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.

Q: We train language models on two languages: One model is estimated on the German newscrawl distributed by WMT'18 comprising 260M sentences or 6B tokens. Another model is trained on the English newscrawl data comprising 193M sentences or 5B tokens. We learn a joint Byte-Pair-Encoding (BPE; Sennrich et al., 2016) vocabulary of 37K types on the German and English newscrawl and train the language models with this vocabulary. We consider two benchmarks: Most experiments are run on the WMT'18 English-German (en-de) news translation task and we validate our findings on the WMT'18 English-Turkish (en-tr) news task. For WMT'18 English-German, the training corpus consists of all available bitext excluding the ParaCrawl corpus and we remove sentences longer than 250 tokens as well as sentence-pairs with a source/target length ratio exceeding 1.5. This results in 5.18M sentence pairs. We tokenize all data with the Moses tokenizer BIBREF8 and apply the BPE vocabulary learned on the monolingual corpora.
Question: What dataset do they use?

A: German newscrawl distributed by WMT'18 English newscrawl data WMT'18 English-German (en-de) news translation task WMT'18 English-Turkish (en-tr) news task
****
Q: We opted for an automatic approach instead, that can be scaled arbitrarily and at little cost: we generate synthetic sentence pairs $(, ilde{})$ by randomly perturbing 1.8 million segments $$ from Wikipedia. We use three techniques: mask-filling with BERT, backtranslation, and randomly dropping out words.
Question: How are the synthetic examples generated?

A: Random perturbation of Wikipedia sentences using mask-filling with BERT, backtranslation and randomly drop out
****
Q: In this regard, we observed that HDGAN produced relatively better visual results on the CUB and Oxford datasets while AttnGAN produced far more impressive results than the rest on the more complex COCO dataset. In terms of inception score (IS), which is the metric that was applied to majority models except DC-GAN, the results in Table TABREF48 show that StackGAN++ only showed slight improvement over its predecessor, StackGAN, for text-to-image synthesis. In addition, the results in Table TABREF48 also show that DM-GAN BIBREF53 has the best performance, followed by Obj-GAN BIBREF81. Notice that both DM-GAN and Obj-GAN are most recently developed methods in the field (both published in 2019), indicating that research in text to image synthesis is continuously improving the results for better visual perception and interception.
Question: What is the conclusion of comparison of proposed solution?

A:
HDGAN produced relatively better visual results on the CUB and Oxford datasets while AttnGAN produced far more impressive results than the rest on the more complex COCO dataset In terms of inception score (IS), which is the metric that was applied to majority models except DC-GAN, the results in Table TABREF48 show that StackGAN++ only showed slight improvement over its predecessor text to image synthesis is continuously improving the results for better visual perception and interception
****