qinchuanhui/UDA-QA huggingface dataset:
Question: How was the dataset collected?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Raw CoVo data contains samples that passed validation as well as those that did not. To build CoVoST, we only use the former one and reuse the official train-development-test partition of the validated data. As of January 2020, the latest CoVo 2019-06-12 release includes 29 languages. CoVoST is currently built on that release and covers the following 11 languages: French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese.
Common Voice BIBREF10 is a crowdsourcing speech recognition corpus with an open CC0 license. Contributors record voice clips by reading from a bank of donated sentences. Each voice clip was validated by at least two other users. Most of the sentences are covered by multiple speakers, with potentially different genders, age groups or accents.
raw_evidence: Common Voice BIBREF10 is a crowdsourcing speech recognition corpus with an open CC0 license. Contributors record voice clips by reading from a bank of donated sentences. Each voice clip was validated by at least two other users. Most of the sentences are covered by multiple speakers, with potentially different genders, age groups or accents.
Tatoeba (TT) is a community built language learning corpus having sentences aligned across multiple languages with the corresponding speech partially available. Its sentences are on average shorter than those in CoVoST (see also Table TABREF2) given the original purpose of language learning. Sentences in TT are licensed under CC BY 2.0 FR and part of the speeches are available under various CC licenses.

Answers:
Contributors record voice clips by reading from a bank of donated sentences.
crowdsourcing
Question: Which languages are part of the corpus?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In this paper, we introduce CoVoST, a multilingual ST corpus based on Common Voice BIBREF10 for 11 languages into English, diversified with over 11,000 speakers and over 60 accents. It includes a total 708 hours of French (Fr), German (De), Dutch (Nl), Russian (Ru), Spanish (Es), Italian (It), Turkish (Tr), Persian (Fa), Swedish (Sv), Mongolian (Mn) and Chinese (Zh) speeches, with French and German ones having the largest durations among existing public corpora. We also collect an additional evaluation corpus from Tatoeba for French, German, Dutch, Russian and Spanish, resulting in a total of 9.3 hours of speech. Both corpora are created at the sentence level and do not require additional alignments or segmentation. Using the official Common Voice train-development-test split, we also provide baseline models, including, to our knowledge, the first end-to-end many-to-one multilingual ST models. CoVoST is released under CC0 license and free to use. The Tatoeba evaluation samples are also available under friendly CC licenses. All the data can be acquired at https://github.com/facebookresearch/covost.
raw_evidence: Raw CoVo data contains samples that passed validation as well as those that did not. To build CoVoST, we only use the former one and reuse the official train-development-test partition of the validated data. As of January 2020, the latest CoVo 2019-06-12 release includes 29 languages. CoVoST is currently built on that release and covers the following 11 languages: French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese.
We construct an evaluation set from TT (for French, German, Dutch, Russian and Spanish) as a complement to CoVoST development and test sets. We collect (speech, transcript, English translation) triplets for the 5 languages and do not include those whose speech has a broken URL or is not CC licensed. We further filter these samples by sentence lengths (minimum 4 words including punctuations) to reduce the portion of short sentences. This makes the resulting evaluation set closer to real-world scenarios and more challenging.

Answers:
French (Fr), German (De), Dutch (Nl), Russian (Ru), Spanish (Es), Italian (It), Turkish (Tr), Persian (Fa), Swedish (Sv), Mongolian (Mn) and Chinese (Zh)
French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese
Question: Is the data in CoVoST annotated for dialect?

Evidence:

Answers:
No
Question: Is Arabic one of the 11 languages in CoVost?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Raw CoVo data contains samples that passed validation as well as those that did not. To build CoVoST, we only use the former one and reuse the official train-development-test partition of the validated data. As of January 2020, the latest CoVo 2019-06-12 release includes 29 languages. CoVoST is currently built on that release and covers the following 11 languages: French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese.
raw_evidence: Raw CoVo data contains samples that passed validation as well as those that did not. To build CoVoST, we only use the former one and reuse the official train-development-test partition of the validated data. As of January 2020, the latest CoVo 2019-06-12 release includes 29 languages. CoVoST is currently built on that release and covers the following 11 languages: French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese.

Answers:
No
No
Question: Which dataset do they train their models on?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We used the relation classification dataset of the SemEval 2010 task 8 BIBREF8 . It consists of sentences which have been manually labeled with 19 relations (9 directed relations and one artificial class Other). 8,000 sentences have been distributed as training set and 2,717 sentences served as test set. For evaluation, we applied the official scoring script and report the macro F1 score which also served as the official result of the shared task.
raw_evidence: We used the relation classification dataset of the SemEval 2010 task 8 BIBREF8 . It consists of sentences which have been manually labeled with 19 relations (9 directed relations and one artificial class Other). 8,000 sentences have been distributed as training set and 2,717 sentences served as test set. For evaluation, we applied the official scoring script and report the macro F1 score which also served as the official result of the shared task.

