niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Logistic regression: To produce the representation of the input, we concatenate the Bag-Of-Words representation of the document with the Bag-Of-Words representation of the question. LSTM: We start with a concatenation of the sequence of indexes of the document with the sequence of indexes of the question. Them we feed an LSTM network with this vector and use the final state as the representation of the input. Finally, we apply a logistic regression over this representation to produce the final decision. End-to-end memory networks: This architecture is based on two different memory cells (input and output) that contain a representation of the document. Deep projective reader: This is a model of our own design, largely inspired by the efficient R-net reader BIBREF12 . 
 Question: What baselines are presented?
Output: Extractive
SMT techniques require a parallel corpus in thr source and thr target language. A text-code parallel corpus similar to Fig. FIGREF12 is used in training. This parallel corpus has 18805 aligned data in it . In source data, the expression of each line code is written in the English language. In target data, the code is written in Python programming language. 
 Question: What dataset do they use?
Output: Abstractive
Drawing on the concept of variance in mathematics, local variance loss is defined as the reciprocal of its variance expecting the attention model to be able to focus on more salient parts. The standard variance calculation is based on the mean of the distribution. However, as previous work BIBREF15, BIBREF16 mentioned that the median value is more robust to outliers than the mean value, we use the median value to calculate the variance of the attention distribution. Thus, local variance loss can be calculated as:

where $\hat{\cdot }$ is a median operator and $\epsilon $ is utilized to avoid zero in the denominator. 
 Question: How do they define local variance?
Output: Abstractive
The character sets of these 7 languages have little overlap except that (i) they all include common basic Latin alphabet, and (ii) both Hindi and Marathi use Devanagari script. We took the union of 7 character sets therein as the multilingual grapheme set (Section SECREF2), which contained 432 characters. 
 Question: How much of the ASR grapheme set is shared between languages?
Output: Abstractive
Comparing these topics with those that appeared on a Catholic women forum, it seems that both ISIS and non-violent groups use topics about motherhood, spousal relationship, and marriage/divorce when they address women. Moreover, we used Depechemood methods to analyze the emotions that these materials are likely to elicit in readers. The result of our emotion analysis suggests that both corpuses used words that aim to inspire readers while avoiding fear. However, the actual words that lead to these effects are very different in the two contexts. Overall, our findings indicate that, using proper methods, automated analysis of large bodies of textual data can provide novel insight insight into extremist propaganda that can assist the counterterrorism community. 
 Question: What conclusions do the authors draw from their finding that the emotional appeal of ISIS and Catholic materials are similar?
Output: Extractive
We assessed the proposed models on four different NLG domains: finding a restaurant, finding a hotel, buying a laptop, and buying a television. The Restaurant and Hotel were collected in BIBREF4 , while the Laptop and TV datasets have been released by BIBREF22 with a much larger input space but only one training example for each DA so that the system must learn partial realization of concepts and be able to recombine and apply them to unseen DAs.  
 Question: Does the model evaluated on NLG datasets or dialog datasets?
Output: Abstractive
Table 1 shows the results of all models on WikiLarge dataset. We can see that our method (NMT+synthetic) can obtain higher BLEU, lower FKGL and high SARI compared with other models, except Dress on FKGL and SBMT-SARI on SARI. It verified that including synthetic data during training is very effective, and yields an improvement over our baseline NMF by 2.11 BLEU, 1.7 FKGL and 1.07 SARI.  Results on WikiSmall dataset are shown in Table 2. We see substantial improvements (6.37 BLEU) than NMT from adding simplified training data with synthetic ordinary sentences.  
 Question: by how much did their model improve?
Output: Abstractive
However, adversarial misspellings constitute a longstanding real-world problem. Spammers continually bombard email servers, subtly misspelling words in efforts to evade spam detection while preserving the emails' intended meaning BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 . 
 Question: Why is the adversarial setting appropriate for misspelling recognition?
Output: Abstractive
In our setup, our starting point is a base model, trained on NLI data. Rather than employing automated adversarial methods, here the model's “adversary” is a human annotator. Given a context (also often called a “premise” in NLI), and a desired target label, we ask the human writer to provide a hypothesis that fools the model into misclassifying the label. One can think of the writer as a “white hat” hacker, trying to identify vulnerabilities in the system. For each human-generated example that is misclassified, we also ask the writer to provide a reason why they believe it was misclassified. 
 Question: Do they use active learning to create their dataset?
Output: Yes-no
To test whether horizontal or vertical consistency is more helpful, we train and evaluate M-Bert on a dataset variant where all questions are in their English version. 
 Question: Did they pefrorm any cross-lingual vs single language evaluation?
Output: Yes-no
To better exploit such existing data sources, we propose an end-to-end (E2E) model based on pointer networks with attention, which can be trained end-to-end on the input/output pairs of human IE tasks, without requiring token-level annotations. Since our model does not need token-level labels, we create an E2E version of each data set without token-level labels by chunking the BIO-labeled words and using the labels as fields to extract. 
 Question: Do they assume sentence-level supervision?
Output: Yes-no
With this challenge in mind, we introduce Torch-Struct with three specific contributions:

