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.

Experimental Protocol ::: Datasets ::: Training Dataset
(i) TTS System dataset: We trained our TTS system with a mixture of neutral and newscaster style speech. For a total of 24 hours of training data, split in 20 hours of neutral (22000 utterances) and 4 hours of newscaster styled speech (3000 utterances).

(ii) Embedding selection dataset: As the evaluation was carried out only on the newscaster speaking style, we restrict our linguistic search space to the utterances associated to the newscaster style: 3000 sentences.

Experimental Protocol ::: Datasets ::: Evaluation Dataset
The systems were evaluated on two datasets:

(i) Common Prosody Errors (CPE): The dataset on which the baseline Prostron model fails to generate appropriate prosody. This dataset consists of complex utterances like compound nouns (22%), "or" questions (9%), "wh" questions (18%). This set is further enhanced by sourcing complex utterances (51%) from BIBREF24.

(ii) LFR: As demonstrated in BIBREF25, evaluating sentences in isolation does not suffice if we want to evaluate the quality of long-form speech. Thus, for evaluations on LFR we curated a dataset of news samples. The news style sentences were concatenated into full news stories, to capture the overall experience of our intended use case.
What dataset is used for train/test of this method?

This step consists of generating a query out of the claim and querying a search engine (here, we experiment with Google and Bing) in order to retrieve supporting documents. Rather than querying the search engine with the full claim (as on average, a claim is two sentences long), we generate a shorter query following the lessons highlighted in BIBREF0 . We rank the words by means of tf-idf. We compute the idf values on a 2015 Wikipedia dump and the English Gigaword. BIBREF0 suggested that a good way to perform high-quality search is to only consider the verbs, the nouns and the adjectives in the claim; thus, we exclude all words in the claim that belong to other parts of speech. Moreover, claims often contain named entities (e.g., names of persons, locations, and organizations); hence, we augment the initial query with all the named entities from the claim's text. We use IBM's AlchemyAPI to identify named entities. Ultimately, we generate queries of 510 tokens, which we execute against a search engine. We then collect the snippets and the URLs in the results, skipping any result that points to a domain that is considered unreliable.
How are the potentially relevant text fragments identified?

Traditional text-to-speech (TTS) systems are composed of complex pipelines BIBREF0 , these often include accoustic frontends, duration model, acoustic prediction model and vocoder models. The architecture of our model utilizes RNN-based Seq2Seq model for generating mel spectrogram from text. The architecture is similar to that of Tacotron 2 BIBREF4 Direct comparison of model parameters between ours and the open-source tacotron 2, our model contains 4.5 million parameters, whereas the Tacotron 2 contains around 13 million parameters with default setting. By helping our model learn attention alignment faster, we can afford to use a smaller overall model to achieve similar quality speech quality.
Do they reduce the number of parameters in their architecture compared to other direct text-to-speech models?