qinchuanhui/UDA-QA huggingface dataset:
Question: Which pretrained word vectors did they use?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Since the input of our method is textual data, we follow the approach of BIBREF15 and map the text into a fixed-size vector representation. To this end, we use word embeddings that were successfully applied in other domains. We follow BIBREF5 and use pre-trained GloVe word vectors BIBREF16 to initialize the embedding layer (also known as look-up table). Section SECREF18 discusses the embedding layer in more details.
raw_evidence: As a text embedding in our experiments, we use publicly available GloVe word vectors BIBREF16 pre-trained on two datasets: Wikipedia 2014 with Gigaword5 (W+G5) and Common Crawl (CC). Since their output dimensionality can be modified, we show the results for varying dimensionality sizes. On top of that, we evaluate two training approaches: using static word vectors and fine-tuning them during training phase.

Answers:
 pre-trained GloVe word vectors 
GloVe word vectors BIBREF16 pre-trained on two datasets: Wikipedia 2014 with Gigaword5 (W+G5) and Common Crawl (CC)
Question: What evaluation metrics are used?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In this section, we evaluate our method and compare its performance against the competitive approaches. We use INLINEFORM0 -fold evaluation protocol with INLINEFORM1 with random dataset split. We measure the performance using standard accuracy metric which we define as a ratio between correctly classified data samples from test dataset and all test samples.
raw_evidence: In this paper we propose a method for online content popularity prediction based on a bidirectional recurrent neural network called BiLSTM. This work is inspired by recent successful applications of deep neural networks in many natural language processing problems BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 . Our method attempts to model complex relationships between the title of an article and its popularity using novel deep network architecture that, in contrast to the previous approaches, gives highly interpretable results. Last but not least, the proposed BiLSTM method provides a significant performance boost in terms of prediction accuracy over the standard shallow approach, while outperforming the current state-of-the-art on two distinct datasets with over 40,000 samples.

Answers:
standard accuracy metric
accuracy
Question: Which shallow approaches did they experiment with?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: As a first baseline we use Bag-of-Words, a well-known and robust text representations used in various domains BIBREF21 , combined with a standard shallow classifier, namely, a Support Vector Machine with linear kernel. We used LIBSVM implementation of SVM.
raw_evidence: As a first baseline we use Bag-of-Words, a well-known and robust text representations used in various domains BIBREF21 , combined with a standard shallow classifier, namely, a Support Vector Machine with linear kernel. We used LIBSVM implementation of SVM.

Answers:
SVM
SVM with linear kernel using bag-of-words features
Question: Where do they obtain the news videos from?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In this section we present two datasets used in our experiments: The NowThisNews dataset, collected for the purpose of this paper, and The BreakingNews dataset BIBREF4 , publicly available dataset of news articles.
contains 4090 posts with associated videos from NowThisNews Facebook page collected between 07/2015 and 07/2016. For each post we collected its title and the number of views of the corresponding video, which we consider our popularity metric. Due to a fairly lengthy data collection process, we decided to normalize our data by first grouping posts according to their publication month and then labeling the posts for which the popularity metric exceeds the median monthly value as popular, the remaining part as unpopular.
raw_evidence: In this section we present two datasets used in our experiments: The NowThisNews dataset, collected for the purpose of this paper, and The BreakingNews dataset BIBREF4 , publicly available dataset of news articles.
contains 4090 posts with associated videos from NowThisNews Facebook page collected between 07/2015 and 07/2016. For each post we collected its title and the number of views of the corresponding video, which we consider our popularity metric. Due to a fairly lengthy data collection process, we decided to normalize our data by first grouping posts according to their publication month and then labeling the posts for which the popularity metric exceeds the median monthly value as popular, the remaining part as unpopular.

Answers:
NowThisNews Facebook page
NowThisNews Facebook page
Question: What is the source of the news articles?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: BIBREF4 contains a variety of news-related information such as images, captions, geo-location information and comments which could be used as a proxy for article popularity. The articles in this dataset were collected between January and December 2014. Although we tried to retrieve the entire dataset, we were able to download only 38,182 articles due to the dead links published in the dataset. The retrieved articles were published in main news channels, such as Yahoo News, The Guardian or The Washington Post. Similarly, to The NowThisNews dataset we normalize the data by grouping articles per publisher, and classifying them as popular, when the number of comments exceeds the median value for given publisher.
raw_evidence: In this section we present two datasets used in our experiments: The NowThisNews dataset, collected for the purpose of this paper, and The BreakingNews dataset BIBREF4 , publicly available dataset of news articles.

