niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
We collected tweets associated to a dozen US mainstream news websites, i.e. most trusted sources described in BIBREF18, with the Streaming API, and we referred to Hoaxy API BIBREF16 for what concerns tweets containing links to 100+ US disinformation outlets. We filtered out articles associated to less than 50 tweets. The resulting dataset contains overall $\sim $1.7 million tweets for mainstream news, collected in a period of three weeks (February 25th, 2019-March 18th, 2019), which are associated to 6,978 news articles, and $\sim $1.6 million tweets for disinformation, collected in a period of three months (January 1st, 2019-March 18th, 2019) for sake of balance of the two classes, which hold 5,775 distinct articles. Diffusion censoring effects BIBREF14 were correctly taken into account in both collection procedures. We provide in Figure FIGREF4 the distribution of articles by source and political bias for both news domains. For what concerns the Italian scenario we first collected tweets with the Streaming API in a 3-week period (April 19th, 2019-May 5th, 2019), filtering those containing URLs pointing to Italian official newspapers websites as described in BIBREF22; these correspond to the list provided by the association for the verification of newspaper circulation in Italy (Accertamenti Diffusione Stampa). We instead referred to the dataset provided by BIBREF23 to obtain a set of tweets, collected continuously since January 2019 using the same Twitter endpoint, which contain URLs to 60+ Italian disinformation websites. In order to get balanced classes (April 5th, 2019-May 5th, 2019), we retained data collected in a longer period w.r.t to mainstream news. In both cases we filtered out articles with less than 50 tweets; overall this dataset contains $\sim $160k mainstream tweets, corresponding to 227 news articles, and $\sim $100k disinformation tweets, corresponding to 237 news articles. We provide in Figure FIGREF5 the distribution of articles according to distinct sources for both news domains.  
 Question: Which two news domains are country-independent?
Output: Abstractive
Given raw audio samples INLINEFORM0 , we apply the encoder network INLINEFORM1 which we parameterize as a five-layer convolutional network similar to BIBREF15 . Next, we apply the context network INLINEFORM0 to the output of the encoder network to mix multiple latent representations INLINEFORM1 into a single contextualized tensor INLINEFORM2 for a receptive field size INLINEFORM3 . The context network has seven layers and each layer has kernel size three and stride one.  
 Question: How many convolutional layers does their model have?
Output: Abstractive
Therefore, we implement reinforcement learning and elaborately design two rewards to describe the irony accuracy and sentiment preservation, respectively. 
 Question: What is the combination of rewards for reinforcement learning?
Output: Extractive
A few sample advice rules in English (these are converted to first-order logic format and given as input to our algorithm) are presented in Table TABREF11 .  We modified the work of Odom et al. odomAIME15,odomAAAI15 to learn RDNs in the presence of advice. The key idea is to explicitly represent advice in calculating gradients. 
 Question: How do they incorporate human advice?
Output: Abstractive
We designed 3 evaluation sets: (1) Base Set (1,264 samples) held out from the simulated data. (2) Augmented Set (1,280 samples) built by adding two out-of-distribution symptoms, with corresponding dialogue contents and queries, to the Base Set (“bleeding” and “cold”, which never appeared in training data). (3) Real-World Set (944 samples) manually delineated from the the symptom checking portions (approximately 4 hours) of real-world dialogues, and annotated as evaluation samples. 
 Question: How do they select instances to their hold-out test set?
Output: Abstractive
We initiated crawling with 100 questions randomly selected from different topics so that different genre of questions can be covered. The crawling of the questions follow a BFS pattern through the related question links. We obtained 822,040 unique questions across 80,253 different topics with a total of 1,833,125 answers to these questions. 
 Question: Does the experiments focus on a specific domain?
Output: Yes-no
In order to explore the problem space, we thus specifically target five binary classification problems addressed in BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , i.e presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels. 
 Question: What are the five different binary classification tasks?
Output: Extractive
We evaluate our cross-lingual pre-training based transfer approach against several strong baselines on two public datatsets, Europarl BIBREF31 and MultiUN BIBREF32, which contain multi-parallel evaluation data to assess the zero-shot performance. 
 Question: which datasets did they experiment with?
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 baselines do they introduce?
Output: Extractive
We find that dynamic communities, such as Seahawks or starcraft, have substantially higher rates of monthly user retention than more stable communities (Spearman's INLINEFORM0 = 0.70, INLINEFORM1 0.001, computed with community points averaged over months; Figure FIGREF11 .A, left). Similarly, more distinctive communities, like Cooking and Naruto, exhibit moderately higher monthly retention rates than more generic communities (Spearman's INLINEFORM2 = 0.33, INLINEFORM3 0.001; Figure FIGREF11 .A, right). As with monthly retention, we find a strong positive relationship between a community's dynamicity and the average number of months that a user will stay in that community (Spearman's INLINEFORM0 = 0.41, INLINEFORM1 0.001, computed over all community points; Figure FIGREF11 .B, left). This verifies that the short-term trend observed for monthly retention translates into longer-term engagement and suggests that long-term user retention might be strongly driven by the extent to which a community continually provides novel content. Interestingly, there is no significant relationship between distinctiveness and long-term engagement (Spearman's INLINEFORM2 = 0.03, INLINEFORM3 0.77; Figure FIGREF11 .B, right). Thus, while highly distinctive communities like RandomActsOfMakeup may generate focused commitment from users over a short period of time, such communities are unlikely to retain long-term users unless they also have sufficiently dynamic content. 
 Question: How do the various social phenomena examined manifest in different types of communities?
Output: Abstractive
The high nearest neighbours accuracy indicates that syntax information was successfully captured by the embeddings. 
 Question: Do they do quantitative quality analysis of learned embeddings?
Output: Yes-no
We computed Fliess' INLINEFORM0 on the trial set for the five annotators on 21 of the tweets. INLINEFORM1 is .83 for Layer A (OFF vs NOT) indicating high agreement. As to normalization and anonymization, no user metadata or Twitter IDs have been stored, and URLs and Twitter mentions have been substituted to placeholders.  
 Question: How many annotators participated?
Output: Extractive
We assess our dataset using traditional and deep learning methods. Our simplest model is a linear SVM trained on word unigrams. SVMs have produced state-of-the-art results for many text classification tasks BIBREF13 . We also train a bidirectional Long Short-Term-Memory (BiLSTM) model, which we adapted from the sentiment analysis system of sentimentSystem,rasooli2018cross and altered to predict offensive labels instead. It consists of (1) an input embedding layer, (2) a bidirectional LSTM layer, (3) an average pooling layer of input features. The concatenation of the LSTM's and average pool layer is passed through a dense layer and the output is passed through a softmax function. We set two input channels for the input embedding layers: pre-trained FastText embeddings BIBREF14 , as well as updatable embeddings learned by the model during training. Finally, we also apply a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model based on the architecture of BIBREF15 , using the same multi-channel inputs as the above BiLSTM. 
 Question: What models are used in the experiment?
Output: Extractive
o sufficiently utilize the large dataset $\mathcal {A}$ and $\mathcal {M}$, the model is pre-trained on CTC-based ASR task and MT task in the pre-training stage. 
 Question: What is the attention module pretrained on?
Output: Extractive
In this paper we focus on the skipgram approach with random negative examples proposed in BIBREF0 .  
 Question: Do they use skipgram version of word2vec?
Output: Yes-no
The contributions of this work are: 
 Question: Do they look for inconsistencies between different UD treebanks?
Output: Yes-no
For a word belonging to any one of the word-groups representing these concepts, the modified cost term favors an increase for the value of this word's embedding vector dimension corresponding to the concept that the particular word belongs to.  
 Question: Along which dimension do the semantically related words take larger values?
Output: Extractive
The informal setting/environment of social media often encourage multilingual speakers to switch back and forth between languages when speaking or writing. These all resulted in code-mixing and code-switching. Code-mixing refers to the use of linguistic units from different languages in a single utterance or sentence, whereas code-switching refers to the co-occurrence of speech extracts belonging to two different grammatical systemsBIBREF3. This language interchange makes the grammar more complex and thus it becomes tough to handle it by traditional algorithms. Thus the presence of high percentage of code-mixed content in social media text has increased the complexity of the aggression detection task. For example, the dataset provided by the organizers of TRAC-2018 BIBREF0, BIBREF2 is actually a code-mixed dataset. 
 Question: What data/studies do the authors provide to support the assertion that the majority of aggressive conversations contain code-mixed languages?
Output: Abstractive
We have downloaded 1,873 Twitter conversation threads, roughly 14k tweets, from a publicly available resource that were previously pre-processed and have conversation threads extracted. 
 Question: How large is the Twitter dataset?
Output: Extractive
N-GrAM ranked first in all cases except for the language variety task. In this case, the baseline was the top-ranked system, and ours was second by a small margin. Our system significantly out-performed the baseline on the joint task, as the baseline scored significantly lower for the gender task than for the variety task.

