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]: 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]: We optimized our single-task baseline to get a strong baseline in order to exclude better results in multi-task learning in comparison to single-task learning only because of these two following points: network parameters suit the multi-task learning approach better and a better randomness while training in the multi-task learning. To exclude the first point, we tested different hyperparameters for the single-task baseline. We tested all the combinations of the following hyperparameter values: 256, 512, or 1024 as the sizes for the hidden states of the LSTMs, 256, 512, or 1024 as word embedding sizes, and a dropout of 30 %, 40 %, or 50 %. We used subword units generated by byte-pair encoding (BPE) BIBREF16 as inputs for our model. To avoid bad subword generation for the synthetic datasets, in addition to the training dataset, we considered the validation and test dataset for the generating of the BPE merge operations list. We trained the configurations for 14 epochs and trained every configuration three times. We chose the training with the best quality with regard to the validation F1-score to exclude disadvantages of a bad randomness. We got the best quality with regard to the F1-score with 256 as the size of the hidden states of the LSTMs, 1024 as word embedding size, and a dropout of 30 %. For the batch size, we used 64.
Question: What are the strong baselines you have?
[EX A]: optimize single task with no synthetic data

[EX Q]: The 16 classes are inspired by the OntoNotes5 corpus BIBREF7 as well as the ACE (Automatic Content Extraction) English Annotation Guidelines for Entities Version 6.6 2008.06.13 BIBREF8.
Question: How did they determine the distinct classes?
[EX A]:
inspired by the OntoNotes5 corpus BIBREF7 as well as the ACE (Automatic Content Extraction) English Annotation Guidelines for Entities Version 6.6 2008.06.13 BIBREF8