture this behavior, we use a bifocal attention mechanism as described below. Fused Attention: Intuitively, the attention weights assigned to a field should have an influence on all the values belonging to the particular field. To ensure this, we reweigh the micro level attention weights based on the corresponding macro level attention weights. In other words, we fuse the attention weights at the two levels as: DISPLAYFORM0

where INLINEFORM0 is the field corresponding to the INLINEFORM1 -th value, INLINEFORM2 is the macro level context vector. 
 Question: What is a bifocal attention mechanism?
Output: Extractive
In particular, we use Semeval 2014 BIBREF34 Twitter Sentiment Analysis Dataset for the training Sarcasm Datasets Used in the Experiment
This dataset was created by BIBREF8 . The tweets were downloaded from Twitter using #sarcasm as a marker for sarcastic tweets. It is a monolingual English dataset which consists of a balanced distribution of 50,000 sarcastic tweets and 50,000 non-sarcastic tweets.

Since sarcastic tweets are less frequently used BIBREF8 , we also need to investigate the robustness of the selected features and the model trained on these features on an imbalanced dataset. To this end, we used another English dataset from BIBREF8 . It consists of 25,000 sarcastic tweets and 75,000 non-sarcastic tweets.

We have obtained this dataset from The Sarcasm Detector. It contains 120,000 tweets, out of which 20,000 are sarcastic and 100,000 are non-sarcastic. We randomly sampled 10,000 sarcastic and 20,000 non-sarcastic tweets from the dataset. Visualization of both the original and subset data show similar characteristics. 
 Question: Which benchmark datasets are used?
Output: Extractive
For our study, we used the number of retweets to single-out those that went viral within our sample. Tweets within that subset (viral tweets hereafter) are varied and relate to different topics. We consider that a tweet contains fake news if its text falls within any of the following categories described by Rubin et al. BIBREF7 (see next section for the details of such categories): serious fabrication, large-scale hoaxes, jokes taken at face value, slanted reporting of real facts and stories where the truth is contentious. The dataset BIBREF8 , manually labelled by an expert, has been publicly released and is available to researchers and interested parties. 
 Question: How did they determine fake news tweets?
Output: Abstractive
We address this tension by training vector space models to represent the data, in which each unique word in a large corpus is represented by a vector (embedding) in high-dimensional space. The geometry of the resulting vector space captures many semantic relations between words.  We address this tension by training vector space models to represent the data, in which each unique word in a large corpus is represented by a vector (embedding) in high-dimensional space. The geometry of the resulting vector space captures many semantic relations between words.  
 Question: Do they model semantics 
Output: Yes-no
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. 
 Question: how is model compactness measured?
Output: Abstractive
In this subsection, we see the influence of each component of a model on performance by removing or replacing its components. the SNLI dataset is used for experiments, and the best performing configuration is used as a baseline for modifications. We consider the following variants: (i) models that use plain stacked LSTMs, (ii) models with different INLINEFORM0 , (iii) models without INLINEFORM1 , and (iv) models that integrate lower contexts via peephole connections. 
 Question: What were the baselines?
Output: Extractive
We compare the results of our model to a baseline multi-task architecture inspired by yang2016multi. In our baseline model there are no explicit connections between tasks - the only shared parameters are in the hidden layer. 
 Question: What is the baseline?
Output: Abstractive
We cluster the embeddings with INLINEFORM0 -Means.  
 Question: How were the cluster extracted? 
Output: Abstractive
We now seek to know if a pre-trained multi-BERT has ability to solve RC tasks in the zero-shot setting. 
 Question: What model is used as a baseline?  
Output: Extractive
Conditional Random Fields
Conditional Random Fields (CRF) BIBREF10 are a standard approach when dealing with sequential data in the context of sequence labeling. BiLSTM-CRF
Prior to the emergence of deep neural language models, BiLSTM-CRF models BIBREF11 had achieved state-of-the-art results for the task of sequence labeling. Multi-Task Learning
Multi-Task Learning (MTL) BIBREF15 has become popular with the progress in deep learning. BioBERT