 
 Question: On which task does do model do worst?
Output: Abstractive
For each variable in encoding set, learn the new embeddings using the embeddings train set . Since there is stochasticity in the embeddings training model, we will repeat the above multiple times, for the different experiments in the paper (and report the respective mean and standard deviation statistics). 
 Question: How do their train their embeddings?
Output: Abstractive
Meanwhile, attending colleges in the Northeast, West and South regions increases the possibility of posting about sexual harassment (positive coefficients), over the Midwest region.  
 Question: Which geographical regions correlate to the trend?
Output: Abstractive
To assess the predictive capability of this and other models, we require some method by which we can compare the models. For that purpose, we use receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves as a visual representation of predictive effectiveness. ROC curves compare the true positive rate (TPR) and false positive rate (FPR) of a model's predictions at different threshold levels. The area under the curve (AUC) (between 0 and 1) is a numerical measure, where the higher the AUC is, the better the model performs. We cross-validate our model by first randomly splitting the corpus into a training set (95% of the corpus) and test set (5% of the corpus). We then fit the model to the training set, and use it to predict the response of the documents in the test set. We repeat this process 100 times. The threshold-averaged ROC curve BIBREF13 is found from these predictions, and shown in Figure 3 . Table 1 shows the AUC for each model considered. 
 Question: How is performance measured?
Output: Abstractive
Instead of providing an analytic approximation, AEM uses a discriminator network to discriminate between the reconstructed documents from latent events and the original input documents. This essentially helps the generator to construct a more realistic document from a random noise drawn from a Dirichlet distribution. Due to the flexibility of neural networks, the generator is capable of learning complicated nonlinear distributions. And the supervision signal provided by the discriminator will help generator to capture the event-related patterns. 
 Question: How does this model overcome the assumption that all words in a document are generated from a single event?
Output: Extractive
Results show that the CJFA encoder obtains significantly better phone classification accuracy than the VAE baseline and also than the CJFS encoder. These results are replicated for speaker recognition tasks. 
 Question: Which approach out of two proposed in the paper performed better in experiments?
Output: Extractive
We found interesting patterns which are learned by our model and help understand these monolingual gains. For example, a recurring pattern is that words in English which are translated to the same word, or to semantically close words, in the target language end up closer together after our transformation. For example, in the case of English-Spanish the following pairs were among the pairs whose similarity increased the most by applying our transformation: cellphone-telephone, movie-film, book-manuscript or rhythm-cadence, which are either translated to the same word in Spanish (i.e., teléfono and película in the first two cases) or are already very close in the Spanish space. More generally, we found that word pairs which move together the most tend to be semantically very similar and belong to the same domain, e.g., car-bicycle, opera-cinema, or snow-ice.

