niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Because our conversion rules are interpretable, we identify shortcomings in both resources, using each as validation for the other. We were able to find specific instances of incorrectly applied UniMorph annotation, as well as specific instances of cross-lingual inconsistency in both resources. 
 Question: Do they look for inconsistencies between different languages' annotations in UniMorph?
Output: Yes-no
For the sake of simplicity, we focus our analysis on Airbnb listings from Manhattan, NY, during the time period of January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2017. The data provided to us contained information for roughly 40,000 Manhattan listings that were posted on Airbnb during this defined time period. For each listing, we were given information of the amenities of the listing (number of bathrooms, number of bedrooms …), the listing’s zip code, the host’s description of the listing, the price of the listing, and the occupancy rate of the listing.  
 Question: What is the size of the Airbnb?
Output: Extractive
The gated mechanism learn the domain agnostic representations. They together control the information that has to flow through further fully connected output layer after max pooling. 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. 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.  
 Question: Are there conceptual benefits to using GCNs over more complex architectures like attention?
Output: Yes-no
This algorithm finds the optimal number by minimising a cost function based on the eigenvector structure of the word similarity matrix. We refer the reader to the relevant literature for further details.

Results and Discussion 
 Question: What are the six target languages?
Output: Abstractive
In this work, we build a novel regression model, based on linguistic, content, behavioral and topic features to detect Arabic Twitter bots to understand the impact of bots in spreading religious hatred in Arabic Twitter space.  
 Question: Do they propose a new model to better detect Arabic bots specifically?
Output: Yes-no
We defined the intents with guidance from queries collected using a scoping crowdsourcing task, which prompted crowd workers to provide questions and commands related to topic domains in the manner they would interact with an artificially intelligent assistant. We manually grouped data generated by scoping tasks into intents.  
 Question: How was the dataset annotated?
Output: Abstractive
Different from scaled dot-product attention, Gaussian-masked directional attention expects to pay attention to the adjacent characters of each positions and cast the localness relationship between characters as a fix Gaussian weight for attention. We assume that the Gaussian weight only relys on the distance between characters. 
 Question: How does Gaussian-masked directional multi-head attention works?
Output: Abstractive
Last but not least, ethics and fairness are important considerations, that deserve to be studied. In that sense, detection of individual and global bias should be prioritized in order to give useful feedbacks to practitioners. Furthermore we are considering using adversarial learning as in BIBREF33 in order to ensure fairness during the training process. 
 Question: Do they analyze if their system has any bias?
Output: Yes-no
We call these techniques Recurrence over BERT (RoBERT) and Transformer over BERT (ToBERT). We observed that ToBERT outperforms RoBERT on pre-trained BERT features and fine-tuned BERT features for all our tasks.  
 Question: On top of BERT does the RNN layer work better or the transformer layer?
Output: Extractive
We map each relation type $R(x,y)$ to at least one parametrized natural-language question $q_x$ whose answer is $y$ . 
 Question: How is the input triple translated to a slot-filling task?
Output: Abstractive
In this section we describe how to evaluate and compare the outcomes of algorithms which assign relevance scores to words (such as LRP or SA) through intrinsic validation. Furthermore, we propose a measure of model explanatory power based on an extrinsic validation procedure. 
 Question: Are the document vectors that the authors introduce evaluated in any way other than the new way the authors propose?
Output: Yes-no
We validate the performance of the proposed s2sL by providing the preliminary results obtained on two different tasks namely, Speech/Music discrimination and emotion classification. We considered the GTZAN Music-Speech dataset [17], consisting of 120 audio files (60 speech and 60 music), for task of classifying speech and music. Each audio file (of 2 seconds duration) is represented using a 13-dimensional mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) vector, where each MFCC vector is the average of all the frame level (frame size of 30 msec and an overlap of 10 msec) MFCC vectors. It is to be noted that our main intention for this task is not better feature selection, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, in particular for low data scenarios. The standard Berlin speech emotion database (EMO-DB) [18] consisting of 535 utterances corresponding to 7 different emotions is considered for the task of emotion classification.  
 Question: Up to how many samples do they experiment with?
Output: Extractive
We used a set of global network indicators which allow us to encode each network layer by a tuple of features. Then we simply concatenated tuples as to represent each multi-layer network with a single feature vector. We used the following global network properties:

Number of Strongly Connected Components (SCC): a Strongly Connected Component of a directed graph is a maximal (sub)graph where for each pair of vertices $u,v$ there is a path in each direction ($u\rightarrow v$, $v\rightarrow u$).

Size of the Largest Strongly Connected Component (LSCC): the number of nodes in the largest strongly connected component of a given graph.

Number of Weakly Connected Components (WCC): a Weakly Connected Component of a directed graph is a maximal (sub)graph where for each pair of vertices $(u, v)$ there is a path $u \leftrightarrow v$ ignoring edge directions.

