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.
--------
Question: We extract data from the WMT'14 English-French (En-Fr) and English-German (En-De) datasets. To create a larger discrepancy between the tasks, so that there is a clear dataset size imbalance, the En-De data is artificially restricted to only 1 million parallel sentences, while the full En-Fr dataset, comprising almost 40 million parallel sentences, is used entirely.
Question: What datasets are used for experiments?

Answer: the WMT'14 English-French (En-Fr) and English-German (En-De) datasets.

Question: Motivated by this, we introduce resolution mode variables $\Pi = \lbrace \pi _1, \ldots , \pi _n
brace $ , where for each mention $j$ the variable $\pi _j \in \lbrace str, prec, attr
brace $ indicates in which mode the mention should be resolved. In our model, we define three resolution modes string-matching (str), precise-construct (prec), and attribute-matching (attr) and $\Pi $ is deterministic when $D$ is given (i.e. $P(\Pi |D)$ is a point distribution). We determine $\pi _j$ for each mention $m_j$ in the following way:

$\pi _j = str$ , if there exists a mention $m_i, i < j$ such that the two mentions satisfy the String Match sieve, the Relaxed String Match sieve, or the Strict Head Match A sieve in the Stanford multi-sieve system BIBREF1 .

$\pi _j = prec$ , if there exists a mention $m_i, i < j$ such that the two mentions satisfy the Speaker Identification sieve, or the Precise Constructs sieve.

$\pi _j = attr$ , if there is no mention $m_i, i < j$ satisfies the above two conditions.
Question: Are resolution mode variables hand crafted?

Answer: No

Question: 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. For the multilingual selection experiments, we experimented combining the languages from top to bottom as they appear Table (ranked by performance; e.g. 1-3 means the combination of FR(1), EN(2) and PT(3)). We observe that the performance improvement is smaller than the one observed in previous work BIBREF10, which we attribute to the fact that our dataset was artificially augmented. Lastly, following the methodology from BIBREF8, we extract the most confident alignments (in terms of ANE) discovered by the bilingual models. Table presents the top 10 most confident (discovered type, translation) pairs. Looking at the pairs the bilingual models are most confident about, we observe there are some types discovered by all the bilingual models (e.g. Mboshi word itua, and the concatenation oboa+nga).
Question: How is the performance of the model evaluated?

Answer:
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. For the multilingual selection experiments, we experimented combining the languages from top to bottom as they appear Table (ranked by performance; e.g. 1-3 means the combination of FR(1), EN(2) and PT(3)). Lastly, following the methodology from BIBREF8, we extract the most confident alignments (in terms of ANE) discovered by the bilingual models.