Answers:
main news channels, such as Yahoo News, The Guardian or The Washington Post
The BreakingNews dataset
Question: which non-english language was the had the worst results?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Considering the improvements over the majority baseline achieved by the RNN model for both non-English (on the average 22.76% relative improvement; 15.82% relative improvement on Spanish, 72.71% vs. 84.21%, 30.53% relative improvement on Turkish, 56.97% vs. 74.36%, 37.13% relative improvement on Dutch, 59.63% vs. 81.77%, and 7.55% relative improvement on Russian, 79.60% vs. 85.62%) and English test sets (27.34% relative improvement), we can draw the conclusion that our model is robust to handle multiple languages. Building separate models for each language requires both labeled and unlabeled data. Even though having lots of labeled data in every language is the perfect case, it is unrealistic. Therefore, eliminating the resource requirement in this resource-constrained task is crucial. The fact that machine translation can be used in reusing models from different languages is promising for reducing the data requirements.

Answers:
Turkish
Question: what datasets were used in evaluation?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: For evaluation of the multilingual approach, we use four languages. These datasets are part of SemEval-2016 Challenge Task 5 BIBREF27 , BIBREF28 . Table TABREF7 shows the number of observations in each test corpus.
raw_evidence: Two sets of corpora are used in this study, both are publicly available. The first set consists of English reviews and the second set contains restaurant reviews from four different languages (Spanish, Turkish, Dutch, Russian). We focus on polarity detection in reviews, therefore all datasets in this study have two class values (positive, negative).

Answers:
SemEval-2016 Challenge Task 5 BIBREF27 , BIBREF28
 English reviews ,  restaurant reviews from four different languages (Spanish, Turkish, Dutch, Russian)
Question: what are the baselines?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In addition to the majority baseline, we also compare our results with a lexicon-based approach. We use SentiWordNet BIBREF29 to obtain a positive and a negative sentiment score for each token in a review. Then sum of positive sentiment scores and negative sentiment scores for each review is obtained by summing up the scores for each token. If the positive sum score for a given review is greater than the negative sum score, we accept that review as a positive review. If negative sum is larger than or equal to the positive sum, the review is labeled as a negative review.
For experimental results, we report majority baseline for each language where the majority baseline corresponds to a model's accuracy if it always predicts the majority class in the dataset. For example, if the dataset has 60% of all reviews positive and 40% negative, majority baseline would be 60% because a model that always predicts “positive” will be 60% accurate and will make mistakes 40% of the time.
raw_evidence: For experimental results, we report majority baseline for each language where the majority baseline corresponds to a model's accuracy if it always predicts the majority class in the dataset. For example, if the dataset has 60% of all reviews positive and 40% negative, majority baseline would be 60% because a model that always predicts “positive” will be 60% accurate and will make mistakes 40% of the time.
In addition to the majority baseline, we also compare our results with a lexicon-based approach. We use SentiWordNet BIBREF29 to obtain a positive and a negative sentiment score for each token in a review. Then sum of positive sentiment scores and negative sentiment scores for each review is obtained by summing up the scores for each token. If the positive sum score for a given review is greater than the negative sum score, we accept that review as a positive review. If negative sum is larger than or equal to the positive sum, the review is labeled as a negative review.

Answers:
majority baseline, lexicon-based approach
majority baseline corresponds to a model's accuracy if it always predicts the majority class in the dataset, lexicon-based approach
Question: how did the authors translate the reviews to other languages?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In order to eliminate the need to find data and build separate models for each language, we propose a multilingual approach where a single model is built in the language where the largest resources are available. In this paper we focus on English as there are several sentiment analysis datasets in English. To make the English sentiment analysis model as generalizable as possible, we first start by training with a large dataset that has product reviews for different categories. Then, using the trained weights from the larger generic dataset, we make the model more specialized for a specific domain. We further train the model with domain-specific English reviews and use this trained model to score reviews that share the same domain from different languages. To be able to employ the trained model, test sets are first translated to English via machine translation and then inference takes place. Figure FIGREF1 shows our multilingual sentiment analysis approach. It is important to note that this approach does not utilize any resource in any of the languages of the test sets (e.g., word embeddings, lexicons, training set).
Throughout our experiments, we use SAS Deep Learning Toolkit. For machine translation, Google translation API is used.
raw_evidence: Throughout our experiments, we use SAS Deep Learning Toolkit. For machine translation, Google translation API is used.