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

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

Efficiency: implementations target computational/memory efficiency for GPUs and the backend includes extensions for optimization. 
 Question: Is this library implemented into Torch or is framework agnostic?
Output: Abstractive
To validate the effectiveness of AEM for extracting events from social media (e.g. Twitter) and news media sites (e.g. Google news), three datasets (FSD BIBREF12 , Twitter, and Google datasets) are employed. 
 Question: What datasets are used?
Output: Extractive
Moreover, due to their noisy nature, they are also processed using some Twitter-specific techniques such as substitution/removal of URLs, of user mentions, of hashtags, and of emoticons, spelling correction, elongation normalization, abbreviation lookup, punctuation removal, detection of amplifiers and diminishers, negation scope detection, etc. That language proved to be quite challenging with its use of creative spelling and punctuation, misspellings, slang, new words, URLs, and genre-specific terminology and abbreviations, e.g., RT for re-tweet and #hashtags. In addition to the genre difference, there is also a difference in length: social media messages are generally short, often length-limited by design as in Twitter, i.e., a sentence or a headline rather than a full document 
 Question: What difficulties does sentiment analysis on Twitter have, compared to sentiment analysis in other domains?
Output: Abstractive
We collected tweets related to five different DDoS attacks on three different American banks. For each attack, all the tweets containing the bank's name posted from one week before the attack until the attack day were collected. There are in total 35214 tweets in the dataset. Only the tweets from the Bank of America attack on 09/19/2012 were used in this experiment. In this subsection we evaluate how good the model generalizes. To achieve that, the dataset is divided into two groups, one is about the attacks on Bank of America and the other group is about PNC and Wells Fargo. The only difference between this experiment and the experiment in section 4.4 is the dataset. In this experiment setting $D_a$ contains only the tweets collected on the days of attack on PNC and Wells Fargo. $D_b$ only contains the tweets collected before the Bank of America attack. 
 Question: What is the training and test data used?
Output: Abstractive
Methods ::: Length Encoding Method
Inspired by BIBREF11, we use length encoding to provide the network with information about the remaining sentence length during decoding. We propose two types of length encoding: absolute and relative. Let pos and len be, respectively, a token position and the end of the sequence, both expressed in terms of number characters. Then, the absolute approach encodes the remaining length:

where $i=1,\ldots ,d/2$.

Similarly, the relative difference encodes the relative position to the end. This representation is made consistent with the absolute encoding by quantizing the space of the relative positions into a finite set of $N$ integers:

where $q_N: [0, 1] \rightarrow \lbrace 0, 1, .., N\rbrace $ is simply defined as $q_N(x) = \lfloor {x \times N}\rfloor $. As we are interested in the character length of the target sequence, len and pos are given in terms of characters, but we represent the sequence as a sequence of BPE-segmented subwords BIBREF17. To solve the ambiguity, len is the character length of the sequence, while pos is the character count of all the preceding tokens. 
 Question: How do they enrich the positional embedding with length information
Output: Abstractive
The performance on discriminating between offensive (OFF) and non-offensive (NOT) posts is reported in Table TABREF18 . We can see that all systems perform significantly better than chance, with the neural models being substantially better than the SVM. The CNN outperforms the RNN model, achieving a macro-F1 score of 0.80. The CNN system achieved higher performance in this experiment compared to the BiLSTM, with a macro-F1 score of 0.69. All systems performed better at identifying target and threats (TIN) than untargeted offenses (UNT). 
 Question: What is the best performing model?
Output: Extractive
All data were downloaded from Twitter in two separate batches using the “twint" scraping tool BIBREF5 to sample historical tweets for several different search terms; queries always included either “climate change" or “global warming", and further included disaster-specific search terms (e.g., “bomb cyclone," “blizzard," “snowstorm," etc.).  
 Question: Do they report results only on English data?
Output: Yes-no
We evaluated our detection models on three benchmarks: the FCE test data (41K tokens) and the two alternative annotations of the CoNLL 2014 Shared Task dataset (30K tokens) BIBREF3 .  
 Question: Which annotated corpus did they use?
Output: Extractive
For the emotion recognition from text, we manually transcribe all utterances of our AMMER study. To exploit existing and available data sets which are larger than the AMMER data set, we develop a transfer learning approach. We use a neural network with an embedding layer (frozen weights, pre-trained on Common Crawl and Wikipedia BIBREF36), a bidirectional LSTM BIBREF37, and two dense layers followed by a soft max output layer. This setup is inspired by BIBREF38. We use a dropout rate of 0.3 in all layers and optimize with Adam BIBREF39 with a learning rate of $10^{-5}$ (These parameters are the same for all further experiments). We build on top of the Keras library with the TensorFlow backend. We consider this setup our baseline model. 
 Question: What is the baseline method for the task?
Output: Abstractive
We evaluate the adversarially trained models, as shown in Table TABREF18.