Size of the Largest Weakly Connected Component (LWCC): the number of nodes in the largest weakly connected component of a given graph.

Diameter of the Largest Weakly Connected Component (DWCC): the largest distance (length of the shortest path) between two nodes in the (undirected version of) largest weakly connected component of a graph.

Average Clustering Coefficient (CC): the average of the local clustering coefficients of all nodes in a graph; the local clustering coefficient of a node quantifies how close its neighbours are to being a complete graph (or a clique). It is computed according to BIBREF28.

Main K-core Number (KC): a K-core BIBREF13 of a graph is a maximal sub-graph that contains nodes of internal degree $k$ or more; the main K-core number is the highest value of $k$ (in directed graphs the total degree is considered).

Density (d): the density for directed graphs is $d=\frac{|E|}{|V||V-1|}$, where $|E|$ is the number of edges and $|N|$ is the number of vertices in the graph; the density equals 0 for a graph without edges and 1 for a complete graph.

Structural virality of the largest weakly connected component (SV): this measure is defined in BIBREF14 as the average distance between all pairs of nodes in a cascade tree or, equivalently, as the average depth of nodes, averaged over all nodes in turn acting as a root; for $|V| > 1$ vertices, $SV=\frac{1}{|V||V-1|}\sum _i\sum _j d_{ij}$ where $d_{ij}$ denotes the length of the shortest path between nodes $i$ and $j$. This is equivalent to compute the Wiener's index BIBREF29 of the graph and multiply it by a factor $\frac{1}{|V||V-1|}$. In our case we computed it for the undirected equivalent graph of the largest weakly connected component, setting it to 0 whenever $V=1$. 
 Question: What are the global network features which quantify different aspects of the sharing process?
Output: Extractive
So, we can impose the constraint that our model's representation of the input's syntax cannot contain this context-invariant information. This regularization is strictly preferable to allowing all aspects of word meaning to propagate into the input's syntax representation. Without such a constraint, all inputs could, in principle, be given their own syntactic categories. 
 Question: Does having constrained neural units imply word meanings are fixed across different context?
Output: Yes-no
When compared with baselines that randomly choose one of the neighbors, or assume that the fact with the lowest score is incorrect, we see that outperforms both of these with a considerable gap, obtaining an accuracy of $42\%$ and $55\%$ in detecting errors. 
 Question: Can this adversarial approach be used to directly improve model accuracy?
Output: Yes-no
The utterance is concatenated with a special symbol marking the end of the sequence. We initialize our word embeddings using 300-dimensional GloVe BIBREF30 and then fine-tune them during training. 
 Question: Do they use pretrained word vectors for dialogue context embedding?
Output: Yes-no
Specifically, we design three tasks for seq2seq model pre-training, namely Sentence Reordering (SR), Next Sentence Generation (NSG), and Masked Document Generation (MDG).  
 Question: What is masked document generation?
Output: Abstractive
BERT: We implement two BERT-based baselines BIBREF51 for evidence identification. First, we train BERT on each query-policy sentence pair as a binary classification task to identify if the sentence is evidence for the question or not (Bert). We also experiment with a two-stage classifier, where we separately train the model on questions only to predict answerability. At inference time, if the answerable classifier predicts the question is answerable, the evidence identification classifier produces a set of candidate sentences (Bert + Unanswerable).