Answers:
relation classification dataset of the SemEval 2010 task 8
SemEval 2010 task 8 BIBREF8
Question: How does their simple voting scheme work?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Finally, we combine our CNN and RNN models using a voting process. For each sentence in the test set, we apply several CNN and RNN models presented in Tables TABREF12 and TABREF14 and predict the class with the most votes. In case of a tie, we pick one of the most frequent classes randomly. The combination achieves an F1 score of 84.9 which is better than the performance of the two NN types alone. It, thus, confirms our assumption that the networks provide complementary information: while the RNN computes a weighted combination of all words in the sentence, the CNN extracts the most informative n-grams for the relation and only considers their resulting activations.
raw_evidence: Finally, we combine our CNN and RNN models using a voting process. For each sentence in the test set, we apply several CNN and RNN models presented in Tables TABREF12 and TABREF14 and predict the class with the most votes. In case of a tie, we pick one of the most frequent classes randomly. The combination achieves an F1 score of 84.9 which is better than the performance of the two NN types alone. It, thus, confirms our assumption that the networks provide complementary information: while the RNN computes a weighted combination of all words in the sentence, the CNN extracts the most informative n-grams for the relation and only considers their resulting activations.

Answers:
we apply several CNN and RNN models presented in Tables TABREF12 and TABREF14 and predict the class with the most votes, In case of a tie, we pick one of the most frequent classes randomly
Among all the classes predicted by several models, for each test sentence, class with most votes are picked. In case of a tie, one of the most frequent classes are picked randomly.
Question: Which variant of the recurrent neural network do they use?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: As a baseline for the RNN models, we apply a uni-directional RNN which predicts the relation after processing the whole sentence. With this model, we achieve an F1 score of 61.2 on the SemEval test set.

Answers:
uni-directional RNN
Question: How do they obtain the new context represetation?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: (1) We propose extended middle context, a new context representation for CNNs for relation classification. The extended middle context uses all parts of the sentence (the relation arguments, left of the relation arguments, between the arguments, right of the arguments) and pays special attention to the middle part.
One of our contributions is a new input representation especially designed for relation classification. The contexts are split into three disjoint regions based on the two relation arguments: the left context, the middle context and the right context. Since in most cases the middle context contains the most relevant information for the relation, we want to focus on it but not ignore the other regions completely. Hence, we propose to use two contexts: (1) a combination of the left context, the left entity and the middle context; and (2) a combination of the middle context, the right entity and the right context. Due to the repetition of the middle context, we force the network to pay special attention to it. The two contexts are processed by two independent convolutional and max-pooling layers. After pooling, the results are concatenated to form the sentence representation. Figure FIGREF3 depicts this procedure. It shows an examplary sentence: “He had chest pain and <e1>headaches</e1> from <e2>mold</e2> in the bedroom.” If we only considered the middle context “from”, the network might be tempted to predict a relation like Entity-Origin(e1,e2). However, by also taking the left and right context into account, the model can detect the relation Cause-Effect(e2,e1). While this could also be achieved by integrating the whole context into the model, using the whole context can have disadvantages for longer sentences: The max pooling step can easily choose a value from a part of the sentence which is far away from the mention of the relation. With splitting the context into two parts, we reduce this danger. Repeating the middle context increases the chance for the max pooling step to pick a value from the middle context.

Answers:
They use two independent convolutional and max-pooling layers on (1) a combination of the left context, the left entity and the middle context; and (2) a combination of the middle context, the right entity and the right context. They concatenated the two results after pooling to get the new context representation.
Question: Did they pefrorm any cross-lingual vs single language evaluation?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: An alternative concept is vertical language consistency, whereby the questions are consistently presented in one language, regardless of the comment. To test whether horizontal or vertical consistency is more helpful, we train and evaluate M-Bert on a dataset variant where all questions are in their English version. We chose English as a lingua franca because it had the largest share of data during the pretraining of M-Bert.

Answers:
Yes
Question: What annotations are present in dataset?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: All candidates in an election who participate in Smartvote are asked the same set of questions, but depending on the locale they see translated versions of the questions. They can answer each question with either `yes', `rather yes', `rather no', or `no'. They can supplement each answer with a comment of at most 500 characters.