After adversarial training, the performance of all the target models raises significantly, while that on the original examples remain comparable. 
 Question: How much in experiments is performance improved for models trained with generated adversarial examples?
Output: Abstractive
We apply the same data split in BIBREF31, BIBREF30, BIBREF6, which uses news (the union of bn and nw) as the training set, a half of bc as the development set and the remaining data as the test set.

We learn the model parameters using Adam BIBREF32. We apply dropout BIBREF33 to the hidden layers to reduce overfitting. The development set is used for tuning the model hyperparameters and for early stopping. We train 5 Bi-LSTM English RE models initiated with different random seeds, apply the 5 models on the target languages, and combine the outputs by selecting the relation type labels with the highest probabilities among the 5 models. 
 Question: Do they train their own RE model?
Output: Yes-no
With the above hyperparameter setting, the hybrid NER model achieved a F1 score of $0.995$ on synthesized queries and $0.948$ on clinical notes while the i2b2 NER model achieved a F1 score of $0.441$ on synthesized queries and $0.927$ on clinical notes (See Table TABREF23). 
 Question: what were their performance results?
Output: Extractive
We evaluate the quality of the document embeddings learned by the different variants of CAHAN and the HAN baseline on three of the large-scale document classification datasets introduced by BIBREF14 and used in the original HAN paper BIBREF5. 
 Question: Do they compare to other models appart from HAN?
Output: Yes-no
An overview of the provided dataset is given in Table TABREF16 . Notice that the available amount of data differs per language. 
 Question: is the dataset balanced across the four languages?
Output: Yes-no
We use the following three evaluation metrics:

Phoneme Error Rate (PER) is the Levenshtein distance between the predicted phoneme sequences and the gold standard phoneme sequences, divided by the length of the gold standard phoneme sequences.

Word Error Rate (WER) is the percentage of words in which the predicted phoneme sequence does not exactly match the gold standard phoneme sequence.

Word Error Rate 100 (WER 100) is the percentage of words in the test set for which the correct guess is not in the first 100 guesses of the system. 
 Question: what evaluation metrics were used?
Output: Extractive
Our model consists of two neural network modules, i.e. an extractor and abstractor. The extractor encodes a source document and chooses sentences from the document, and then the abstractor paraphrases the summary candidates.  The extractor is based on the encoder-decoder framework. We adapt BERT for the encoder to exploit contextualized representations from pre-trained transformers. We use LSTM Pointer Network BIBREF22 as the decoder to select the extracted sentences based on the above sentence representations.  Our abstractor is practically identical to the one proposed in BIBREF8. 
 Question: What's the method used here?
Output: Abstractive
The task, as framed above, requires to detect the semantic change between two corpora. The two corpora used in the shared task correspond to the diachronic corpus pair from BIBREF0: DTA18 and DTA19. They consist of subparts of DTA corpus BIBREF11 which is a freely available lemmatized, POS-tagged and spelling-normalized diachronic corpus of German containing texts from the 16th to the 20th century. DTA18 contains 26 million sentences published between 1750-1799 and DTA19 40 million between 1850-1899. 
 Question: What is the corpus used for the task?
Output: Extractive
Our data set contains $3,209$ reviews about 553 different cars from 49 different car manufacturers. 
 Question: How big is dataset of car-speak language?
Output: Extractive
The study of the mathematical structure of grammar has indicated that the fundamental things making up sentences are not the words, but some atomic grammatical types, such as the noun-type and the sentence-type BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 . The transitive verb-type is not an atomic grammatical type, but a composite made up of two noun-types and one sentence-type. Hence, particularly interesting here is that atomic doesn't really mean smallest...

On the other hand, just like in particle physics where we have particles and anti-particles, the atomic types include types as well as anti-types. But unlike in particle physics, there are two kinds of anti-types, namely left ones and right ones. This makes language even more non-commutative than quantum theory! 
 Question: Do they break down word meanings into elementary particles as in the standard model of quantum theory?
Output: Yes-no
As detailed before, we adapted the cluster-linking dataset from rupnik2016news to evaluate our online crosslingual clustering approach. 
 Question: What are the sources of the datasets?
Output: Extractive
We used two parallel corpora: Asian Scientific Paper Excerpt Corpus (ASPEC) BIBREF0 and NTCIR PatentMT Parallel Corpus BIBREF1 . 
 Question: What parallel corpus did they use?
Output: Extractive
In phase 1 (also referred to as the “exploration” phase) the algorithm explores the state space through keeping track of previously visited states by maintaining an archive. During this phase, instead of resuming the exploration from scratch, the algorithm starts exploring from promising states in the archive to find high performing trajectories. 
 Question: How is trajectory with how rewards extracted?
Output: Extractive
In this work, we introduce a new logical inference engine called MonaLog, which is based on natural logic and work on monotonicity stemming from vanBenthemEssays86. Since our logic operates over surface forms, it is straightforward to hybridize our models. We investigate using MonaLog in combination with the language model BERT BIBREF20, including for compositional data augmentation, i.e, re-generating entailed versions of examples in our training sets.  We perform two experiments to test MonaLog. We first use MonaLog to solve the problems in a commonly used natural language inference dataset, SICK BIBREF1, comparing our results with previous systems. Second, we test the quality of the data generated by MonaLog. To do this, we generate more training data (sentence pairs) from the SICK training data using our system, and performe fine-tuning on BERT BIBREF20, a language model based on the transformer architecture BIBREF23, with the expanded dataset.  
 Question: How do they combine MonaLog with BERT?
Output: Abstractive
BioASQ organizers provide the training and testing data. The training data consists of questions, gold standard documents, snippets, concepts, and ideal answers (which we did not use in this paper, but we used last year BIBREF2). The test data is split between phases A and B. The Phase A dataset consists of the questions, unique ids, question types. The Phase B dataset consists of the questions, golden standard documents, snippets, unique ids and question types. 
 Question: What dataset did they use?
Output: Abstractive
1. BERT based fine-tuning: In the first approach, which is shown in Figure FIGREF8, very few changes are applied to the BERTbase. In this architecture, only the [CLS] token output provided by BERT is used. The [CLS] output, which is equivalent to the [CLS] token output of the 12th transformer encoder, a vector of size 768, is given as input to a fully connected network without hidden layer. The softmax activation function is applied to the hidden layer to classify.