Deep neural language models have recently evolved to a successful method for representing text. In particular, Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) outperformed previous state-of-the-art methods by a large margin on various NLP tasks BIBREF17. 
 Question: What baseline systems are proposed?
Output: Extractive
More specifically, we explore three regularization terms to address the problem: (1) a regularization term associated with neutral features; (2) the maximum entropy of class distribution regularization term; and (3) the KL divergence between reference and predicted class distribution. 
 Question: What are the three regularization terms?
Output: Extractive
To test the effectiveness of this new architecture in forecasting derailment of online conversations, we develop and distribute two new datasets. The first triples in size the highly curated `Conversations Gone Awry' dataset BIBREF9, where civil-starting Wikipedia Talk Page conversations are crowd-labeled according to whether they eventually lead to personal attacks; the second relies on in-the-wild moderation of the popular subreddit ChangeMyView, where the aim is to forecast whether a discussion will later be subject to moderator action due to “rude or hostile” behavior.  
 Question: What are two datasets model is applied to?
Output: Extractive
We therefore propose attention models to infer the latent context, i.e., the series of posts that trigger an intervention. 
 Question: What type of latent context is used to predict instructor intervention?
Output: Extractive
Consequently, we investigate ways to detect suspicious accounts by considering their tweets in groups (chunks). Our hypothesis is that suspicious accounts have a unique pattern in posting tweet sequences. Since their intention is to mislead, the way they transition from one set of tweets to the next has a hidden signature, biased by their intentions. Given a news Twitter account, we read its tweets from the account's timeline. Then we sort the tweets by the posting date in ascending way and we split them into $N$ chunks. Each chunk consists of a sorted sequence of tweets labeled by the label of its corresponding account. 
 Question: How is a "chunk of posts" defined in this work?
Output: Extractive
In the proposed model, in addition to the co-occurrence edges, we link two nodes (words) if the corresponding word embedding representation is similar. 
 Question: Do the use word embeddings alone or they replace some previous features of the model with word embeddings?
Output: Abstractive
In addition, we note that our approach can still lead to erroneous facts or even hallucinations. An interesting perspective might be to further constrain the model on the data structure in order to prevent inaccurate of even contradictory descriptions. 
 Question: What future possible improvements are listed?
Output: Extractive
Since the input of our method is textual data, we follow the approach of BIBREF15 and map the text into a fixed-size vector representation. To this end, we use word embeddings that were successfully applied in other domains. We follow BIBREF5 and use pre-trained GloVe word vectors BIBREF16 to initialize the embedding layer (also known as look-up table). Section SECREF18 discusses the embedding layer in more details. 
 Question: Which pretrained word vectors did they use?
Output: Extractive
Causal documents were chosen to contain one occurrence only of the exact unigrams: `caused', `causing', or `causes'. 
 Question: How do they extract causality from text?
Output: Abstractive
We compare our approaches with related approaches of pivoting, multilingual NMT (MNMT) BIBREF19, and cross-lingual transfer without pretraining BIBREF16. Although it is challenging for one model to translate all zero-shot directions between multiple distant language pairs of MultiUN, MLM+BRLM-SA still achieves better performances on Es $\rightarrow $ Ar and Es $\rightarrow $ Ru than strong pivoting$_{\rm m}$, which uses MNMT to translate source to pivot then to target in two separate steps with each step receiving supervised signal of parallel corpora.  
 Question: what are the pivot-based baselines?
Output: Extractive
Benchmark Evaluation ::: Classifier Models
SVM: A linear support vector machine with bag-of-words sentence representations.

MLP: A multi-layer perceptron with USE embeddings BIBREF4 as input.

FastText: A shallow neural network that averages embeddings of n-grams BIBREF5.

CNN: A convolutional neural network with non-static word embeddings initialized with GloVe BIBREF6.

BERT: A neural network that is trained to predict elided words in text and then fine-tuned on our data BIBREF1.

