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.

We experiment with two image captioning models: the Show&Tell model BIBREF0 and the LRCN1u model BIBREF1. Both models follow the basic encoder-decoder architecture design that uses a CNN encoder to condense the visual information into an image embedding, which in turn conditions an LSTM decoder to generate a natural language caption. The main difference between the two models is the way they condition the decoder. The Show&Tell model feeds the image embedding as the "predecessor word embedding" to the first produced word, while the LRCN1u model concatenates the image features with the embedded previous word as the input to the sequence model at each time step.
Question: Which existing models are evaluated?
Show&Tell and LRCN1u

To overcome the above-mentioned challenges, we propose a locally-linear meta-embedding learning method that (a) requires only the words in the vocabulary of each source embedding, without having to predict embeddings for missing words, (b) can meta-embed source embeddings with different dimensionalities, (c) is sensitive to the diversity of the neighbourhoods of the source embeddings.

Our proposed method comprises of two steps: a neighbourhood reconstruction step (Section "Nearest Neighbour Reconstruction" ), and a projection step (Section "Projection to Meta-Embedding Space" ). In the reconstruction step, we represent the embedding of a word by the linearly weighted combination of the embeddings of its nearest neighbours in each source embedding space.
Question: What is the introduced meta-embedding method introduced in this paper?
proposed method comprises of two steps: a neighbourhood reconstruction step (Section "Nearest Neighbour Reconstruction" ), and a projection step (Section "Projection to Meta-Embedding Space" ). In the reconstruction step, we represent the embedding of a word by the linearly weighted combination of the embeddings of its nearest neighbours in each source embedding space.

Here we introduce the evaluation setup and analyze the results for the articleentity (AEP) placement task. We only report the evaluation metrics for the 'relevant' news-entity pairs. Baselines. We consider the following baselines for this task.

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

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

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

S2: Place the news into the most frequent section in INLINEFORM0
Question: What baseline model is used?
For Article-Entity placement, they consider two baselines: the first one using only salience-based features, and the second baseline checks if the entity appears in the title of the article.

For Article-Section Placement, they consider two baselines: the first picks the section with the highest lexical similarity to the article, and the second one picks the most frequent section.