2. Insert nonlinear layers: Here, the first architecture is upgraded and an architecture with a more robust classifier is provided in which instead of using a fully connected network without hidden layer, a fully connected network with two hidden layers in size 768 is used. The first two layers use the Leaky Relu activation function with negative slope = 0.01, but the final layer, as the first architecture, uses softmax activation function as shown in Figure FIGREF8.

3. Insert Bi-LSTM layer: Unlike previous architectures that only use [CLS] as the input for the classifier, in this architecture all outputs of the latest transformer encoder are used in such a way that they are given as inputs to a bidirectional recurrent neural network (Bi-LSTM) as shown in Figure FIGREF8. After processing the input, the network sends the final hidden state to a fully connected network that performs classification using the softmax activation function.

4. Insert CNN layer: In this architecture shown in Figure FIGREF8, the outputs of all transformer encoders are used instead of using the output of the latest transformer encoder. So that the output vectors of each transformer encoder are concatenated, and a matrix is produced. The convolutional operation is performed with a window of size (3, hidden size of BERT which is 768 in BERTbase model) and the maximum value is generated for each transformer encoder by applying max pooling on the convolution output. By concatenating these values, a vector is generated which is given as input to a fully connected network. By applying softmax on the input, the classification operation is performed. 
 Question: What new fine-tuning methods are presented?
Output: Extractive
jiant System Overview ::: jiant Components
Tasks: Tasks have references to task data, methods for processing data, references to classifier heads, and methods for calculating performance metrics, and making predictions. 
 Question: Does jiant involve datasets for the 50 NLU tasks?
Output: Yes-no
For the image-aided model (W+C+V; upper row in Figure FIGREF19 ), we confirm that the modality attention successfully attenuates irrelevant signals (selfies, etc.) and amplifies relevant modality-based contexts in prediction of a given token. 
 Question: Do they inspect their model to see if their model learned to associate image parts with words related to entities?
Output: Yes-no
Following lebret2016neural, we used BLEU-4, NIST-4 and ROUGE-4 as the evaluation metrics. 
 Question: What metrics are used for evaluation?
Output: Extractive
We focus here on the Europarl domain, for which we have ample data in several languages, and use as in-domain training data the Europarl corpus BIBREF5 for two translation directions: English INLINEFORM0 German and English INLINEFORM1 French.  
 Question: what language is the data in?
Output: Extractive
The Machine Learning techniques used varied from Maximum Entropy Classifiers (BIBREF4) to Support Vector Machines (BIBREF5,BIBREF6,BIBREF7,BIBREF8), while the deep learning approaches included Recursive Neural Networks (BIBREF9,BIBREF10), Convolutional Neural Networks (BIBREF11) and most recently transfer learning-based architectures like Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformers (BERT) (BIBREF12). Figures FIGREF1 and FIGREF1 contain a summary of the papers addressing speculation detection and scope resolution (BIBREF13, BIBREF5, BIBREF9, BIBREF3, BIBREF14, BIBREF15, BIBREF16, BIBREF17, BIBREF6, BIBREF11, BIBREF18, BIBREF10, BIBREF19, BIBREF7, BIBREF4, BIBREF8). 
 Question: What were the baselines?
Output: Extractive
Many practical fake news detection algorithms use a kind of semantic side information, such as whether the generated text is factually correct, in addition to its statistical properties. Although statistical side information would be straightforward to incorporate in the hypothesis testing framework, it remains to understand how to cast such semantic knowledge in a statistical decision theory framework. 
 Question: What semantic features help in detecting whether a piece of text is genuine or generated? of 
Output: Abstractive
String kernels represent a way of using information at the character level by measuring the similarity of strings through character n-grams. 
 Question: What is a string kernel?
Output: Abstractive
The results indicate that most performance gains come from words embeddings, style, and morality features. Other features (emotion and sentiment) show lower importance: nevertheless, they still improve the overall system performance (on average 0.35% Macro-F$_1$ improvement) 
 Question: Based on this paper, what is the more predictive set of features to detect fake news?
Output: Extractive
In this section we describe a number of experiments targeted to compare the performance of popular named entity recognition algorithms on our data. We trained and evaluated Stanford NER, spaCy 2.0, and a recurrent model similar to BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 that uses bidirectional LSTM cells for character-based feature extraction and CRF, described in Guillaume Genthial's Sequence Tagging with Tensorflow blog post BIBREF15 . Stanford NER is conditional random fields (CRF) classifier based on lexical and contextual features such as the current word, character-level n-grams of up to length 6 at its beginning and the end, previous and next words, word shape and sequence features BIBREF16 . spaCy 2.0 uses a CNN-based transition system for named entity recognition. The main model that we focused on was the recurrent model with a CRF top layer, and the above-mentioned methods served mostly as baselines.  
 Question: what ner models were evaluated?
Output: Extractive
The average content score across the paintings is 3.7 which demonstrates that the prose generated is relevant to the painting. The average creativity score is 3.9 which demonstrates that the model captures more than basic objects in the painting successfully using poetic clues in the scene. The average style score is 3.9 which demonstrates that the prose generated is perceived to be in the style of Shakespeare. 
 Question: How does final model rate on Likert scale?
Output: Extractive
A recently published dataset called SCAN BIBREF2 (Simplified version of the CommAI Navigation tasks), tests compositional generalization in a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) setting by systematically holding out of the training set all inputs containing a basic primitive verb ("jump"), and testing on sequences containing that verb. 
 Question: How does the SCAN dataset evaluate compositional generalization?
Output: Abstractive
For both POS tagging and dependency parsing, we run experiments on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) portion of the Penn Treebank. 
 Question: What datasets do they evaluate on?
Output: Extractive
For example, the performance of even the best QA models degrades substantially on our hyponym probes (by 8-15%) when going from 1-hop links to 2-hops. Further, the accuracy of even our best models on the WordNetQA probe drops by 14-44% under our cluster-based analysis, which assesses whether a model knows several facts about each individual concept, rather than just being good at answering isolated questions.  
 Question: After how many hops does accuracy decrease?
Output: Extractive
Here we introduce the evaluation setup and analyze the results for the article-entity (AEP) placement task. We only report the evaluation metrics for the `relevant' news-entity pairs.  Baselines. We consider the following baselines for this task.