Answers:
Using Google translation API.
Google translation API
Question: what dataset was used for training?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: With the goal of building a generalizable sentiment analysis model, we used three different training sets as provided in Table TABREF5 . One of these three datasets (Amazon reviews BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 ) is larger and has product reviews from several different categories including book reviews, electronics products reviews, and application reviews. The other two datasets are to make the model more specialized in the domain. In this paper we focus on restaurant reviews as our domain and use Yelp restaurant reviews dataset extracted from Yelp Dataset Challenge BIBREF25 and restaurant reviews dataset as part of a Kaggle competition BIBREF26 .
raw_evidence: With the goal of building a generalizable sentiment analysis model, we used three different training sets as provided in Table TABREF5 . One of these three datasets (Amazon reviews BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 ) is larger and has product reviews from several different categories including book reviews, electronics products reviews, and application reviews. The other two datasets are to make the model more specialized in the domain. In this paper we focus on restaurant reviews as our domain and use Yelp restaurant reviews dataset extracted from Yelp Dataset Challenge BIBREF25 and restaurant reviews dataset as part of a Kaggle competition BIBREF26 .

Answers:
Amazon reviews, Yelp restaurant reviews, restaurant reviews
Amazon reviews BIBREF23 , BIBREF24, Yelp restaurant reviews dataset,  restaurant reviews dataset as part of a Kaggle competition BIBREF26
Question: How do they demonstrate that this type of EEG has discriminative information about the intended articulatory movements responsible for speech?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: To further investigate the feature representation achieved by our model, we plot T-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (tSNE) corresponding to INLINEFORM0 and V/C classification tasks in Fig. FIGREF8 . We particularly select these two tasks as our model exhibits respectively minimum and maximum performance for these two. The tSNE visualization reveals that the second set of features are more easily separable than the first one, thereby giving a rationale for our performance.
FLOAT SELECTED: Fig. 3. tSNE feature visualization for ±nasal (left) and V/C classification (right). Red and green colours indicate the distribution of two different types of features

Answers:
we plot T-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (tSNE) corresponding to INLINEFORM0 and V/C classification tasks in Fig. FIGREF8 .
Question: What are the five different binary classification tasks?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We evaluate our model on a publicly available dataset, KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw). The dataset consists of 14 participants, with each prompt presented 11 times to each individual. Since our intention is to classify the phonological categories from human thoughts, we discard the facial and audio information and only consider the EEG data corresponding to imagined speech. It is noteworthy that given the mixed nature of EEG signals, it is reportedly challenging to attain a pairwise EEG-phoneme mapping BIBREF18 . In order to explore the problem space, we thus specifically target five binary classification problems addressed in BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , i.e presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels.
raw_evidence: We evaluate our model on a publicly available dataset, KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw). The dataset consists of 14 participants, with each prompt presented 11 times to each individual. Since our intention is to classify the phonological categories from human thoughts, we discard the facial and audio information and only consider the EEG data corresponding to imagined speech. It is noteworthy that given the mixed nature of EEG signals, it is reportedly challenging to attain a pairwise EEG-phoneme mapping BIBREF18 . In order to explore the problem space, we thus specifically target five binary classification problems addressed in BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , i.e presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels.