 
 Question: Why does the model improve in monolingual spaces as well? 
Output: Abstractive
Secondly, texts go through a cascade of annotation tools, enriching it with the following information:

Morphosyntactic interpretations (sets of tags), using Morfeusz 0.82 BIBREF25 ,

Tagging (selection of the most probable interpretation), using a transformation-based learning tagger, PANTERA 0.9.1 BIBREF26 ,

Syntactic groups (possibly nested) with syntactic and semantic heads, using a rule-based shallow parser Spejd 1.3.7 BIBREF27 with a Polish grammar, including improved version of modifications by BIBREF28 , enabling lemmatisation of nominal syntactic groups,

Named entities, using two available tools: NERF 0.1 BIBREF29 and Liner2 2.3 BIBREF30 .

 
 Question: How is the data in RAFAEL labelled?
Output: Abstractive
To ground moral sentiment in text, we leverage the Moral Foundations Dictionary BIBREF27. The MFD is a psycholinguistic resource that associates each MFT category with a set of seed words, which are words that provide evidence for the corresponding moral category in text. To implement the first tier of our framework and detect moral relevance, we complement our morally relevant seed words with a corresponding set of seed words approximating moral irrelevance based on the notion of valence, i.e., the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness of a stimulus. We refer to the emotional valence ratings collected by BIBREF28 for approximately 14,000 English words, and choose the words with most neutral valence rating that do not occur in the MFD as our set of morally irrelevant seed words, for an equal total number of morally relevant and morally irrelevant words. We divide historical time into decade-long bins, and use two sets of embeddings provided by BIBREF30, each trained on a different historical corpus of English:

Google N-grams BIBREF31: a corpus of $8.5 \times 10^{11}$ tokens collected from the English literature (Google Books, all-genres) spanning the period 1800-1999.

COHA BIBREF32: a smaller corpus of $4.1 \times 10^8$ tokens from works selected so as to be genre-balanced and representative of American English in the period 1810-2009. 
 Question: Which datasets are used in the paper?
Output: Abstractive
Since the training data consists only of utterance-denotation pairs, the ranker is trained to maximize the log-likelihood of the correct answer $z$ by treating logical forms as a latent variable The role of the ranker is to score the candidate logical forms generated by the parser; at test time, the logical form receiving the highest score will be used for execution. The ranker is a discriminative log-linear model over logical form $y$ given utterance $x$ :  
 Question: How does the model compute the likelihood of executing to the correction semantic denotation?
Output: Abstractive
Since, we there was no publicly available standard Nepali NER dataset and did not receive any dataset from the previous researchers, we had to create our own dataset. This dataset contains the sentences collected from daily newspaper of the year 2015-2016.  
 Question: What is the source of their dataset?
Output: Extractive
In this work, the metrics detailed below are proposed and we evaluate their quality through a human evaluation in subsection SECREF32. In addition to the automatic metrics, we proceeded to a human evaluation. We chose to use the data from our SQuAD-based experiments in order to also to measure the effectiveness of the proposed approach to derive Curiosity-driven QG data from a standard, non-conversational, QA dataset. We randomly sampled 50 samples from the test set. Three professional English speakers were asked to evaluate the questions generated by: humans (i.e. the reference questions), and models trained using pre-training (PT) or (RL), and all combinations of those methods.