Answers:
answer each question with either `yes', `rather yes', `rather no', or `no'., can supplement each answer with a comment of at most 500 characters
Question: What is an unordered text document, do these arise in real-world corpora?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: To structure an unordered document is an essential task in many applications. It is a post-requisite for applications like multiple document extractive text summarization where we have to present a summary of multiple documents. It is a prerequisite for applications like question answering from multiple documents where we have to present an answer by processing multiple documents. In this paper, we address the task of segmenting an unordered text document into different sections. The input document/summary that may have unordered sentences is processed so that it will have sentences clustered together. Clustering is based on the similarity with the respective keyword as well as with the sentences belonging to the same cluster. Keywords are identified and clusters are formed for each keyword.
To test our approach, we jumble the ordering of sentences in a document, process the unordered document and compare the similarity of the output document with the original document.

Answers:
A unordered text document is one where sentences in the document are disordered or jumbled. It doesn't appear that unordered text documents appear in corpora, but rather are introduced as part of processing pipeline.
Question: What kind of model do they use?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: FLOAT SELECTED: Fig. 1. Proposed methodology

Answers:
Our methodology is described in the Figure 1
Question: Do they release a data set?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: For our experiments, we prepared five sets of documents. Each set has 100 wiki documents (randomly chosen). Each document is restructured randomly (sentences are rearranged randomly). This restructured document is the input to our model and the output document is compared against the original input document.

Answers:
No
No
Question: Do they release code?

Evidence:

Answers:
No
No
Question: Are the experts comparable to real-world users?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Prior work has aimed to make privacy policies easier to understand. Prescriptive approaches towards communicating privacy information BIBREF21, BIBREF22, BIBREF23 have not been widely adopted by industry. Recently, there have been significant research effort devoted to understanding privacy policies by leveraging NLP techniques BIBREF24, BIBREF25, BIBREF26, BIBREF27, BIBREF28, especially by identifying specific data practices within a privacy policy. We adopt a personalized approach to understanding privacy policies, that allows users to query a document and selectively explore content salient to them. Most similar is the PolisisQA corpus BIBREF29, which examines questions users ask corporations on Twitter. Our approach differs in several ways: 1) The PrivacyQA dataset is larger, containing 10x as many questions and answers. 2) Answers are formulated by domain experts with legal training. 3) PrivacyQA includes diverse question types, including unanswerable and subjective questions.

Answers:
No
Question: Are the answers double (and not triple) annotated?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Table.TABREF17 presents aggregate statistics of the PrivacyQA dataset. 1750 questions are posed to our imaginary privacy assistant over 35 mobile applications and their associated privacy documents. As an initial step, we formulate the problem of answering user questions as an extractive sentence selection task, ignoring for now background knowledge, statistical data and legal expertise that could otherwise be brought to bear. The dataset is partitioned into a training set featuring 27 mobile applications and 1350 questions, and a test set consisting of 400 questions over 8 policy documents. This ensures that documents in training and test splits are mutually exclusive. Every question is answered by at least one expert. In addition, in order to estimate annotation reliability and provide for better evaluation, every question in the test set is answered by at least two additional experts.

Answers:
Yes
Question: Who were the experts used for annotation?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: To identify legally sound answers, we recruit seven experts with legal training to construct answers to Turker questions. Experts identify relevant evidence within the privacy policy, as well as provide meta-annotation on the question's relevance, subjectivity, OPP-115 category BIBREF49, and how likely any privacy policy is to contain the answer to the question asked.
raw_evidence: Prior work has aimed to make privacy policies easier to understand. Prescriptive approaches towards communicating privacy information BIBREF21, BIBREF22, BIBREF23 have not been widely adopted by industry. Recently, there have been significant research effort devoted to understanding privacy policies by leveraging NLP techniques BIBREF24, BIBREF25, BIBREF26, BIBREF27, BIBREF28, especially by identifying specific data practices within a privacy policy. We adopt a personalized approach to understanding privacy policies, that allows users to query a document and selectively explore content salient to them. Most similar is the PolisisQA corpus BIBREF29, which examines questions users ask corporations on Twitter. Our approach differs in several ways: 1) The PrivacyQA dataset is larger, containing 10x as many questions and answers. 2) Answers are formulated by domain experts with legal training. 3) PrivacyQA includes diverse question types, including unanswerable and subjective questions.