 
 Question: What type of neural model was used?
Output: Extractive
Since we are interested in the zero-shot capabilities of our representation, we trained our sentiment analysis model only on the english IMDB Large Movie Review dataset and tested it on the chinese ChnSentiCorp dataset and german SB-10K BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 . A natural language inference task consists of two sentences; a premise and a hypothesis which are either contradictions, entailments or neutral. Learning a NLI task takes a certain nuanced understanding of language. Therefore it is of interest whether or not UG-WGAN captures the necessary linguistic features.  
 Question: Did they experiment with tasks other than word problems in math?
Output: Abstractive
We embedded COSTRA sentences with LASER BIBREF15, the method that performed very well in revealing linear relations in BaBo2019. 
 Question: Are some baseline models trained on this dataset?
Output: Yes-no
We conduct all our experiments on 635hrs of audio data for 7 Indian languages collected from $\textbf {All India Radio}$ news channel.  We collected and curated around 635Hrs of audio data for 7 Indian languages, namely Kannada, Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, Bengali, and English. We collected the data from the All India Radio news channel where an actor will be reading news for about 5-10 mins. To cover many speakers for the dataset, we crawled data from 2010 to 2019. Since the audio is very long to train any deep neural network directly, we segment the audio clips into smaller chunks using Voice activity detector. Since the audio clips will have music embedded during the news, we use Inhouse music detection model to remove the music segments from the dataset to make the dataset clean and our dataset contains 635Hrs of clean audio which is divided into 520Hrs of training data containing 165K utterances and 115Hrs of testing data containing 35K utterances.  
 Question: How was the audio data gathered?
Output: Abstractive
We show that by determining and integrating heterogeneous set of features from different modalities - aesthetic features from posted images (colorfulness, hue variance, sharpness, brightness, blurriness, naturalness), choice of profile picture (for gender, age, and facial expression), the screen name, the language features from both textual content and profile's description (n-gram, emotion, sentiment), and finally sociability from ego-network, and user engagement - we can reliably detect likely depressed individuals in a data set of 8,770 human-annotated Twitter users. 
 Question: What is the source of the user interaction data? 
Output: Abstractive
Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Malayalam and Tamil are the primary source languages, and translation from these to Hindi constitute the child tasks.  
 Question: On how many language pairs do they show that preordering assisting language sentences helps translation quality?
Output: Abstractive
The SemEval-2010 benchmark dataset BIBREF0 is composed of 244 scientific articles collected from the ACM Digital Library (conference and workshop papers). 
 Question: how many articles are in the dataset?
Output: Extractive
This dataset was collected through Mechanical Turk using 100 simulated environments with a corresponding topological map and, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first of its kind for behavioral navigation.  We created a new dataset for the problem of following navigation instructions under the behavioral navigation framework of BIBREF5 . This dataset was created using Amazon Mechanical Turk and 100 maps of simulated indoor environments, each with 6 to 65 rooms. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first benchmark for comparing translation models in the context of behavioral robot navigation.

As shown in Table TABREF16 , the dataset consists of 8066 pairs of free-form natural language instructions and navigation plans for training. This training data was collected from 88 unique simulated environments, totaling 6064 distinct navigation plans (2002 plans have two different navigation instructions each; the rest has one). The dataset contains two test set variants:

While the dataset was collected with simulated environments, no structure was imposed on the navigation instructions while crowd-sourcing data. Thus, many instructions in our dataset are ambiguous. Moreover, the order of the behaviors in the instructions is not always the same. For instance, a person said “turn right and advance” to describe part of a route, while another person said “go straight after turning right” in a similar situation. The high variability present in the natural language descriptions of our dataset makes the problem of decoding instructions into behaviors not trivial. See Appendix A of the supplementary material for additional details on our data collection effort.

 
 Question: How were the navigation instructions collected?
Output: Abstractive
Car-speak is abstract language that pertains to a car's physical attribute(s). In this instance the physical attributes that the term “fast” pertains to could be the horsepower, or it could be the car's form factor (how the car looks). However, we do not know exactly which attributes the term “fast” refers to. We train a series of classifiers in order to classify car-speak. We train three classifiers on the review vectors that we prepared in Section SECREF8. The classifiers we use are K Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP) BIBREF13. 
 Question: Is car-speak language collection of abstract features that classifier is later trained on?
Output: Yes-no
We optimized our single-task baseline to get a strong baseline in order to exclude better results in multi-task learning in comparison to single-task learning only because of these two following points: network parameters suit the multi-task learning approach better and a better randomness while training in the multi-task learning. To exclude the first point, we tested different hyperparameters for the single-task baseline. We tested all the combinations of the following hyperparameter values: 256, 512, or 1024 as the sizes for the hidden states of the LSTMs, 256, 512, or 1024 as word embedding sizes, and a dropout of 30 %, 40 %, or 50 %. We used subword units generated by byte-pair encoding (BPE) BIBREF16 as inputs for our model. To avoid bad subword generation for the synthetic datasets, in addition to the training dataset, we considered the validation and test dataset for the generating of the BPE merge operations list. We trained the configurations for 14 epochs and trained every configuration three times. We chose the training with the best quality with regard to the validation F1-score to exclude disadvantages of a bad randomness. We got the best quality with regard to the F1-score with 256 as the size of the hidden states of the LSTMs, 1024 as word embedding size, and a dropout of 30 %. For the batch size, we used 64. 
 Question: What are the strong baselines you have?
Output: Abstractive
The DeepMine database consists of three parts. The first one contains fixed common phrases to perform text-dependent speaker verification. The second part consists of random sequences of words useful for text-prompted speaker verification, and the last part includes phrases with word- and phoneme-level transcription, useful for text-independent speaker verification using a random phrase (similar to Part4 of RedDots). DeepMine Database Parts ::: Part1 - Text-dependent (TD)
This part contains a set of fixed phrases which are used to verify speakers in text-dependent mode. Each speaker utters 5 Persian phrases, and if the speaker can read English, 5 phrases selected from Part1 of the RedDots database are also recorded.