Before submitting the samples for human evaluation, the questions were shuffled. Ratings were collected on a 1-to-5 likert scale, to measure to what extent the generated questions were: answerable by looking at their context; grammatically correct; how much external knowledge is required to answer; relevant to their context; and, semantically sound. The results of the human evaluation are reported in Table TABREF33. 
 Question: How they evaluate quality of generated output?
Output: Abstractive
Word Lattice
As shown in Figure FIGREF4 , a word lattice is a directed graph INLINEFORM0 , where INLINEFORM1 represents a node set and INLINEFORM2 represents a edge set. For a sentence in Chinese, which is a sequence of Chinese characters INLINEFORM3 , all of its possible substrings that can be considered as words are treated as vertexes, i.e. INLINEFORM4 . Then, all neighbor words are connected by directed edges according to their positions in the original sentence, i.e. INLINEFORM5 . 
 Question: How do they obtain word lattices from words?
Output: Abstractive
In the pyramid scoring, the content units in the gold human written summaries are organized in a pyramid. In this pyramid, the content units are organized in tiers and higher tiers of the pyramid indicate higher importance.  
 Question: What manual Pyramid scores are used?
Output: Extractive
These datasets are part of SemEval-2016 Challenge Task 5 BIBREF27 , BIBREF28 . Table TABREF7 shows the number of observations in each test corpus. 
 Question: what datasets were used in evaluation?
Output: Extractive
The method is evaluated on the BERTbase model, which has 12 layers, 12 self-attention heads with a hidden size of 768.