Answers:
 presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels.
presence/absence of consonants, presence/absence of phonemic nasal, presence/absence of bilabial, presence/absence of high-front vowels, and presence/absence of high-back vowels
Question: How was the spatial aspect of the EEG signal computed?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In order to decode spatial connections between the electrodes from the channel covariance matrix, we use a CNN BIBREF19 , in particular a four-layered 2D CNN stacking two convolutional and two fully connected hidden layers. The INLINEFORM0 feature map at a given CNN layer with input INLINEFORM1 , weight matrix INLINEFORM2 and bias INLINEFORM3 is obtained as: INLINEFORM4 . At this first level of hierarchy, the network is trained with the corresponding labels as target outputs, optimizing a cross-entropy cost function. In parallel, we apply a four-layered recurrent neural network on the channel covariance matrices to explore the hidden temporal features of the electrodes. Namely, we exploit an LSTM BIBREF20 consisting of two fully connected hidden layers, stacked with two LSTM layers and trained in a similar manner as CNN.
raw_evidence: In order to decode spatial connections between the electrodes from the channel covariance matrix, we use a CNN BIBREF19 , in particular a four-layered 2D CNN stacking two convolutional and two fully connected hidden layers. The INLINEFORM0 feature map at a given CNN layer with input INLINEFORM1 , weight matrix INLINEFORM2 and bias INLINEFORM3 is obtained as: INLINEFORM4 . At this first level of hierarchy, the network is trained with the corresponding labels as target outputs, optimizing a cross-entropy cost function. In parallel, we apply a four-layered recurrent neural network on the channel covariance matrices to explore the hidden temporal features of the electrodes. Namely, we exploit an LSTM BIBREF20 consisting of two fully connected hidden layers, stacked with two LSTM layers and trained in a similar manner as CNN.

Answers:
we use a CNN BIBREF19 , in particular a four-layered 2D CNN stacking two convolutional and two fully connected hidden layers.
They use four-layered 2D CNN and two fully connected hidden layers on the channel covariance matrix to compute the spatial aspect.
Question: What data was presented to the subjects to elicit event-related responses?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We evaluate our model on a publicly available dataset, KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw). The dataset consists of 14 participants, with each prompt presented 11 times to each individual. Since our intention is to classify the phonological categories from human thoughts, we discard the facial and audio information and only consider the EEG data corresponding to imagined speech. It is noteworthy that given the mixed nature of EEG signals, it is reportedly challenging to attain a pairwise EEG-phoneme mapping BIBREF18 . In order to explore the problem space, we thus specifically target five binary classification problems addressed in BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , i.e presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels.
raw_evidence: We evaluate our model on a publicly available dataset, KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw). The dataset consists of 14 participants, with each prompt presented 11 times to each individual. Since our intention is to classify the phonological categories from human thoughts, we discard the facial and audio information and only consider the EEG data corresponding to imagined speech. It is noteworthy that given the mixed nature of EEG signals, it is reportedly challenging to attain a pairwise EEG-phoneme mapping BIBREF18 . In order to explore the problem space, we thus specifically target five binary classification problems addressed in BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , i.e presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels.

Answers:
7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw)
KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw)
Question: How many electrodes were used on the subject in EEG sessions?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We performed two sets of experiments with the single-trial EEG data. In PHASE-ONE, our goals was to identify the best architectures and hyperparameters for our networks with a reasonable number of runs. For PHASE-ONE, we randomly shuffled and divided the data (1913 signals from 14 individuals) into train (80%), development (10%) and test sets (10%). In PHASE-TWO, in order to perform a fair comparison with the previous methods reported on the same dataset, we perform a leave-one-subject out cross-validation experiment using the best settings we learn from PHASE-ONE.

Answers:
1913 signals
Question: How many subjects does the EEG data come from?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We evaluate our model on a publicly available dataset, KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw). The dataset consists of 14 participants, with each prompt presented 11 times to each individual. Since our intention is to classify the phonological categories from human thoughts, we discard the facial and audio information and only consider the EEG data corresponding to imagined speech. It is noteworthy that given the mixed nature of EEG signals, it is reportedly challenging to attain a pairwise EEG-phoneme mapping BIBREF18 . In order to explore the problem space, we thus specifically target five binary classification problems addressed in BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , i.e presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels.
raw_evidence: We evaluate our model on a publicly available dataset, KARA ONE BIBREF17 , composed of multimodal data for stimulus-based, imagined and articulated speech state corresponding to 7 phonemic/syllabic ( /iy/, /piy/, /tiy/, /diy/, /uw/, /m/, /n/ ) as well as 4 words(pat, pot, knew and gnaw). The dataset consists of 14 participants, with each prompt presented 11 times to each individual. Since our intention is to classify the phonological categories from human thoughts, we discard the facial and audio information and only consider the EEG data corresponding to imagined speech. It is noteworthy that given the mixed nature of EEG signals, it is reportedly challenging to attain a pairwise EEG-phoneme mapping BIBREF18 . In order to explore the problem space, we thus specifically target five binary classification problems addressed in BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , i.e presence/absence of consonants, phonemic nasal, bilabial, high-front vowels and high-back vowels.

Answers:
14
14 participants