Platforms: Several platforms exist for the development of task-oriented agents. We consider Google's DialogFlow and Rasa NLU with spacy-sklearn. 
 Question: Which classifiers are evaluated?
Output: Extractive
The final collection of Facebook pages for the experiments described in this paper is as follows: FoxNews, CNN, ESPN, New York Times, Time magazine, Huffington Post Weird News, The Guardian, Cartoon Network, Cooking Light, Home Cooking Adventure, Justin Bieber, Nickelodeon, Spongebob, Disney. 
 Question: Which Facebook pages did they look at?
Output: Extractive
We used two datasets for the task - AMR Bank BIBREF10 and CNN-Dailymail ( BIBREF11 BIBREF12 ).  
 Question: What dataset is used in this paper?
Output: Extractive
The second Turkish dataset is the Twitter corpus which is formed of tweets about Turkish mobile network operators. Those tweets are mostly much noisier and shorter compared to the reviews in the movie corpus. In total, there are 1,716 tweets. 973 of them are negative and 743 of them are positive. These tweets are manually annotated by two humans, where the labels are either positive or negative. 
 Question: What details are given about the Twitter dataset?
Output: Extractive
Unfortunately, $\mathit {PMI}(w,c)$ goes to negative infinity when the word-context pair $(w,c)$ does not appear in the training corpus. Due to unreliable statistics, this happens very frequently in finite corpora.  
 Question: Why are statistics from finite corpora unreliable?
Output: Extractive
For the McGurk effect, we attempt an illusion for a language token (e.g. phoneme, word, sentence) $x$ by creating a video where an audio stream of $x$ is visually dubbed over by a person saying $x^{\prime }\ne x$ . The illusion $f(x^{\prime },x)$ affects a listener if they perceive what is being said to be $y\ne x$ if they watched the illusory video whereas they perceive $x$ if they had either listened to the audio stream without watching the video or had watched the original unaltered video, depending on specification.  A prototypical example is that the audio of the phoneme “baa,” accompanied by a video of someone mouthing “vaa”, can be perceived as “vaa” or “gaa” (Figure 1 ). 
 Question: What is the McGurk effect?
Output: Abstractive
For dataset collection, we utilize the headlines collected in qin2018automatic, lin2019learning from Tencent News, one of the most popular Chinese news websites, as the positive samples. We follow the same data split as the original paper. As some of the links are not available any more, we get 170,754 training samples and 4,511 validation samples. For the negative training samples collection, we randomly select generated headlines from a pointer generator BIBREF0 model trained on LCSTS dataset BIBREF5 and create a balanced training corpus which includes 351,508 training samples and 9,022 validation samples. To evaluate our trained classifier, we construct a test set by randomly sampling 100 headlines from the test split of LCSTS dataset and the labels are obtained by 11 human annotators. We use LCSTS BIBREF5 as our dataset to train the summarization model. The dataset is collected from the Chinese microblogging website Sina Weibo. It contains over 2 million Chinese short texts with corresponding headlines given by the author of each text. The dataset is split into 2,400,591 samples for training, 10,666 samples for validation and 725 samples for testing. We tokenize each sentence with Jieba and a vocabulary size of 50000 is saved. 
 Question: Did they used dataset from another domain for evaluation?
Output: Yes-no
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. 
 Question: Do the authors mention any possible confounds in their study?
Output: Yes-no
We consider QA PGNet and Multi-decoder QA PGNet with lookup table embedding as baseline models and improve on the baselines with other variations described below. 
 Question: What is the baseline?
Output: Extractive
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. 
 Question: What evaluation criteria and metrics were used to evaluate the generated text?
Output: Extractive
After using Kytea, Japanese texts are applied LSW algorithm to replace OOV words by their synonyms.  
 Question: Are synonymous relation taken into account in the Japanese-Vietnamese task?
Output: Yes-no
Looking at the current WinoGrande leaderboard, it appears that the previous state of the art is based on RoBERTa BIBREF2, which can be characterized as an encoder-only transformer architecture. 
 Question: What is the previous state of the art?
Output: Extractive
While manually analyzing the raw dataset, we noticed that looking at the tweet one has replied to or has quoted, provides significant contextual information. We call these, “context tweets". As humans can better understand a tweet with the reference of its context, our assumption is that computers also benefit from taking context tweets into account in detecting abusive language.

As shown in the examples below, (2) is labeled abusive due to the use of vulgar language. However, the intention of the user can be better understood with its context tweet (1).

(1) I hate when I'm sitting in front of the bus and somebody with a wheelchair get on.

INLINEFORM0 (2) I hate it when I'm trying to board a bus and there's already an as**ole on it.

Similarly, context tweet (3) is important in understanding the abusive tweet (4), especially in identifying the target of the malice.

(3) Survivors of #Syria Gas Attack Recount `a Cruel Scene'.