We have created three experimental setups with different numbers of speakers in the evaluation set. Similar to the text-dependent case, three experimental setups with different number of speaker in the evaluation set are defined (corresponding to the rows in Table TABREF16). However, different strategy is used for defining trials: Depending on the enrollment condition (1- to 3-sess), trials are enrolled on utterances of all words from 1 to 3 different sessions (i.e. 3 to 9 utterances). Further, we consider two conditions for test utterances: seq test utterance with only 3 or 4 words and full test utterances with all words (i.e. same words as in enrollment but in different order). Based on the recording sessions, we created two experimental setups for speaker verification. In the first one, respondents with at least 17 recording sessions are included to the evaluation set, respondents with 16 sessions to the development and the rest of respondents to the background set (can be used as training data). In the second setup, respondents with at least 8 sessions are included to the evaluation set, respondents with 6 or 7 sessions to the development and the rest of respondents to the background set.  two experimental setups for speaker verification 
 Question: what evaluation protocols are provided?
Output: Extractive
Analogous to word embeddings, sentence embeddings, e.g. the Universal Sentence Encoder BIBREF8 and Sentence-BERT BIBREF6, allow one to calculate the cosine similarity of various different sentences, as for instance the similarity of a question and the corresponding answer. The more appropriate a specific answer is to a given question, the stronger is its cosine similarity expected to be. When considering two opposite answers, it is therefore possible to determine a bias value:

where $\vec{q}$ is the vector representation of the question and $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ the representations of the two answers/choices. 
 Question: How is moral bias measured?
Output: Abstractive
Among all three pre-training tasks, SR works slightly better than the other two tasks (i.e., NSG and MDG). 
 Question: Which of the three pretraining tasks is the most helpful?
Output: Extractive
In the multiple-choice setting, which is the variety of question-answering (QA) that we focus on in this paper, there is also pragmatic reasoning involved in selecting optimal answer choices (e.g., while greenhouse effect might in some other context be a reasonable answer to the second question in Figure FIGREF1, global warming is a preferable candidate). 
 Question: Do they focus on Reading Comprehension or multiple choice question answering?
Output: Abstractive
In a cooperation with researchers from the German Institute for International Educational Research we identified the following current controversial topics in education in English-speaking countries: (1) homeschooling, (2) public versus private schools, (3) redshirting — intentionally delaying the entry of an age-eligible child into kindergarten, allowing their child more time to mature emotionally and physically BIBREF51 , (4) prayer in schools — whether prayer in schools should be allowed and taken as a part of education or banned completely, (5) single-sex education — single-sex classes (males and females separate) versus mixed-sex classes (“co-ed”), and (6) mainstreaming — including children with special needs into regular classes. 
 Question: Do they report results only on English data?
Output: Yes-no
In the future, we aim to use the corpus for annotation projects such as parts-of-speech tagging, named entity recognition. Furthermore, the generated word embeddings will be utilized for the automatic construction of Sindhi WordNet. 
 Question: Are trained word embeddings used for any other NLP task?
Output: Yes-no
Of the 144 schemas in the collection at WinogradSchemas there are 33 that can plausibly be translated this way. 
 Question: Did they collect their own datasets?
Output: Yes-no
The real-time tweets scores were calculated in the same way as the historical data and summed up for a minute and sent to the machine learning model with the Bitcoin price in the previous minute and the rolling average price. It predicted the next minute's Bitcoin price from the given data. After the actual price arrived, the RMS value was calculated and the machine learning model updated itself to predict with better understanding the next value. 
 Question: What experimental evaluation is used?
Output: Abstractive
The following data sources were used to train the RNN-T and associated RNN-LMs in this study.

Source-domain baseline RNN-T: approximately 120M segmented utterances (190,000 hours of audio) from YouTube videos, with associated transcripts obtained from semi-supervised caption filtering BIBREF28.

Source-domain normalizing RNN-LM: transcripts from the same 120M utterance YouTube training set. This corresponds to about 3B tokens of the sub-word units used (see below, Section SECREF30).

Target-domain RNN-LM: 21M text-only utterance-level transcripts from anonymized, manually transcribed audio data, representative of data from a Voice Search service. This corresponds to about 275M sub-word tokens.

