In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a
. You have to answer the question based on the context.

[EX Q]: To create minimal pairs exemplifying a wide array of linguistic contrasts, it is necessary to artificially generate all datasets. This ensures both that we have sufficient unacceptable examples, and that the data is fully controlled, allowing for repeated isolation of a single linguistic phenomenon in each paradigm BIBREF30. The data generation scripts use a basic template to create each paradigm, pulling from a vocabulary of over 3000 words annotated for morphological, syntactic, and semantic features needed to create grammatical and semantically felicitous sentences. Examples SECREF6 and SECREF6 show one such template for the 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' sentences within a pair: the sole difference between them is the underlined word, which differs only in whether the anaphor agrees in number with its antecedent. Our generation codebase and scripts are freely available. This generation procedure is not without limitations, and despite the very detailed vocabulary we use, implausible sentences are occasionally generated (e.g., 'Sam ran around some glaciers'). In these cases, though, both the acceptable and unacceptable sentences will be equally implausible given world knowledge, so any difference in the probability assigned to them is still due to the intended grammatical contrast.
Question: How is the data automatically generated?
[EX A]: The data generation scripts use a basic template to create each paradigm, pulling from a vocabulary of over 3000 words annotated for morphological, syntactic, and semantic features needed to create grammatical and semantically felicitous sentences.

[EX Q]: We modeled the relationship between word count and the two metrics of user engagement (overall rating, mean number of turns) in separate linear regressions.

Results showed that users who, on average, produced utterances with more words gave significantly higher ratings ($eta $=0.01, SE=0.002, t=4.79, p$<$0.001)(see Figure 2) and engaged with Gunrock for significantly greater number of turns ($eta $=1.85, SE=0.05, t=35.58, p$<$0.001) (see Figure 2). These results can be interpreted as evidence for Gunrock's ability to handle complex sentences, where users are not constrained to simple responses to be understood and feel engaged in the conversation and evidence that individuals are more satisfied with the conversation when they take a more active role, rather than the system dominating the dialog. On the other hand, another interpretation is that users who are more talkative may enjoy talking to the bot in general, and thus give higher ratings in tandem with higher average word counts.
Question: How do they correlate user backstory queries to user satisfaction?
[EX A]: modeled the relationship between word count and the two metrics of user engagement (overall rating, mean number of turns) in separate linear regressions

[EX Q]: To verify the reliability of the transformed semantic space, we propose an evaluation benchmark on the basis of word similarity datasets. Given an enriched space INLINEFORM0 and a similarity dataset INLINEFORM1 , we compute the similarity of each word pair INLINEFORM2 as the cosine similarity of their corresponding transformed vectors INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 from the two spaces, where INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 for LS and INLINEFORM7 and INLINEFORM8 for CCA. A high performance on this benchmark shows that the mapping has been successful in placing semantically similar terms near to each other whereas dissimilar terms are relatively far apart in the space. We repeat the computation for each pair in the reverse direction.
Question: How is performance measured?
[EX A]:
To verify the reliability of the transformed semantic space, we propose an evaluation benchmark on the basis of word similarity datasets. Given an enriched space INLINEFORM0 and a similarity dataset INLINEFORM1 , we compute the similarity of each word pair INLINEFORM2 as the cosine similarity of their corresponding transformed vectors INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 from the two spaces, where INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 for LS and INLINEFORM7 and INLINEFORM8 for CCA.