INLINEFORM0 (4) Who the HELL is “LIKE" ING this post? Sick people....

Huang et al. huang2016modeling used several attributes of context tweets for sentiment analysis in order to improve the baseline LSTM model. However, their approach was limited because the meta-information they focused on—author information, conversation type, use of the same hashtags or emojis—are all highly dependent on data.

In order to avoid data dependency, text sequences of context tweets are directly used as an additional feature of neural network models. We use the same baseline model to convert context tweets to vectors, then concatenate these vectors with outputs of their corresponding labeled tweets. More specifically, we concatenate max-pooled layers of context and labeled tweets for the CNN baseline model. As for RNN, the last hidden states of context and labeled tweets are concatenated. 
 Question: What additional features and context are proposed?
Output: Abstractive
Baselines. We compare our models against a neural baseline models, hierarchical LSTM (hLSTM), with the attention ablated but with access to the complete context, and a strong, open-sourced feature-rich baseline BIBREF7 . We choose BIBREF7 over other prior works such as BIBREF0 since we do not have access to the dataset or the system used in their papers for replication. BIBREF7 is a logistic regression classifier with features inclusive of bag-of-words representation of the unigrams and thread length, normalised counts of agreements to previous posts, counts of non-lexical reference items such as URLs, and the Coursera forum type in which a thread appeared. We also report aggregated results from a hLSTM model with access only to the last post as context for comparison. Table TABREF17 compares the performance of these baselines against our proposed methods. 
 Question: What was the previous state of the art for this task?
Output: Extractive
Our data has been developed by crawling and pre-processing an OSG web forum. The forum has a great variety of different groups such as depression, anxiety, stress, relationship, cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. 
 Question: How did they obtain the OSG dataset?
Output: Extractive
We collected a simplified dataset from Simple English Wikipedia that are freely available, which has been previously used for many text simplification methods BIBREF0 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF3 . 
 Question: what language does this paper focus on?
Output: Extractive
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. 
 Question: Which sports clubs are the targets?
Output: Extractive
Performing the Welch's t-test, both changes after weGAN training are statistically significant at a INLINEFORM0 significance level.  
 Question: Do they evaluate grammaticality of generated text?
Output: Yes-no
While a host of input modalities have been considered in other NLG tasks, such as text summarization BIBREF24 , image captioning BIBREF25 and table-to-text generation BIBREF26 , traditional QG mainly focused on textual inputs, especially declarative sentences, explained by the original application domains of question answering and education, which also typically featured textual inputs.

Recently, with the growth of various QA applications such as Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) BIBREF27 and Visual Question Answering (VQA) BIBREF28 , NQG research has also widened the spectrum of sources to include knowledge bases BIBREF29 and images BIBREF10 . 
 Question: What are all the input modalities considered in prior work in question generation?
Output: Abstractive
For this reason as a baseline algorithm for English dataset we refer to results from BIBREF0, and as for Russian dataset, we used the probabilistic language model, described in BIBREF8. 
 Question: Is the RNN model evaluated against any baseline?
Output: Yes-no
We show that by determining and integrating heterogeneous set of features from different modalities - aesthetic features from posted images (colorfulness, hue variance, sharpness, brightness, blurriness, naturalness), choice of profile picture (for gender, age, and facial expression), the screen name, the language features from both textual content and profile's description (n-gram, emotion, sentiment), and finally sociability from ego-network, and user engagement - we can reliably detect likely depressed individuals in a data set of 8,770 human-annotated Twitter users. 
 Question: What is the source of the visual data? 
Output: Abstractive
Manning and Schütze argue that, even though not quite correct, language text can be modeled as stationary, ergodic random processes BIBREF29, an assumption that we follow. Moreover, given the diversity of language production, we assume this stationary ergodic random process with finite alphabet $\mathcal {A}$ denoted $X = \lbrace X_i, -\infty < i < \infty \rbrace $ is non-null in the sense that always $P(x_{-m}^{-1}) > 0$ and

