In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question based on the context. You have to classify the questions into "Extractive", "Abstractive", or "Yes-no" questions. Extractive questions can be answered by concatenating extracts taken from a context into a summary while answering abstractive questions involves paraphrasing the context using novel sentences. Yes-no question is a question whose expected answer is one of two choices, one that affirms the question and one that denies the question. Typically, the choices are either yes or no.

[EX Q]: We conducted experiments on the Amazon reviews dataset BIBREF9, which is a benchmark dataset in the cross-domain sentiment analysis field. This dataset contains Amazon product reviews of four different product domains: Books (B), DVD (D), Electronics (E), and Kitchen (K) appliances. Each review is originally associated with a rating of 1-5 stars and is encoded in 5,000 dimensional feature vectors of bag-of-words unigrams and bigrams.

Experiment ::: Dataset and Task Design ::: Binary-Class.
From this dataset, we constructed 12 binary-class cross-domain sentiment analysis tasks: B$
ightarrow $D, B$
ightarrow $E, B$
ightarrow $K, D$
ightarrow $B, D$
ightarrow $E, D$
ightarrow $K, E$
ightarrow $B, E$
ightarrow $D, E$
ightarrow $K, K$
ightarrow $B, K$
ightarrow $D, K$
ightarrow $E. Following the setting of previous works, we treated a reviews as class '1' if it was ranked up to 3 stars, and as class '2' if it was ranked 4 or 5 stars. For each task, $\mathcal {D}_S$ consisted of 1,000 examples of each class, and $\mathcal {D}_T$ consists of 1500 examples of class '1' and 500 examples of class '2'. In addition, since it is reasonable to assume that $\mathcal {D}_T$ can reveal the distribution of target domain data, we controlled the target domain testing dataset to have the same class ratio as $\mathcal {D}_T$. Using the same label assigning mechanism, we also studied model performance over different degrees of $
m {P}(
m {Y})$ shift, which was evaluated by the max value of $
m {P}_S(
m {Y}=i)/
m {P}_T(
m {Y}=i),
orall i=1, \cdots , L$. Please refer to Appendix C for more detail about the task design for this study.

Experiment ::: Dataset and Task Design ::: Multi-Class.
We additionally constructed 12 multi-class cross-domain sentiment classification tasks. Tasks were designed to distinguish reviews of 1 or 2 stars (class 1) from those of 4 stars (class 2) and those of 5 stars (class 3). For each task, $\mathcal {D}_S$ contained 1000 examples of each class, and $\mathcal {D}_T$ consisted of 500 examples of class 1, 1500 examples of class 2, and 1000 examples of class 3. Similarly, we also controlled the target domain testing dataset to have the same class ratio as $\mathcal {D}_T$.
Question: Which sentiment analysis tasks are addressed?
[EX A]: Abstractive

[EX Q]: Last, we evaluate our approaches in 9 commonly used text classification datasets. We evaluate our methods on several commonly used datasets whose themes range from sentiment, web-page, science to medical and healthcare.
Question: What NLP tasks do they consider?
[EX A]: Abstractive

[EX Q]: To evaluate real-world performance of our selected classifier (i.e., performance in the absence of model and parameter bias), we perform classification of the holdout set. On this set, our classifier had an accuracy and F1-score of 89.6% and 89.2%, respectively.
Question: What was their system's performance?
[EX A]:
Extractive