B1. The first baseline uses only the salience-based features by Dunietz and Gillick BIBREF11 .

B2. The second baseline assigns the value relevant to a pair INLINEFORM0 , if and only if INLINEFORM1 appears in the title of INLINEFORM2 . Here we show the evaluation setup for ASP task and discuss the results with a focus on three main aspects, (i) the overall performance across the years, (ii) the entity class specific performance, and (iii) the impact on entity profile expansion by suggesting missing sections to entities based on the pre-computed templates. Baselines. To the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of any comparable approach for this task. Therefore, the baselines we consider are the following:

S1: Pick the section from template INLINEFORM0 with the highest lexical similarity to INLINEFORM1 : S1 INLINEFORM2

S2: Place the news into the most frequent section in INLINEFORM0 
 Question: What baseline model is used?
Output: Abstractive
Experimental Protocol ::: Datasets ::: Training Dataset
(i) TTS System dataset: We trained our TTS system with a mixture of neutral and newscaster style speech. For a total of 24 hours of training data, split in 20 hours of neutral (22000 utterances) and 4 hours of newscaster styled speech (3000 utterances).

(ii) Embedding selection dataset: As the evaluation was carried out only on the newscaster speaking style, we restrict our linguistic search space to the utterances associated to the newscaster style: 3000 sentences.

Experimental Protocol ::: Datasets ::: Evaluation Dataset
The systems were evaluated on two datasets:

(i) Common Prosody Errors (CPE): The dataset on which the baseline Prostron model fails to generate appropriate prosody. This dataset consists of complex utterances like compound nouns (22%), “or" questions (9%), “wh" questions (18%). This set is further enhanced by sourcing complex utterances (51%) from BIBREF24.

