In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and you have to write an answerable question based on the context. Your questions can be extractive, abstractive, or yes-no questions.

[Q]: The dataset consists of a set of polysemous words: 20 nouns, 20 verbs, and 10 adjectives and specifies 20 to 100 contexts per word, with the total of 4,664 contexts, drawn from the Open American National Corpus. Given a set of contexts of a polysemous word, the participants of the competition had to divide them into clusters by sense of the word. The contexts are manually labelled with WordNet senses of the target words, the gold standard clustering is generated from this labelling.

The task allows two setups: graded WSI where participants can submit multiple senses per word and provide the probability of each sense in a particular context, and non-graded WSI where a model determines a single sense for a word in context. In our experiments we performed non-graded WSI. We considered the most suitable sense as the one with the highest cosine similarity with embeddings of the context, as described in Section SECREF9.
[A]: How are the different senses annotated/labeled?

[Q]: Table TABREF16 shows the recognition performance of naive multilingual approach using BLSTMP and VGG model against a monolingual model trained with BLSTMP. The results clearly indicate that having a better architecture such as VGG-BLSTM helps in improving multilingual performance. We used a character-level RNNLM, which was trained with 2-layer LSTM on character sequences.
[A]: What architectures are explored to improve the seq2seq model?

[Q]: 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 .
[A]:
What human evaluation method is proposed?