Target-domain RNN-T fine-tuning data: 10K, 100K, 1M and 21M utterance-level {audio, transcript} pairs taken from anonymized, transcribed Voice Search data. These fine-tuning sets roughly correspond to 10 hours, 100 hours, 1000 hours and 21,000 hours of audio, respectively. 
 Question: How much training data is used?
Output: Abstractive
Furthermore, the basic seq2seq assumes a strict order between generated tokens, but in reality, we should not severely punish the model when it predicts the correct tokens in the wrong order. 
 Question: Do they impose any grammatical constraints over the generated output?
Output: Yes-no
As of January 2020, the latest CoVo 2019-06-12 release includes 29 languages. CoVoST is currently built on that release and covers the following 11 languages: French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese. Common Voice BIBREF10 is a crowdsourcing speech recognition corpus with an open CC0 license. Contributors record voice clips by reading from a bank of donated sentences 
 Question: How was the dataset collected?
Output: Extractive
We compare the performance of our Chinese word embedding vectors in the task of synonym discovery against another set of embedding vectors that was constructed with a co-occurrence model BIBREF1 . Our embeddings also proved to perform better than our benchmark dataset. 
 Question: Does this approach perform better than context-based word embeddings?
Output: Yes-no
On Twitter we can see results that are consistent with the RCV results for the left-to-center political spectrum. The exception, which clearly stands out, is the right-wing groups ENL and EFDD that seem to be the most cohesive ones. This is the direct opposite of what was observed in the RCV data. We speculate that this phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that European right-wing groups, on a European but also on a national level, rely to a large degree on social media to spread their narratives critical of European integration. 
 Question: Do the authors mention any possible confounds in their study?
Output: Yes-no
The experiment settings from this paper and evaluation protocol for the Mboshi corpus (Boundary F-scores using the ZRC speech reference) are the same from BIBREF8. Table presents the results for bilingual UWS and multilingual leveraging. For the former, we reach our best result by using as aligned information the French, the original aligned language for this dataset. Languages closely related to French (Spanish and Portuguese) ranked better, while our worst result used German. English also performs notably well in our experiments. We believe this is due to the statistics features of the resulting text. We observe in Table that the English portion of the dataset contains the smallest vocabulary among all languages. Since we train our systems in very low-resource settings, vocabulary-related features can impact greatly the system's capacity to language-model, and consequently the final quality of the produced alignments. Even in high-resource settings, it was already attested that some languages are more difficult to model than others BIBREF9. 
 Question: Is the model evaluated against any baseline?
Output: Yes-no
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with 2D convolutions and small kernels BIBREF1, have achieved state-of-the-art results for several speech recognition tasks BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6. r Models: Our baseline CNN model BIBREF21 consists of 15 convolutional and one fully-connected layer. 
 Question: Is model compared against state of the art models on these datasets?
Output: Yes-no
This work analyzes the understanding of pretrained language models of factual and commonsense knowledge stored in negated statements. To this end, we introduce the negated LAMA dataset. We construct it by simply inserting negation elements (e.g., “not”) in LAMA cloze statement (e.g., “The theory of relativity was not developed by [MASK].”). 
 Question: How did they extend LAMA evaluation framework to focus on negation?
Output: Extractive
We started from an initial corpus that did not have revisions, and kept adding new documents and revising existing documents. The revision operations we used were deletion, addition and replacement of words, sentences, paragraphs, section names and document titles. The addition of words, ..., section names, and new documents were pulled from the Wikipedia abstracts. We generated six data sets using different random seeds, and each data set contained six corpora (Corpus 0 - 5). 
 Question: What are simulated datasets collected?
Output: Abstractive
Ablation Study
To further investigate the efficacy of the key components in our framework, namely, THA and STN, we perform ablation study as shown in the second block of Table TABREF39 . The results show that each of THA and STN is helpful for improving the performance, and the contribution of STN is slightly larger than THA. “OURS w/o THA & STN” only keeps the basic bi-linear attention. Although it performs not bad, it is still less competitive compared with the strongest baseline (i.e., CMLA), suggesting that only using attention mechanism to distill opinion summary is not enough. After inserting the STN component before the bi-linear attention, i.e. “OURS w/o THA”, we get about 1% absolute gains on each dataset, and then the performance is comparable to CMLA. By adding THA, i.e. “OURS”, the performance is further improved, and all state-of-the-art methods are surpassed. 
 Question: Do they explore how useful is the detection history and opinion summary?
Output: Yes-no
We evaluate the proposed approach on the Chinese social media text summarization task, based on the sequence-to-sequence model. Large-Scale Chinese Short Text Summarization Dataset (LCSTS) is constructed by BIBREF1 . The dataset consists of more than 2.4 million text-summary pairs in total, constructed from a famous Chinese social media microblogging service Weibo.  
 Question: Are results reported only for English data?
Output: Yes-no
The Flickr30K dataset BIBREF0 is a collection of over 30,000 images with 5 crowdsourced descriptions each. It is commonly used to train and evaluate neural network models that generate image descriptions (e.g. BIBREF2 ). This paper aims to give an overview of linguistic bias and unwarranted inferences resulting from stereotypes and prejudices. I will build on earlier work on linguistic bias in general BIBREF3 , providing examples from the Flickr30K data, and present a taxonomy of unwarranted inferences. Finally, I will discuss several methods to analyze the data in order to detect biases. 
 Question: What is the size of the dataset?
Output: Extractive
Using our methodology, we tagged 10,000 Arabic tweet dataset for offensiveness, where offensive tweets account for roughly 19% of the tweets. Further, we labeled tweets as vulgar or hate speech.  
 Question: How many tweets are in the dataset?
Output: Extractive
There are various possible extensions for this work. For example, using all frames assigned to a phone, rather than using only the middle frame. 
 Question: Do they propose any further additions that could be made to improve generalisation to unseen speakers?
Output: Yes-no
We collect data by using the Twitter API for saved data, available for public use. For our experiments we collect 3200 tweets filtered by keywords like “fire”, “earthquake”, “theft”, “robbery”, “drunk driving”, “drunk driving accident” etc.  
 Question: Do the tweets come from any individual?
Output: Yes-no
We collect a novel dataset of 230K+ recipe texts and 1M+ user interactions (reviews) over 18 years (2000-2018) from Food.com. 
 Question: Where do they get the recipes from?
Output: Extractive
Each dataset consists of a collection of records with one QA problem per record. For each record, we include some question text, a context document relevant to the question, a set of candidate solutions, and the correct solution. The context document for each record consists of a list of ranked and scored pseudodocuments relevant to the question. Several baselines rely on the retrieved context to extract the answer to a question. For these, we refer to the fraction of instances for which the correct answer is present in the context as Search Accuracy. Naturally, the search accuracy increases as the context size increases, however at the same time reading performance decreases since the task of extracting the answer becomes harder for longer documents. 
 Question: Which retrieval system was used for baselines?
Output: Abstractive
Following previous work BIBREF13, BIBREF12, BIBREF10, BIBREF17, BIBREF9, BIBREF7, we choose SemCor3.0 as training corpus, which is the largest corpus manually annotated with WordNet sense for WSD. 
 Question: Is SemCor3.0 reflective of English language data in general?
Output: Yes-no
In all our experiments, we used the out-of-the-box BERT models without any task-specific fine-tuning. 
 Question: How does their model differ from BERT?
Output: Abstractive
LiLi should have the following capabilities: 
 Question: What are the components of the general knowledge learning engine?
Output: Abstractive
We label each review vector with the car it reviews.  
 Question: What are labels in car speak language dataset?
Output: Extractive
What is the impact of pre-trained representations with less transcribed data? In order to get a better understanding of this, we train acoustic models with different amounts of labeled training data and measure accuracy with and without pre-trained representations (log-mel filterbanks). The pre-trained representations are trained on the full Librispeech corpus and we measure accuracy in terms of WER when decoding with a 4-gram language model. Figure shows that pre-training reduces WER by 32% on nov93dev when only about eight hours of transcribed data is available. Pre-training only on the audio data of WSJ ( WSJ) performs worse compared to the much larger Librispeech ( Libri). This further confirms that pre-training on more data is crucial to good performance. 
 Question: Do they explore how much traning data is needed for which magnitude of improvement for WER? 
Output: Yes-no
With BERT, two fully unsupervised tasks are performed. The Masked Language Model and the Next Sentence Prediction (NSP).