To accelerate the training speed, two-phase training BIBREF1 is adopted. The first phase uses a maximal sentence length of 128, and 512 for the second phase. The numbers of training steps of two phases are 50K and 40K for the BERTBase model. We used AdamW BIBREF13 optimizer with a learning rate of 1e-4, a $\beta _1$ of 0.9, a $\beta _2$ of 0.999 and a L2 weight decay rate of $0.01$. The first 10% of the total steps are used for learning rate warming up, followed by the linear decay schema. We used a dropout probability of 0.1 on all layers. The data used for pre-training is the same as BERT, i.e., English Wikipedia (2500M words) and BookCorpus (800M words) BIBREF14. 
 Question: Do they train their model starting from a checkpoint?
Output: Yes-no
In this paper, we manually annotate the predicate-argument structures for the 600 L2-L1 pairs as the basis for the semantic analysis of learner Chinese. 
 Question: Who manually annotated the semantic roles for the set of learner texts?
Output: Abstractive
The method is evaluated on the BERTbase model, which has 12 layers, 12 self-attention heads with a hidden size of 768. 
 Question: What BERT model do they test?
Output: Extractive
We evaluate our method on three tagging tasks: POS tagging (Pos), morphological tagging (Morph) and supertagging (Stag). We select these tasks as examples for tagging applications because they differ strongly in tag set sizes. The test results for the three tasks are shown in Table TABREF17 in three groups. The first group of seven columns are the results for Pos, where both LSTM and CNN have three variations of input features: word only ( INLINEFORM0 ), character only ( INLINEFORM1 ) and both ( INLINEFORM2 ). For Morph and Stag, we only use the INLINEFORM3 setting for both LSTM and CNN. 
 Question: Do they jointly tackle multiple tagging problems?
Output: Yes-no
We characterize the evaluation of Emotionally-Aware Chatbot into two different parts, qualitative and quantitative assessment. Qualitative assessment will focus on assessing the functionality of the software, while quantitative more focus on measure the chatbots' performance with a number. Based on our investigation of several previous studies, we found that most of the works utilized ISO 9241 to assess chatbots' quality by focusing on the usability aspect. This aspect can be grouped into three focuses, including efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction, concerning systems' performance to achieve the specified goals. In automatic evaluation, some studies focus on evaluating the system at emotion level BIBREF15 , BIBREF28 . Therefore, some common metrics such as precision, recall, and accuracy are used to measure system performance, compared to the gold label. This evaluation is similar to emotion classification tasks such as previous SemEval 2018 BIBREF32 and SemEval 2019 . Other studies also proposed to use perplexity to evaluate the model at the content level (to determine whether the content is relevant and grammatical) BIBREF14 , BIBREF39 , BIBREF28 . This evaluation metric is widely used to evaluate dialogue-based systems which rely on probabilistic approach BIBREF61 . Another work by BIBREF14 used BLEU to evaluate the machine response and compare against the gold response (the actual response), although using BLEU to measure conversation generation task is not recommended by BIBREF62 due to its low correlation with human judgment. This evaluation involves human judgement to measure the chatbots' performance, based on several criteria. BIBREF15 used three annotators to rate chatbots' response in two criteria, content (scale 0,1,2) and emotion (scale 0,1). Content is focused on measuring whether the response is natural acceptable and could plausible produced by a human. This metric measurement is already adopted and recommended by researchers and conversation challenging tasks, as proposed in BIBREF38 .  
 Question: How are EAC evaluated?
Output: Abstractive
Internally, the ASR system maintains a rich hypothesis space in the form of speech lattices or confusion networks (cnets). 
 Question: What is a word confusion network?
Output: Abstractive
As we only extracted references to other judicial decisions, we obtained 471,319 references from Supreme Court decisions, 167,237 references from Supreme Administrative Court decisions and 264,463 references from Constitutional Court Decisions. These are numbers of text spans identified as references prior the further processing described in Section SECREF3. 
 Question: How big is the dataset?
Output: Abstractive
Causal documents were chosen to contain one occurrence only of the exact unigrams: `caused', `causing', or `causes'. 
 Question: What are the selection criteria for "causal statements"?
Output: Abstractive
In this section, we first describe a baseline method inspired by the “align to segment” of BIBREF12, BIBREF13. We then propose two extensions providing the model with a signal relevant to the segmentation process, so as to move towards a joint learning of segmentation and alignment. 
 Question: Does the paper report any alignment-only baseline?
Output: Yes-no
We consider pre-training on the audio data (without labels) of WSJ, part of clean Librispeech (about 80h) and full Librispeech as well as a combination of all datasets (§ SECREF7 ).  Our experimental results on the WSJ benchmark demonstrate that pre-trained representations estimated on about 1,000 hours of unlabeled speech can substantially improve a character-based ASR system and outperform the best character-based result in the literature, Deep Speech 2.  
 Question: Which unlabeled data do they pretrain with?
Output: Abstractive
As a starting point, we used the DIP corpus BIBREF37 , a collection of 49 clusters of 100 web pages on educational topics (e.g. bullying, homeschooling, drugs) with a short description of each topic. 
 Question: Which collections of web documents are included in the corpus?
Output: Extractive
We first evaluate our converted embedding models on multi-language lexical similarity and relatedness tasks, as a sanity check, to make sure the word sense induction process did not hurt the general performance of the embeddings. Then, we test the sense embeddings on WSD task. 
 Question: Was any extrinsic evaluation carried out?
Output: Yes-no
we follow Lapata2005Automatic to measure coherence as sentence similarity 
 Question: Did the authors evaluate their system output for coherence?
Output: Yes-no
n this section, we first describe the phenomenon of mention of political parties names in the profile attributes of users. This is followed by the analysis of profiles that make specific mentions of political handles in their profile attributes. Both of these constitute an organic way of showing support to a party and does not involve any direct campaigning by the parties We opine that the whole campaign of adding Chowkidar to the profile attributes show an inorganic behavior, with political leaders acting as the catalyst. We believe, the effect of changing the profile attribute in accordance with Prime Minister's campaign is an example of inorganic behavior contagion BIBREF6, BIBREF9.   However, we argue that the addition of election campaign related keywords to the profile is a form of inorganic behavior.  
 Question: What are the organic and inorganic ways to show political affiliation through profile changes?
Output: Abstractive
We evaluate a multi-task approach and three algorithms that explicitly model the task dependencies. 
 Question: Will these findings be robust through different datasets and different question answering algorithms?
Output: Yes-no
We use three datasets for our experiments: IWSLT14 German-English, Turkish-English, and WMT14 English-German. 
 Question: what datasets were used?
Output: Abstractive
. Grammatically correct text is needed as the starting point for inserting artificial errors, and we used two different sources: 1) the corrected version of the same FCE training set on which the system is trained (450K tokens), and 2) example sentences extracted from the English Vocabulary Profile (270K tokens). 
 Question: Which languages are explored in this paper?
Output: Extractive
Experimental Setup 
 Question: What domains are detected in this paper?
Output: Abstractive
For reliable multi-hop reasoning using OpenIE tuples, we can add inter-tuple connections to the support graph search, controlled by a small number of rules over the OpenIE predicates. Learning such rules for the Science domain is an open problem and potential avenue of future work. 
 Question: Can the method answer multi-hop questions?
Output: Yes-no
Experimental Setup 
 Question: which chinese datasets were used?
Output: Abstractive
Experiment 1: scene variation in modified referring expressions We recruited 58 pairs of participants (116 participants total) over Amazon's Mechanical Turk who were each paid $1.75 for their participation. 
 Question: Does the paper describe experiments with real humans?
Output: Yes-no
As it is reported that conservatives and liberals exhibit different behaviors on online social platforms BIBREF19BIBREF20BIBREF21, we further assigned a political bias label to different US outlets (and therefore news articles) following the procedure described in BIBREF2. In order to assess the robustness of our method, we performed classification experiments by training only on left-biased (or right-biased) outlets of both disinformation and mainstream domains and testing on the entire set of sources, as well as excluding particular sources that outweigh the others in terms of samples to avoid over-fitting. 
 Question: How is the political bias of different sources included in the model?
Output: Abstractive
The parameters of the entire MSD (auxiliary-task) decoder are shared across languages.