(ii) LFR: As demonstrated in BIBREF25, evaluating sentences in isolation does not suffice if we want to evaluate the quality of long-form speech. Thus, for evaluations on LFR we curated a dataset of news samples. The news style sentences were concatenated into full news stories, to capture the overall experience of our intended use case. 
 Question: What dataset is used for train/test of this method?
Output: Abstractive
We leveraged an existing, annotated Twitter dataset that was constructed based on a hierarchical model of depression-related symptoms BIBREF12 , BIBREF13 . The dataset contains 9,473 annotations for 9,300 tweets. 
 Question: What dataset is used for this study?
Output: Extractive
Our first task is the recently-introduced Visual Question Answering challenge (VQA) BIBREF22 . The next set of experiments we consider focuses on GeoQA, a geographical question-answering task first introduced by Krish2013Grounded. 
 Question: What benchmark datasets they use?
Output: Abstractive
he first, OpenIE 4 BIBREF5 , descends from two popular OIE systems OLLIE BIBREF10 and Reverb BIBREF10 . The second was MinIE BIBREF7 , which is reported as performing better than OLLIE, ClauseIE BIBREF9 and Stanford OIE BIBREF9 . 
 Question: Which OpenIE systems were used?
Output: Abstractive
We decided to explore the remaining space for improvement on the CBT by testing humans on a random subset of 50 named entity and 50 common noun validation questions that the psr ensemble could not answer correctly. 
 Question: How do they show there is space for further improvement?
Output: Extractive
In our experiments, the RNN takes in spectrograms of utterances, passing them through two 2D-convolutional layers, followed by seven bi-directional recurrent layers and a fully-connected layer with softmax activation. All recurrent layers are batch normalized. At each timestep, the softmax activations give a probability distribution over the characters. CTC loss BIBREF8 is then computed from the timestep-wise probabilities. 
 Question: Which model do they use for end-to-end speech recognition?
Output: Extractive
In addition to the majority baseline, we also compare our results with a lexicon-based approach. For experimental results, we report majority baseline for each language where the majority baseline corresponds to a model's accuracy if it always predicts the majority class in the dataset. 
 Question: what are the baselines?
Output: Extractive
As the first step, we build three baseline LID systems, one based on the i-vector model, and the other two based on LSTM-RNN, using the speech data of two languages from Babel: Assamese and Georgian (AG). The two RNN LID baselines are: a standard RNN LID system (AG-RNN-LID) that discriminates between the two languages in its output, and a multi-task system (AG-RNN-MLT) that was trained to discriminate between the two languages as well as the phones. 
 Question: Which is the baseline model?
Output: Abstractive
The 10-fold cross validation with this setting gave a token-level accuracy of roughly 71%.  
 Question: Does the paper report translation accuracy for an automatic translation model for Tunisian to Arabish words?
Output: Yes-no
Together, these users gave Gunrock an average rating of 3.65 (median: 4.0), which was elicited at the end of the conversation (“On a scale from 1 to 5 stars, how do you feel about talking to this socialbot again?"). 
 Question: Do they gather explicit user satisfaction data on Gunrock?
Output: Yes-no
We showed in BIBREF22 that Pearson correlation is badly suited for STS. Instead, we compute the Spearman's rank correlation between the cosine-similarity of the sentence embeddings and the gold labels. 
 Question: What metrics are used for the STS tasks?
Output: Extractive
In this paper we propose two neural embedding models in order to learn continuous concept vectors based on the skip-gram model BIBREF11 . Our first model is the Concept Raw Context model (CRC) which utilizes concept mentions in a large scale KB to jointly learn embeddings of both words and concepts. Our second model is the Concept-Concept Context model (3C) which learns the embeddings of concepts from their conceptual contexts (i.e., contexts containing surrounding concepts only).  
 Question: What are the two neural embedding models?
Output: Extractive
A key benefit is that the RNN infers a latent representation of state, obviating the need for state labels. 
 Question: Does the latent dialogue state heklp their model?
Output: Yes-no
Yet, it is possible that the precise interpretability scores that are measured here are biased by the dataset used. However, it should be noted that the change in the interpretability scores for different word coverages might be effected by non-ideal subsampling of category words. Although our word sampling method, based on words' distances to category centers, is expected to generate categories that are represented better compared to random sampling of category words, category representations might be suboptimal compared to human designed categories. 
 Question: What are the weaknesses of their proposed interpretability quantification method?
Output: Abstractive
In almost all genres, DenseNMT models are significantly better than the baselines. 
 Question: did they outperform previous methods?
Output: Yes-no
In this section, we present the details of the analysis performed on the data obtained pertaining to Twitter messages from January 2020 upto now, that is the time since the news of the Coronavirus outbreak in China was spread across nations. Also, the data prominently captures the tweets in English, Spanish, and French languages. 
 Question: Do they collect only English data?
Output: Yes-no
Similar trends are seen in the performance of other two state-of-the-art approaches BIBREF9 , BIBREF8 . 
 Question: What are the state of the art models?
Output: Extractive
This section introduces our probabilistic model that infers keyword expectation and trains the target model simultaneously. 
 Question: What type of classifiers are used?
Output: Extractive
WikiSmall consists of ordinary and simplified sentences from the ordinary and simple English Wikipedias, which has been used as benchmark for evaluating text simplification BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF8 . The training set has 89,042 sentence pairs, and the test set has 100 pairs. WikiLarge is also from Wikipedia corpus whose training set contains 296,402 sentence pairs BIBREF19 , BIBREF20 . WikiLarge includes 8 (reference) simplifications for 2,359 sentences split into 2,000 for development and 359 for testing. 
 Question: what are the sizes of both datasets?
Output: Extractive
The regressor and classifier used Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Support Vector Classification (SVC) respectively. The bottom section of Table TABREF26 shows the results of several variants of the neural architecture. The table includes a neural regressor (NNR) and a neural classifier (NNC).  
 Question: What approaches without reinforcement learning have been tried?
Output: Abstractive
Inspired by BIBREF12, we integrate in this paper a boundary assembling step into the state-of-the-art LSTM model for Chinese word segmentation, and feed the output into a CRF model for NER, resulting in a 2% absolute improvement on the overall F1 score over current state-of-the-art methods. 
 Question: What state-of-the-art deep neural network is used?
Output: Extractive
We have created a dataset of discharge summaries and nursing notes, all in the English language, with a focus on frequently readmitted patients, labeled with 15 clinical patient phenotypes believed to be associated with risk of recurrent Intensive Care Unit (ICU) readmission per our domain experts (co-authors LAC, PAT, DAG) as well as the literature. BIBREF10 BIBREF11 BIBREF12 
 Question: How many different phenotypes are present in the dataset?
Output: Extractive
For the language modeling evaluation, we also evaluate a baseline without knowledge distillation (termed NoKD), with a model parameterized identically to the distilled student models but trained directly on the teacher model objective from scratch. For downstream tasks, we compare with NoKD as well as Patient Knowledge Distillation (PKD) from BIBREF34, who distill the 12-layer BERTBASE model into 3 and 6-layer BERT models by using the teacher model's hidden states. 
 Question: What state-of-the-art compression techniques were used in the comparison?
Output: Extractive
DeepMine is publicly available for everybody with a variety of licenses for different users. It was collected using crowdsourcing BIBREF4. The data collection was done using an Android application. Each respondent installed the application on his/her personal device and recorded several phrases in different sessions.  
 Question: how was the speech collected?
Output: Abstractive
To increase the variety of corpus, we selected 4 English corpora and 4 Mandarin corpora in addition to the low resource language corpora. 
 Question: Do they test their approach on large-resource tasks?
Output: Yes-no
We considered UD1.2 corpora for the following 16 languages: Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish. 
 Question: which languages are explored?
Output: Extractive
Given the annotated tweets, we wanted to ascertain the distribution of: types of offensive language, genres where it is used, the dialects used, and the gender of users using such language. As the figure shows, sports and politics are most dominant for offensive language including vulgar and hate speech. As for dialect, we looked at MSA and four major dialects, namely Egyptian (EGY), Leventine (LEV), Maghrebi (MGR), and Gulf (GLF). Figure FIGREF14 shows that 71% of vulgar tweets were written in EGY followed by GLF, which accounted for 13% of vulgar tweets. MSA was not used in any of the vulgar tweets. As for offensive tweets in general, EGY and GLF were used in 36% and 35% of the offensive tweets respectively. Unlike the case of vulgar language where MSA was non-existent, 15% of the offensive tweets were in fact written in MSA. For hate speech, GLF and EGY were again dominant and MSA consistuted 21% of the tweets. This is consistent with findings for other languages such as English and Italian where vulgar language was more frequently associated with colloquial language BIBREF24, BIBREF25. Regarding the gender, Figure FIGREF15 shows that the vast majority of offensive tweets, including vulgar and hate speech, were authored by males. Female Twitter users accounted for 14% of offensive tweets in general and 6% and 9% of vulgar and hate speech respectively. Figure FIGREF16 shows a detailed categorization of hate speech types, where the top three include insulting groups based on their political ideology, origin, and sport affiliation. Religious hate speech appeared in only 15% of all hate speech tweets. 
 Question: How did they analyze which topics, dialects and gender are most associated with tweets?
Output: Extractive
We extract data from the WMT'14 English-French (En-Fr) and English-German (En-De) datasets.  
 Question: Are this techniques used in training multilingual models, on what languages?
Output: Abstractive
For the proposed model, we denote INLINEFORM0 parameterized by INLINEFORM1 as a neural-based feature encoder that maps documents from both domains to a shared feature space, and INLINEFORM2 parameterized by INLINEFORM3 as a fully connected layer with softmax activation serving as the sentiment classifier. We have left the feature encoder INLINEFORM0 unspecified, for which, a few options can be considered. In our implementation, we adopt a one-layer CNN structure from previous works BIBREF22 , BIBREF4 , as it has been demonstrated to work well for sentiment classification tasks. 
 Question: What is the architecture of the model?
Output: Extractive
Our desiderata for the task collection were: sufficient diversity, existence of fairly large datasets for training, and success as standalone training objectives for sentence representations.