For this study, the NSP is used as a proxy for the relevance of response. 
 Question: was bert used?
Output: Yes-no
Named Entity Recognition (NER) in the Biomedical domain usually includes recognition of entities such as proteins, genes, diseases, treatments, drugs, etc.  
 Question: What is NER?
Output: Extractive
Our model differs by learning the subword vectors and resulting representation jointly as weighted factorization of a word-context co-occurrence matrix is performed. 
 Question: Which matrix factorization methods do they use?
Output: Extractive
The initial analyses of the embedding matrices for both the UK and France revealed that in general, words were grouped by context or influence on the electricity consumption. For instance, we observed that winter words were together and far away from summer ones.  
 Question: Is there any example where geometric property is visible for context similarity between words?
Output: Yes-no
We learn that a number of factors can influence the performance of adversarial attacks, including architecture of the classifier, sentence length and input domain. 
 Question: What other factors affect the performance?
Output: Extractive
Table TABREF44 shows average results of our automatic and human evaluations. 
 Question: How big is the difference in performance between proposed model and baselines?
Output: Abstractive
In this work, we use MLP (modified to handle our data representation) as the base classifier. 
 Question: Which classification algorithm do they use for s2sL?
Output: Extractive
The Zurich Cognitive Language Processing Corpus (ZuCo) 2.0, including raw and preprocessed eye-tracking and electroencephalography (EEG) data of 18 subjects, as well as the recording and preprocessing scripts, is publicly available. It contains physiological data of each subject reading 739 English sentences from Wikipedia (see example in Figure FIGREF1). During the recording session, the participants read 739 sentences that were selected from the Wikipedia corpus provided by culotta2006integrating.  
 Question: What kind of sentences were read?
Output: Extractive
Data was collected from a 10% uniform sample of Twitter posts made during 2013, specifically the Gardenhose API. Control documents were also selected. These documents did not contain any of `caused', `causing', or `causes', nor any bidirectional words, and are further matched temporally to obtain the same number of control documents as causal documents in each fifteen-minute period during 2013. Control documents were otherwise selected randomly; causal synonyms may be present. 
 Question: What is the source of the "control" corpus?
Output: Abstractive
We propose a simple and practical human evaluation for evaluating text summarization, where the summary is evaluated against the source content instead of the reference. It handles both of the problems of paraphrasing and lack of high-quality reference.  To avoid the deficiencies, we propose a simple human evaluation method to assess the semantic consistency. Each summary candidate is evaluated against the text rather than the reference. If the candidate is irrelevant or incorrect to the text, or the candidate is not understandable, the candidate is labeled bad. Otherwise, the candidate is labeled good. Then, we can get an accuracy of the good summaries. The proposed evaluation is very simple and straight-forward. It focuses on the relevance between the summary and the text. The semantic consistency should be the major consideration when putting the text summarization methods into practice, but the current automatic methods cannot judge properly. For detailed guidelines in human evaluation, please refer to Appendix SECREF6 .  
 Question: What human evaluation method is proposed?
Output: Abstractive
Traditional text-to-speech (TTS) systems are composed of complex pipelines BIBREF0 , these often include accoustic frontends, duration model, acoustic prediction model and vocoder models. Neural text-to-speech systems have garnered large research interest in the past 2 years. The first to fully explore this avenue of research was Google's tacotron BIBREF1 system. The architecture of our model utilizes RNN-based Seq2Seq model for generating mel spectrogram from text. The architecture is similar to that of Tacotron 2 BIBREF4 In the original Tacotron 2, the attention mechanism used was location sensitive attention BIBREF12 combined the original additive Seq2Seq BIBREF7 Bahdanau attention.