Since a grouping of the languages based on language family would have left several languages in single-member groups (e.g. Russian is the sole representative of the Slavic family), we experiment with random groupings of two to three languages. Multilingual training is performed by randomly alternating between languages for every new minibatch. 
 Question: How do they perform multilingual training?
Output: Extractive
The seed lexicon consists of positive and negative predicates. If the predicate of an extracted event is in the seed lexicon and does not involve complex phenomena like negation, we assign the corresponding polarity score ($+1$ for positive events and $-1$ for negative events) to the event. It is a  
 Question: What is the seed lexicon?
Output: Abstractive
Four factual attributes pertaining to the 200 colleges are extracted from the U.S. News Statistics, which consists of Undergraduate Enrollment, Male/Female Ratio, Private/Public, and Region (Northeast, South, West, and Midwest).  
 Question: Which major geographical regions are studied?
Output: Abstractive
Table TABREF14 shows the effectiveness of our model (multi-task transformer) over the baseline transformer BIBREF8 .  
 Question: what are the baselines?
Output: Extractive
Three baseline classification methods: Support Vector Machines (SVM), Adaboost, and Random Forests are adopted to evaluate our extracted features. On each dataset, the employed classifiers are trained with individual feature first, and then with the combination of the two features. 
 Question: LDA is an unsupervised method; is this paper introducing an unsupervised approach to spam detection?
Output: Yes-no
We use two different unsupervised approaches for word sense disambiguation.  The second, called `dense model', represents synsets and contexts in a dense, low-dimensional space by averaging word embeddings. In the synset embeddings model approach, we follow SenseGram BIBREF14 and apply it to the synsets induced from a graph of synonyms.  We observe that the SenseGram-based approach for word sense disambiguation yields substantially better results in every case (Table TABREF25 ). The primary reason for that is the implicit handling of similar words due to the averaging of dense word vectors for semantically related words.  
 Question: Do the authors offer any hypothesis about why the dense mode outperformed the sparse one?
Output: Yes-no
The result on original WikiQA indicates that all three transfer learning methods not only do not improve the results but also hurt the F1-score. These are because other datasets could not add new information to the original dataset or they apparently add some redundant information which are dissimilar to the target dataset. 
 Question: Do transferring hurt the performance is the corpora are not related?
Output: Yes-no
By choosing English (En) as the pivot language, we perform pivot alignments for identical English segments on Europarl Fr-En and En-De parallel corpora BIBREF18 , constructing a multi-parallel corpus of Fr-En-De. Then each of the Fr*-De and Fr-De* pseudo parallel corpora is established from the multi-parallel data by applying the pivot language-based translation described in the previous section. For automatic translation, we utilize a pre-trained and publicly released NMT model for En $\rightarrow $ De and train another NMT model for En $\rightarrow $ Fr using the WMT'15 En-Fr parallel corpus BIBREF19 . 
 Question: Where do they collect the synthetic data?
Output: Yes-no
As discussed in Section SECREF2 , a variety of features that measure salience of an entity in text are available from the NLP community. We reimplemented the ones in Dunietz and Gillick BIBREF11 . This includes a variety of features, e.g. positional features, occurrence frequency and the internal POS structure of the entity and the sentence it occurs in.  
 Question: What features are used to represent the salience and relative authority of entities?
Output: Abstractive
Given a multiple-choice question $qa$ with question text $q$ and answer choices A= $\lbrace a_i\rbrace $ , we select the most relevant tuples from $T$ and $S$ as follows. Selecting from Tuple KB: We use an inverted index to find the 1,000 tuples that have the most overlapping tokens with question tokens $tok(qa).$ . 
 Question: Is an entity linking process used?
Output: Yes-no
The focus of this section is on recently published datasets and LID research applicable to the South African context. An in depth survey of algorithms, features, datasets, shared tasks and evaluation methods may be found in BIBREF0.