Answers:
Individuals with legal training
Yes
Question: What type of neural model was used?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: BERT: We implement two BERT-based baselines BIBREF51 for evidence identification. First, we train BERT on each query-policy sentence pair as a binary classification task to identify if the sentence is evidence for the question or not (Bert). We also experiment with a two-stage classifier, where we separately train the model on questions only to predict answerability. At inference time, if the answerable classifier predicts the question is answerable, the evidence identification classifier produces a set of candidate sentences (Bert + Unanswerable).
raw_evidence: CNN: We utilize a CNN neural encoder for answerability prediction. We use GloVe word embeddings BIBREF50, and a filter size of 5 with 64 filters to encode questions.
BERT: BERT BIBREF51 is a bidirectional transformer-based language-model BIBREF52. We fine-tune BERT-base on our binary answerability identification task with a learning rate of 2e-5 for 3 epochs, with a maximum sequence length of 128.
BERT: We implement two BERT-based baselines BIBREF51 for evidence identification. First, we train BERT on each query-policy sentence pair as a binary classification task to identify if the sentence is evidence for the question or not (Bert). We also experiment with a two-stage classifier, where we separately train the model on questions only to predict answerability. At inference time, if the answerable classifier predicts the question is answerable, the evidence identification classifier produces a set of candidate sentences (Bert + Unanswerable).

Answers:
Bert + Unanswerable
CNN, BERT
Question: Were other baselines tested to compare with the neural baseline?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: SVM: We define 3 sets of features to characterize each question. The first is a simple bag-of-words set of features over the question (SVM-BOW), the second is bag-of-words features of the question as well as length of the question in words (SVM-BOW + LEN), and lastly we extract bag-of-words features, length of the question in words as well as part-of-speech tags for the question (SVM-BOW + LEN + POS). This results in vectors of 200, 201 and 228 dimensions respectively, which are provided to an SVM with a linear kernel.
No-Answer Baseline (NA) : Most of the questions we receive are difficult to answer in a legally-sound way on the basis of information present in the privacy policy. We establish a simple baseline to quantify the effect of identifying every question as unanswerable.
Word Count Baseline : To quantify the effect of using simple lexical matching to answer the questions, we retrieve the top candidate policy sentences for each question using a word count baseline BIBREF53, which counts the number of question words that also appear in a sentence. We include the top 2, 3 and 5 candidates as baselines.
Human Performance: We pick each reference answer provided by an annotator, and compute the F1 with respect to the remaining references, as described in section 4.2.1. Each reference answer is treated as the prediction, and the remaining n-1 answers are treated as the gold reference. The average of the maximum F1 across all reference answers is computed as the human baseline.
raw_evidence: No-Answer Baseline (NA) : Most of the questions we receive are difficult to answer in a legally-sound way on the basis of information present in the privacy policy. We establish a simple baseline to quantify the effect of identifying every question as unanswerable.
Word Count Baseline : To quantify the effect of using simple lexical matching to answer the questions, we retrieve the top candidate policy sentences for each question using a word count baseline BIBREF53, which counts the number of question words that also appear in a sentence. We include the top 2, 3 and 5 candidates as baselines.
Human Performance: We pick each reference answer provided by an annotator, and compute the F1 with respect to the remaining references, as described in section 4.2.1. Each reference answer is treated as the prediction, and the remaining n-1 answers are treated as the gold reference. The average of the maximum F1 across all reference answers is computed as the human baseline.

Answers:
SVM, No-Answer Baseline (NA) , Word Count Baseline, Human Performance
No-Answer Baseline (NA), Word Count Baseline, Human Performance
Question: Does the paper clearly establish that the challenges listed here exist in this dataset and task?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Encouraged by their findings, we extend their approach to a much larger unicode character set, and model long sequences of text as functions of their constituent characters (including white-space). We focus on social media posts from the website Twitter, which are an excellent testing ground for character based models due to the noisy nature of text. Heavy use of slang and abundant misspellings means that there are many orthographically and semantically similar tokens, and special characters such as emojis are also immensely popular and carry useful semantic information. In our moderately sized training dataset of 2 million tweets, there were about 0.92 million unique word types. It would be expensive to capture all these phenomena in a word based model in terms of both the memory requirement (for the increased vocabulary) and the amount of training data required for effective learning. Additional benefits of the character based approach include language independence of the methods, and no requirement of NLP preprocessing such as word-segmentation.

Answers:
Yes
Question: Is this hashtag prediction task an established task, or something new?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Hashtag prediction for social media has been addressed earlier, for example in BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 . BIBREF15 also use a neural architecture, but compose text embeddings from a lookup table of words. They also show that the learned embeddings can generalize to an unrelated task of document recommendation, justifying the use of hashtags as supervision for learning text representations.
raw_evidence: Hashtag prediction for social media has been addressed earlier, for example in BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 . BIBREF15 also use a neural architecture, but compose text embeddings from a lookup table of words. They also show that the learned embeddings can generalize to an unrelated task of document recommendation, justifying the use of hashtags as supervision for learning text representations.

Answers:
established task
Hashtag prediction for social media has been addressed earlier