We propose to replace this attention with the simpler query-key attention from transformer model Following the logic above, we utilize a similar method from BIBREF6 that adds an additional guided attention loss to the overall loss objective, which acts to help the attention mechanism become monotoic as early as possible. As seen from FIGREF24 , an attention loss mask, INLINEFORM0 , is created applies a loss to force the attention alignment, INLINEFORM1 , to be nearly diagonal. 
 Question: Which modifications do they make to well-established Seq2seq architectures?
Output: Abstractive
Our baseline is a GRU network for each of the three tasks. 
 Question: Are the models compared to some baseline models?
Output: Yes-no
INSIGHT 1: Political handles are more likely to engage in profile changing behavior as compared to their followers.  We analyze the trends in Figure FIGREF12 and find that the political handles do not change their usernames at all. This is in contrast to the trend in Figure FIGREF15 where we see that there are a lot of handles that change their usernames multiple times.  INSIGHT 3: Political handles tend to make new changes related to previous attribute values. However, the followers make comparatively less related changes to previous attribute values. 
 Question: How do profile changes vary for influential leads and their followers over the social movement?
Output: Abstractive
The output of a system with the target words in the predicted order is compared to the gold ranking of the DURel data set. As the metric to assess how well the model's output fits the gold ranking Spearman's $\rho $ was used. The higher Spearman's rank-order correlation the better the system's performance. 
 Question: How is evaluation performed?
Output: Extractive
We collect human judgments on Amazon Mechanical Turk via ParlAI BIBREF18. 
 Question: Do they use crowdsourcing to collect human judgements?
Output: Yes-no
We evaluate the proposed transfer learning techniques in two non-English language pairs of WMT 2019 news translation tasks: French$\rightarrow $German and German$\rightarrow $Czech. 
 Question: Are experiments performed with any other pair of languages, how did proposed method perform compared to other models?
Output: Yes-no
The corpus used for sentiment analysis is the IMDb dataset of movie reviews by BIBREF11 while that for NER is Groningen Meaning Bank (GMB) by BIBREF12, containing 47,959 sentence samples. 
 Question: What sentiment analysis dataset is used?
Output: Extractive
Finally, a comparison was made between the Skip-gram model W10N20 obtained at the 50th epoch and the other two W2V in Italian present in the literature (BIBREF9 and BIBREF10). The first test (Table TABREF15) was performed considering all the analogies present, and therefore evaluating as an error any analogy that was not executable (as it related to one or more words absent from the vocabulary).