This is sometimes called the smoothing requirement. 
 Question: Is the assumption that natural language is stationary and ergodic valid?
Output: Abstractive
We measure how contextual a word representation is using three different metrics: self-similarity, intra-sentence similarity, and maximum explainable variance. 
 Question: What experiments are proposed to test that upper layers produce context-specific embeddings?
Output: Abstractive
Therefore, there are 44 tasks (22 INLINEFORM10 2) in total. In addition, there are 2 human summaries for each task. We selected three competitive systems (SumBasic, ILP, and ILP+MC) and therefore we have 3 system-system pairs (ILP+MC vs. ILP, ILP+MC vs. SumBasic, and ILP vs. SumBasic) for each task and each human summary. 
 Question: Do they build one model per topic or on all topics?
Output: Abstractive
First we are comparing BiLSTMBIBREF14, BiLSTM+CNNBIBREF20, BiLSTM+CRFBIBREF1, BiLSTM+CNN+CRFBIBREF2 models with CNN modelBIBREF0 and Stanford CRF modelBIBREF21. 
 Question: What is the baseline?
Output: Extractive
We attribute the significant performance gain of our model over the baseline to a combination of several factors as described below: 
 Question: Do they train a different training method except from scheduled sampling?
Output: Abstractive
Machine translation finds use in cheminformatics in “translation" from one language (e.g. reactants) to another (e.g. products). The variational Auto-encoder (VAE) is another widely adopted text generation architecture BIBREF101. Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) models generate novel molecules by using two components: the generator network generates novel molecules, and the discriminator network aims to distinguish between the generated molecules and real molecules BIBREF107. 
 Question: Are this models usually semi/supervised or unsupervised?
Output: Abstractive
In this work, we use the datasets released by BIBREF1 and HEOT dataset provided by BIBREF0 .  This was then followed by transliteration using the Xlit-Crowd conversion dictionary and translation of each word to English using Hindi to English dictionary.  
 Question: Do all the instances contain code-switching?
Output: Yes-no
In ConMask, we use a similar idea to select the most related words given some relationship and mask irrelevant words by assigning a relationship-dependent similarity score to words in the given entity description. ConMask selects words that are related to the given relationship to mitigate the inclusion of irrelevant and noisy words. 
 Question: Can the model add new relations to the knowledge graph, or just new entities?
Output: Abstractive
The CreateDebate dataset was collected from an English online debate forum discussing four topics: abortion (ABO), gay rights (GAY), Obama (OBA), and marijuana (MAR).  
 Question: What topics are included in the debate data?
Output: Extractive
The corpus is freely available at the following link. 
 Question: Is this dataset publicly available?
Output: Yes-no
The model consists of one layer of LSTM followed by three dense layers. The LSTM layer uses a dropout value of 0.2.  
 Question: Do they use dropout?
Output: Yes-no
It was developed by querying the Followerwonk Web service API with location-neutral seed words known to be used by gang members across the U.S. in their Twitter profiles. 
 Question: Do the authors report on English datasets only?
Output: Yes-no
Each one of these tokenizers, we combine with some types of representation methods, including word to vector methods such as continuous bag of words BIBREF5, pre-trained embedding as fasttext (trained on Wiki Vietnamese language) BIBREF6 and sonvx (trained on Vietnamese newspaper) BIBREF7 The dataset in this HSD task is really imbalance. Clean class dominates with 91.5%, offensive class takes 5% and the rest belongs to hate class with 3.5%. 
 Question: What dataset do they use?
Output: Abstractive
For our experiment we decided to use the Europarl dataset, using the data from the WMT11 . 
 Question: Are any experiments performed to try this approach to word embeddings?
Output: Yes-no
Contexts are either ground-truth contexts from that dataset, or they are Wikipedia passages retrieved using TF-IDF BIBREF24 based on a HotpotQA question. A new non-overlapping set of contexts was again constructed from Wikipedia via HotpotQA using the same method as Round 1. In addition to contexts from Wikipedia for Round 3, we also included contexts from the following domains: News (extracted from Common Crawl), fiction (extracted from BIBREF27, and BIBREF28), formal spoken text (excerpted from court and presidential debate transcripts in the Manually Annotated Sub-Corpus (MASC) of the Open American National Corpus), and causal or procedural text, which describes sequences of events or actions, extracted from WikiHow. Finally, we also collected annotations using the longer contexts present in the GLUE RTE training data, which came from the RTE5 dataset BIBREF29. 
 Question: What data sources do they use for creating their dataset?
Output: Extractive