The datasets for the DSL 2015 & DSL 2017 shared tasks BIBREF1 are often used in LID benchmarks and also available on Kaggle . The recently published JW300 parallel corpus BIBREF2 covers over 300 languages with around 100 thousand parallel sentences per language pair on average. The WiLI-2018 benchmark dataset BIBREF4 for monolingual written natural language identification includes around 1000 paragraphs of 235 languages. The NCHLT text corpora BIBREF7 is likely a good starting point for a shared LID task dataset for the South African languages BIBREF8. 
 Question: Which datasets are employed for South African languages LID?
Output: Extractive
Here I would use Informap algorithm BIBREF12. To make a comparison to this method, I am using CCM and SCA for distance measurement in this experiment, too. UPGMA algorithm would be used accordingly in these two cases. 
 Question: Is the proposed method compared to previous methods?
Output: Yes-no
Similar equations were discovered using Euclidean distance computed between the context vector representations of the equations ( INLINEFORM2 ). We give additional example results in Appendix B. 
 Question: How do they define similar equations?
Output: Abstractive
Table TABREF20 shows that, on WoZ and DSTC2 datasets, SIM model has the same number of parameters, which is only 23% and 19% of that in GLAD model. 
 Question: How do they measure model size?
Output: Abstractive
We carried out two human evaluations using Mechanical Turk to compare the performance of our model and the baseline. 
 Question: Is there any human evaluation involved in evaluating this famework?
Output: Yes-no
29,794 The Wikipedia dataset consists of articles from English Wikipedia, with quality class labels assigned by the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia articles are labelled with one of six quality classes, in descending order of quality: Featured Article (“FA”), Good Article (“GA”), B-class Article (“B”), C-class Article (“C”), Start Article (“Start”), and Stub Article (“Stub”). We randomly sampled 5,000 articles from each quality class and removed all redirect pages, resulting in a dataset of 29,794 articles. 
 Question: How large is their data set?
Output: Abstractive
We call the model as a modified Toulmin's model. It contains five argument components, namely claim, premise, backing, rebuttal, and refutation. When annotating a document, any arbitrary token span can be labeled with an argument component; the components do not overlap.  
 Question: What argument components do the ML methods aim to identify?
Output: Extractive
We see that gated architectures almost always outperform recurrent, attention and linear models BoW, TFIDF, PV. This is largely because while training and testing on same domains, these models especially recurrent and attention based may perform better. However, for Domain Adaptation, as they lack gated structure which is trained in parallel to learn importance, their performance on target domain is poor as compared to gated architectures. As gated architectures are based on convolutions, they exploit parallelization to give significant boost in time complexity as compared to other models. The effectiveness of gated architectures rely on the idea of training a gate with sole purpose of identifying a weightage. In the task of sentiment analysis this weightage corresponds to what weights will lead to a decrement in final loss or in other words, most accurate prediction of sentiment. In doing so, the gate architecture learns which words or n-grams contribute to the sentiment the most, these words or n-grams often co-relate with domain independent words. On the other hand the gate gives less weightage to n-grams which are largely either specific to domain or function word chunks which contribute negligible to the overall sentiment. This is what makes gated architectures effective at Domain Adaptation. 
 Question: Does the fact that GCNs can perform well on this tell us that the task is simpler than previously thought?
Output: Yes-no
Questions are gathered from anonymized, aggregated queries to the Google search engine. Queries that are likely to be yes/no questions are heuristically identified: we found selecting queries where the first word is in a manually constructed set of indicator words and are of sufficient length, to be effective.

Questions are only kept if a Wikipedia page is returned as one of the first five results, in which case the question and Wikipedia page are given to a human annotator for further processing.