As it can be seen, regardless of the metric used, our model has significantly better results than the other two models, both overall and within the two macro-areas. 
 Question: Are the word embeddings evaluated?
Output: Yes-no
The respondents in our MTurk survey had most difficulties recognizing reviews of category $(b=0.3, \lambda=-5)$, where true positive rate was $40.4\%$, while the true negative rate of the real class was $62.7\%$. The precision were $16\%$ and $86\%$, respectively. The class-averaged F-score is $47.6\%$, which is close to random. Detailed classification reports are shown in Table~\ref{table:MTurk_sub} in Appendix. Our MTurk-study shows that \emph{our NMT-Fake reviews pose a significant threat to review systems}, since \emph{ordinary native English-speakers have very big difficulties in separating real reviews from fake reviews}. We use the review category $(b=0.3, \lambda=-5)$ for future user tests in this paper, since MTurk participants had most difficulties detecting these reviews. We refer to this category as NMT-Fake* in this paper. The classifier is very effective in detecting reviews that humans have difficulties detecting. For example, the fake reviews MTurk users had most difficulty detecting ($b=0.3, \lambda=-5$) are detected with an excellent 97\% F-score. 
 Question: Does their detection tool work better than human detection?
Output: Yes-no
The minimal change operation substantially changed the meaning of the sentence, and yet the embedding of the transformation lies very closely to the original sentence (average similarity of 0.930). 
 Question: Do they do any analysis of of how the modifications changed the starting set of sentences?
Output: Yes-no
Irony Classifier: We implement a CNN classifier trained with our irony dataset. Sentiment Classifier for Irony: We first implement a one-layer LSTM network to classify ironic sentences in our dataset into positive and negative ironies. Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony: Similar to the training process of the sentiment classifier for irony, we first implement a one-layer LSTM network trained with the dataset for the sentiment analysis of common twitters to classify the non-ironies into positive and negative non-ironies. In this section, we describe some additional experiments on the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences. 
 Question: What experiments are conducted?
Output: Extractive
We focused evaluation over a small but diversified dataset composed by 10 YouTube videos in the English language in the news context. The selected videos cover different topics like technology, human rights, terrorism and politics with a length variation between 2 and 10 minutes.  
 Question: What kind of Youtube video transcripts did they use?
Output: Abstractive
We plan to apply semantic slot scaffold to news summarization. Specifically, we can annotate the critical entities such as person names or location names to ensure that they are captured correctly in the generated summary. We also plan to collect a human-human dialog dataset with more diverse human-written summaries. 
 Question: Is it expected to have speaker role, semantic slot and dialog domain annotations in real world datasets?
Output: Abstractive
In sub-task C the goal is to classify the target of the offensive language. Only posts labeled as targeted insults (TIN) in sub-task B are considered in this task BIBREF17 . Samples are annotated with one of the following:

Individual (IND): Posts targeting a named or unnamed person that is part of the conversation. In English this could be a post such as @USER Is a FRAUD Female @USER group paid for and organized by @USER. In Danish this could be a post such as USER du er sku da syg i hoved. These examples further demonstrate that this category captures the characteristics of cyberbullying, as it is defined in section "Background" .

Group (GRP): Posts targeting a group of people based on ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, political affiliation, religious belief, or other characteristics. In English this could be a post such as #Antifa are mentally unstable cowards, pretending to be relevant. In Danish this could be e.g. Åh nej! Svensk lorteret!

Other (OTH): The target of the offensive language does not fit the criteria of either of the previous two categories. BIBREF17 . In English this could be a post such as And these entertainment agencies just gonna have to be an ass about it.. In Danish this could be a post such as Netto er jo et tempel over lort. 
 Question: How many categories of offensive language were there?
Output: Abstractive
We use Waseem and Hovy BIBREF5, Davidson et al. BIBREF9, and Waseem et al. BIBREF10 as baselines and compare the results with our different fine-tuning strategies using pre-trained BERTbase model.  
 Question: What baseline is used?
Output: Extractive
The question generation model provides each candidate answer with a score by measuring semantic relevance between the question and the generated question based on the semantics of the candidate answer.  
 Question: Where is a question generation model used?
Output: Extractive
One of the solutions that has been proposed for mitigating gender bias on the word embedding level is Counterfactual Data Augmentation (CDA) BIBREF25. We apply this method by augmenting our dataset with a copy of every dialogue with gendered words swapped using the gendered word pair list provided by BIBREF21. 
 Question: How does counterfactual data augmentation aim to tackle bias?
Output: Abstractive
To capture this interesting property, we propose a new tagging scheme consisting of three tags, namely { INLINEFORM0 }.

INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears before the pun in the given context.

INLINEFORM0 tag highlights the current word is a pun.

INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears after the pun. 
 Question: What is the tagging scheme employed?
Output: Abstractive
Furthermore, we do not restrict ourselves to a test set of sequences of fixed lengths during testing. Rather, we exhaustively enumerate all the sequences in a language by their lengths and then go through the sequences in the test set one by one until our network errs $k$ times, thereby providing a more fine-grained evaluation criterion of its generalization capabilities. To study the effect of various length distributions on the learning capability and speed of LSTM models, we experimented with four discrete probability distributions supported on bounded intervals (Figure 2 ) to sample the lengths of sequences for the languages.  
 Question: Are the unobserved samples from the same distribution as the training data?
Output: Yes-no