Multi-task training setup 
 Question: Which model architecture do they for sentence encoding?
Output: Abstractive
The evaluation of chatbots remains an open problem in the field. Recent work BIBREF25 has shown that the automatic evaluation metrics borrowed from machine translation such as BLEU score BIBREF26 tend to align poorly with human judgement. Therefore, in this paper, we mainly adopt human evaluation, along with perplexity, following the existing work. 
 Question: Is some other metrics other then perplexity measured?
Output: Yes-no
The baseline model BIBREF3 is implemented with a recurrent neural network based encoder-decoder framework. 
 Question: Do they compare against Noraset et al. 2017?
Output: Yes-no
Depechemood is a lexicon-based emotion detection method gathered from crowd-annotated news BIBREF24. Drawing on approximately 23.5K documents with average of 500 words per document from rappler.com, researchers asked subjects to report their emotions after reading each article. They then multiplied the document-emotion matrix and word-document matrix to derive emotion-word matrix for these words.  
 Question: How id Depechemood trained?
Output: Abstractive
The input document/summary that may have unordered sentences is processed so that it will have sentences clustered together. To test our approach, we jumble the ordering of sentences in a document, process the unordered document and compare the similarity of the output document with the original document. To structure an unordered document is an essential task in many applications. It is a post-requisite for applications like multiple document extractive text summarization where we have to present a summary of multiple documents. It is a prerequisite for applications like question answering from multiple documents where we have to present an answer by processing multiple documents. 
 Question: What is an unordered text document, do these arise in real-world corpora?
Output: Abstractive
Conclusion 
 Question: What is triangulation?
Output: Abstractive
For the other techniques, we extract paragraphs containing any word from a predetermined list of LGTBQ terms (shown in Table TABREF19) 
 Question: How do they identify discussions of LGBTQ people in the New York Times?
Output: Extractive
Throughout this article, we use two different embedding spaces. The first is the widely used representation built on GoogleNews BIBREF8 . The second is taken from BIBREF2 , and was trained on a Reddit dataset BIBREF9 . 
 Question: Which embeddings do they detect biases in?
Output: Abstractive
Nonetheless, the main caveat of this basic pre-training is that the source encoder is trained to be used by an English decoder, while the target decoder is trained to use the outputs of an English encoder — not of a source encoder. 
 Question: Is pivot language used in experiments English or some other language?
Output: Yes-no
For a given query $q = \langle s, r, ? \rangle $ , we identify mentions in $S_q$ of the entities in $C_q \cup \lbrace s\rbrace $ and create one node per mention. This process is based on the following heuristic:

we consider mentions spans in $S_q$ exactly matching an element of $C_q \cup \lbrace s\rbrace $ . Admittedly, this is a rather simple strategy which may suffer from low recall.

we use predictions from a coreference resolution system to add mentions of elements in $C_q \cup \lbrace s\rbrace $ beyond exact matching (including both noun phrases and anaphoric pronouns). In particular, we use the end-to-end coreference resolution by BIBREF16 .

we discard mentions which are ambiguously resolved to multiple coreference chains; this may sacrifice recall, but avoids propagating ambiguity. 
 Question: How did they detect entity mentions?
Output: Abstractive
Various multilingual extensions of NMT have already been proposed in the literature. The authors of BIBREF18 , BIBREF19 apply multitask learning to train models for multiple languages. Zoph and Knight BIBREF20 propose a multi-source model and BIBREF21 introduces a character-level encoder that is shared across several source languages. In our setup, we will follow the main idea proposed by Johnson et al. BIBREF22 . The authors of that paper suggest a simple addition by means of a language flag on the source language side (see Figure 2 ) to indicate the target language that needs to be produced by the decoder. This flag will be mapped on a dense vector representation and can be used to trigger the generation of the selected language. The authors of the paper argue that the model enables transfer learning and supports the translation between languages that are not explicitly available in training. 
 Question: What neural machine translation models can learn in terms of transfer learning?
Output: Abstractive
As this corpus of annotated patient notes comprises original healthcare data which contains protected health information (PHI) per The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) BIBREF16 and can be joined to the MIMIC-III database, individuals who wish to access to the data must satisfy all requirements to access the data contained within MIMIC-III. To satisfy these conditions, an individual who wishes to access the database must take a “Data or Specimens Management” course, as well as sign a user agreement, as outlined on the MIMIC-III database webpage, where the latest version of this database will be hosted as “Annotated Clinical Texts from MIMIC” BIBREF17. This corpus can also be accessed on GitHub after completing all of the above requirements. 
 Question: Is this dataset publicly available for commercial use?
Output: Yes-no
As in the work of E. Tong et al. ( BIBREF9 ), we pre-train word embeddings using a skip-gram model BIBREF4 applied to unlabeled data from escort ads, however, we go further by analyzing the emojis' embeddings and thereby expand the trafficking lexicon. 
 Question: Do they use pretrained word embeddings?
Output: Yes-no
We focus here on the Europarl domain, for which we have ample data in several languages, and use as in-domain training data the Europarl corpus BIBREF5 for two translation directions: English INLINEFORM0 German and English INLINEFORM1 French. When measuring out-of-domain performance, we will use the WMT newstest 2014. or French we use samples from News-Commentary-11 and Wikipedia from WMT 2014 shared translation task, as well as the Multi-UN BIBREF9 and EU-Bookshop BIBREF10 corpora. For German, we use samples from News-Commentary-11, Rapid, Common-Crawl (WMT 2017) and Multi-UN (see table TABREF5 ).  
 Question: what dataset is used?
Output: Extractive
Compared with 2015, our QA-SRL gold yielded 1593 annotations, with 989 core and 604 adjuncts, while theirs yielded 1315 annotations, 979 core and 336 adjuncts.  
 Question: How much more coverage is in the new dataset?
Output: Abstractive