Since pre-trained models operate on subword level, we need to estimate subword translation probabilities. For the purpose of evaluating the contextual representations learned by our model, we do not use part-of-speech tags. Contextualized representations are directly fed into Deep-Biaffine layers to predict arc and label scores. Table TABREF34 presents the Labeled Attachment Scores (LAS) for zero-shot dependency parsing. 
 Question: What metrics are used for evaluation?
Output: Extractive
Firstly, LastStateRNN is the classic RNN model, where the last state passes through an MLP and then the LR Layer estimates the corresponding probability. In contrast, in the AvgRNN model we consider the average vector of all states that come out of the cells. The AttentionRNN model is the one that it has been presented in BIBREF9. 
 Question: What was the baseline?
Output: Extractive
In recent years, researchers have proposed various filter based feature selection methods to raise the performance of document text classification BIBREF19.  Furthermore, in order to rank the terms based on their discriminative power among the classes, we use filter based feature selection method named as Normalized Difference Measure (NDM)BIBREF5. Considering the features contour plot, Rehman et al. BIBREF5 suggested that all those features which exist in top left, and bottom right corners of the contour are extremely significant as compared to those features which exist around diagonals. State-of-the-art filter based feature selection algorithms such as ACC2 treat all those features in the same fashion which exist around the diagonals BIBREF5. 
 Question: Is the filter based feature selection (FSE) a form of regularization?
Output: Yes-no
In this work, we propose to generate unanswerable questions by editing an answerable question and conditioning on the corresponding paragraph that contains the answer. So the generated unanswerable questions are more lexically similar and relevant to the context. Moreover, by using the answerable question as a prototype and its answer span as a plausible answer, the generated examples can provide more discriminative training signal to the question answering model. 
 Question: Does their approach require a dataset of unanswerable questions mapped to similar answerable questions?
Output: Yes-no
One common point in all the approaches yet has been the use of only textual features available in the dataset. Our model not only incorporates textual features, modeled using BiLSTM and augmented with an attention mechanism, but also considers related images for the task. 
 Question: What are the differences with previous applications of neural networks for this task?
Output: Abstractive
We use two datasets for experiments (Table TABREF29 ): (a) STAN INLINEFORM0 , created by BIBREF10 BansalBV15, which consists of 1,108 unique English hashtags from 1,268 randomly selected tweets in the Stanford Sentiment Analysis Dataset BIBREF36 along with their crowdsourced segmentations and our additional corrections; and (b) STAN INLINEFORM1 , our new expert curated dataset, which includes all 12,594 unique English hashtags and their associated tweets from the same Stanford dataset. 
 Question: How is the dataset of hashtags sourced?
Output: Extractive
We conduct experiments on the SQuAD dataset BIBREF3. 
 Question: On what datasets are experiments performed?
Output: Extractive
For each task, the training data that was made available by the organizers is used, which is a selection of tweets with for each tweet a label describing the intensity of the emotion or sentiment BIBREF1 .  Since the present study focuses on Spanish tweets, all tweets from the English datasets were translated into Spanish. This new set of “Spanish” data was then added to our original training set. Again, the machine translation platform Apertium BIBREF5 was used for the translation of the datasets. 
 Question: What dataset did they use?
Output: Abstractive
Five attributes, specifying certain details of clinical significance, are defined to characterize the answer types of INLINEFORM4 : (1) the time the patient has been experiencing the symptom, (2) activities that trigger the symptom (to occur or worsen), (3) the extent of seriousness, (4) the frequency occurrence of the symptom, and (5) the location of symptom. For each symptom/attribute, it can take on different linguistic expressions, defined as entities. Note that if the queried symptom or attribute is not mentioned in the dialogue, the groundtruth output is “No Answer”, as in BIBREF6 . 
 Question: What labels do they create on their dataset?
Output: Extractive
We compare our approaches with related approaches of pivoting, multilingual NMT (MNMT) BIBREF19, and cross-lingual transfer without pretraining BIBREF16.  The results show that our approaches consistently outperform other approaches across languages and datasets, especially surpass pivoting, which is a strong baseline in the zero-shot scenario that multilingual NMT systems often fail to beat BIBREF19, BIBREF20, BIBREF23. 
 Question: which multilingual approaches do they compare with?
Output: Extractive