Annotators label question/article pairs in a three-step process. First, they decide if the question is good, meaning it is comprehensible, unambiguous, and requesting factual information. This judgment is made before the annotator sees the Wikipedia page. Next, for good questions, annotators find a passage within the document that contains enough information to answer the question. Annotators can mark questions as “not answerable" if the Wikipedia article does not contain the requested information. Finally, annotators mark whether the question's answer is “yes" or “no". Annotating data in this manner is quite expensive since annotators need to search entire Wikipedia documents for relevant evidence and read the text carefully. 
 Question: how was the dataset built?
Output: Abstractive
We also applied our model to MCTest dataset which requires machines to answer multiple-choice reading comprehension questions about fictional stories.  
 Question: Do they experiment with their proposed model on any other dataset other than MovieQA?
Output: Yes-no
For our study, we consider that a tweet went viral if it was retweeted more than 1000 times. 
 Question: What is their definition of tweets going viral?
Output: Abstractive
We further explore the effect of INLINEFORM0 -gram length in our model (i.e., the filter size for the covolutional layers used by the attention parsing module). In Figure FIGREF39 we plot the AUC scores for link prediction on the Cora dataset against varying INLINEFORM1 -gram length.  
 Question: Do they measure how well they perform on longer sequences specifically?
Output: Yes-no
While the mixing strategy compensates for most of the gap between the Fr-De* and the Fr*-De (3.01 $\rightarrow $ 0.17) in the De $\rightarrow $ Fr case, the resulting PSEUDOmix still shows lower BLEU than the target-originated Fr-De* corpus. We thus enhance the quality of the synthetic examples of the source-originated Fr*-De data by further training its mother translation model (En $\rightarrow $ Fr). As illustrated in Figure 2 , with the target-originated Fr-De* corpus being fixed, the quality of the models trained with the source-originated Fr*-De data and PSEUDOmix increases in proportion to the quality of the mother model for the Fr*-De corpus. Eventually, PSEUDOmix shows the highest BLEU, outperforming both Fr*-De and Fr-De* data.  As presented in Table 6 , we observe that fine-tuning using ground truth parallel data brings substantial improvements in the translation qualities of all NMT models. Among all fine-tuned models, PSEUDOmix shows the best performance in all experiments. This is particularly encouraging for the case of De $\rightarrow $ Fr, where PSEUDOmix reported lower BLEU than the Fr-De* data before it was fine-tuned. Even in the case where PSEUDOmix shows comparable results with other synthetic corpora in the Pseudo Only scenario, it shows higher improvements in the translation quality when fine-tuned with the real parallel data.  
 Question: How many improvements on the French-German translation benchmark?
Output: Abstractive
Given a pair of ultrasound and audio segments we can calculate the distance between them using our model. To predict the synchronisation offset for an utterance, we consider a discretised set of candidate offsets, calculate the average distance for each across utterance segments, and select the one with the minimum average distance.  
 Question: Does their neural network predict a single offset in a recording?
Output: Yes-no
In this study, we investigate the efficacy of bias reduction during training by introducing a new loss function which encourages the language model to equalize the probabilities of predicting gendered word pairs like he and she.  
 Question: what kinds of male and female words are looked at?
Output: Extractive
The second series of tests consisted of using all the documents of the subcorpus “specialist” $E$, because the documents of the subcorpus of Annodis are not identical.  As far as system evaluations are concerned, we use the 78 $E$ documents as reference.  We calculate the precision $P$, the recall $R$ and the $F$-score on the text corpus used in our tests, as follow: 
 Question: How is segmentation quality evaluated?
Output: Abstractive
To systematically evaluate the importance of the clinical sentiment values extracted from the free text in EHRs, we first build a baseline model using the structured features, which are similar to prior studies on readmission risk prediction BIBREF6. 
 Question: Do they compare to previous models?
Output: Yes-no
Since the ground-truth reference captions in ShapeWorld are randomly sampled, we take the sampled captions accompanying the test images as a proxy for optimal caption diversity, and compare it with the empirical output diversity of the evaluated model on these test images. Practically, we look at language constructions used and compute the corresponding diversity score as the ratio of observed number versus optimal number 
 Question: How is diversity measured?
Output: Extractive
This paper used the real-time method to randomly collect 10% of publicly available English tweets using several pre-defined DDEO-related queries (Table TABREF6 ) within a specific time frame.  
 Question: Do they evaluate only on English data?
Output: Yes-no
Our system learns Perceptron models BIBREF37 using the Machine Learning machinery provided by the Apache OpenNLP project with our own customized (local and clustering) features.  The local features constitute our baseline system on top of which the clustering features are added. 
 Question: what are the baselines?
Output: Abstractive
Our systems are attentional encoder-decoder networks BIBREF0 . We base our implementation on the dl4mt-tutorial, which we enhanced with new features such as ensemble decoding and pervasive dropout. 
 Question: what are the baseline systems?
Output: Extractive
Our full dataset consists of all subreddits on Reddit from January 2013 to December 2014, for which there are at least 500 words in the vocabulary used to estimate our measures, in at least 4 months of the subreddit's history. We compute our measures over the comments written by users in a community in time windows of months, for each sufficiently active month, and manually remove communities where the bulk of the contributions are in a foreign language.  
 Question: How did the select the 300 Reddit communities for comparison?
Output: Abstractive
The word intrusion test is expensive to apply since it requires manual evaluations by human observers separately for each embedding dimension. Furthermore, the word intrusion test does not quantify the interpretability levels of the embedding dimensions, instead it yields a binary decision as to whether a dimension is interpretable or not. However, using continuous values is more adequate than making binary evaluations since interpretability levels may vary gradually across dimensions. 
 Question: What advantages does their proposed method of quantifying interpretability have over the human-in-the-loop evaluation they compare to?
Output: Abstractive
In this work, we develop a technique to rapidly transfer an existing pre-trained model from English to other languages in an energy efficient way BIBREF8. As the first step, we focus on building a bilingual language model (LM) of English and a target language. Starting from a pre-trained English LM, we learn the target language specific parameters (i.e., word embeddings), while keeping the encoder layers of the pre-trained English LM fixed. We then fine-tune both English and target model to obtain the bilingual LM.  
 Question: How is the model transferred to other languages?
Output: Abstractive
We chose Conditional Copy (CC) model as our baseline, which is the best model in Wiseman.  
 Question: What is the strong baseline?
Output: Extractive
In this work, we make use of the widely-recognized state of the art entailment technique - BERT BIBREF18, and train it on three mainstream entailment datasets: MNLI BIBREF19, GLUE RTE BIBREF20, BIBREF21 and FEVER BIBREF22, respectively. We convert all datasets into binary case: “entailment” vs. “non-entailment”, by changing the label “neutral” (if exist in some datasets) into “non-entailment”.

For our label-fully-unseen setup, we directly apply this pretrained entailment model on the test sets of all $\textsc {0shot-tc}$ aspects. For label-partially-unseen setup in which we intentionally provide annotated data, we first pretrain BERT on the MNLI/FEVER/RTE, then fine-tune on the provided training data. 
 Question: Do they use pretrained models?
Output: Yes-no