qinchuanhui/UDA-QA huggingface dataset:
Question: What embedding algorithm is used to build the embeddings?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We created a new Polish word embeddings models using the KGR10 corpus. We built 16 models of word embeddings using the implementation of CBOW and Skip-gram methods in the FastText tool BIBREF9 . These models are available under an open license in the CLARIN-PL project DSpace repository. The internal encoding solution based on embeddings of n-grams composing each word makes it possible to obtain FastText vector representations, also for words which were not processed during the creation of the model. A vector representation is associated with character n-gram and each word is represented as the sum of its n-gram vector representations. Previous solutions ignored the morphology of words and were assigning a distinct vector to each word. This is a limitation for languages with large vocabularies and many rare words, like Turkish, Finnish or Polish BIBREF9 . Authors observed that using word representations trained with subword information outperformed the plain Skip-gram model and the improvement was most significant for morphologically rich Slavic languages such as Czech (8% reduction of perplexity over SG) and Russian (13% reduction) BIBREF9 . We expected that word embeddings created that way for Polish should also provide such improvements. There were also previous attempts to build KGR10 word vectors with other methods (including FastText), and the results are presented in the article BIBREF8 . We selected the best models from that article – with embedding ID prefix EP (embeddings, previous) in Table TABREF13 – to compare with new models, marked as embedding ID prefix EC in Table TABREF13 ).

Answers:
CBOW and Skip-gram methods in the FastText tool BIBREF9
Question: How was the KGR10 corpus created?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: KGR10, also known as plWordNet Corpus 10.0 (PLWNC 10.0), is the result of the work on the toolchain to automatic acquisition and extraction of the website content, called CorpoGrabber BIBREF19 . It is a pipeline of tools to get the most relevant content of the website, including all subsites (up to the user-defined depth). The proposed toolchain can be used to build a big Web corpus of text documents. It requires the list of the root websites as the input. Tools composing CorpoGrabber are adapted to Polish, but most subtasks are language independent. The whole process can be run in parallel on a single machine and includes the following tasks: download of the HTML subpages of each input page URL with HTTrack, extraction of plain text from each subpage by removing boilerplate content (such as navigation links, headers, footers, advertisements from HTML pages) BIBREF20 , deduplication of plain text BIBREF20 , bad quality documents removal utilising Morphological Analysis Converter and Aggregator (MACA) BIBREF21 , documents tagging using Wrocław CRF Tagger (WCRFT) BIBREF22 . Last two steps are available only for Polish.

Answers:
most relevant content of the website, including all subsites
Question: How big are improvements with multilingual ASR training vs single language training?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: The results of multilingual training in which the modeling unit is syllables are presented in Table 5. All error rates are the weighted averages of all evaluated speakers. Here, `+ both' represents the result of training with both JNAS and WSJ corpora. The multilingual training is effective in the speaker-open setting, providing a relative WER improvement of 10%. The JNAS corpus was more helpful than the WSJ corpus because of the similarities between Ainu and Japanese language.

Answers:
relative WER improvement of 10%.
Question: What is the difference between speaker-open and speaker-closed setting?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In the speaker-closed condition, two episodes were set aside from each speaker as development and test sets. Thereafter, the total sizes of the development and test sets turns out to be 1585 IPUs spanning 2 hours 23 minutes and 1841 IPUs spanning 2 hours and 48 minutes respectively. The ASR model is trained with the rest data. In the speaker-open condition, all the data except for the test speaker's were used for training As it would be difficult to train the model if all of the data of speaker KM or UT were removed, experiments using their speaker-open conditions were not conducted.

Answers:
In the speaker-closed condition, two episodes were set aside from each speaker as development and test sets., In the speaker-open condition, all the data except for the test speaker's were used for training
Question: How do they train the retrieval modules?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Semantic Retrieval: We treated the neural semantic retrieval at both the paragraph and sentence level as binary classification problems with models' parameters updated by minimizing binary cross entropy loss. To be specific, we fed the query and context into BERT as:
We applied an affine layer and sigmoid activation on the last layer output of the [$\mathit {CLS}$] token which is a scalar value. The parameters were updated with the objective function:
where $\hat{p}_i$ is the output of the model, $\mathbf {T}^{p/s}_{pos}$ is the positive set and $\mathbf {T}^{p/s}_{neg}$ is the negative set. As shown in Fig. FIGREF2, at sentence level, ground-truth sentences were served as positive examples while other sentences from upstream retrieved set were served as negative examples. Similarly at the paragraph-level, paragraphs having any ground-truth sentence were used as positive examples and other paragraphs from the upstream term-based retrieval processes were used as negative examples.

Answers:
We treated the neural semantic retrieval at both the paragraph and sentence level as binary classification problems with models' parameters updated by minimizing binary cross entropy loss.
Question: How do they model the neural retrieval modules?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Throughout all our experiments, we used BERT-Base BIBREF2 to provide the state-of-the-art contextualized modeling of the input text.
Semantic Retrieval: We treated the neural semantic retrieval at both the paragraph and sentence level as binary classification problems with models' parameters updated by minimizing binary cross entropy loss. To be specific, we fed the query and context into BERT as:

Answers:
BERT-Base BIBREF2 to provide the state-of-the-art contextualized modeling
Question: How much better performance of proposed model compared to answer-selection models?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: As shown in Table , the proposed PS-rnn-elmo shows a significant MAP performance improvement compared to the previous best model, CompClip-LM (0.696 to 0.734 absolute).

Answers:
significant MAP performance improvement compared to the previous best model, CompClip-LM (0.696 to 0.734 absolute)
Question: How are some nodes initially connected based on text structure?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Topology: To build a model that understands the relationship between sentences for answering a question, we propose a graph neural network where each node represents a sentence from passages and the question. Figure depicts the topology of the proposed model. In an offline step, we organize the content of each instance in a graph where each node represents a sentence from the passages and the question. Then, we add edges between nodes using the following topology:
we fully connect nodes that represent sentences from the same passage (dotted-black);
we fully connect nodes that represent the first sentence of each passage (dotted-red);
we add an edge between the question and every node for each passage (dotted-blue).

Answers:
we fully connect nodes that represent sentences from the same passage, we fully connect nodes that represent the first sentence of each passage, we add an edge between the question and every node for each passage
Question: how many domains did they experiment with?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We demonstrated the utility of Katecheo by deploying the system for question answering in two topics, Medical Sciences and Christianity. These topics are diverse enough that they would warrant different curated sets of knowledge base articles, and we can easily retrieve knowledge base articles for each of these subjects from the Medical Sciences and Christianity Stack Exchange sites, respectively.

Answers:
2
Question: what pretrained models were used?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: The current release of Katecheo uses a Bi-Directional Attention Flow, or BiDAF, model for reading comprehension BIBREF6 . This BiDAF model includes a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based character level embedding layer, a word embedding layer that uses pre-trained GloVE embeddings, a Long Short-Term Memory Network (LSTM) based contextual embedding layer, an “attention flow layer", and a modeling layer include bi-directional LSTMs. We are using a pre-trained version of BiDAF available in the AllenNLP BIBREF7 library.
Future releases of Katecheo will include the ability to swap out the reading comprehension model for newer architectures based on, e.g., BERT BIBREF8 or XLNet BIBREF9 or custom trained models.
Architecture and Configuration

Answers:
BiDAF, BERT
Question: What domains are contained in the polarity classification dataset?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Data set. For the cross-domain polarity classification experiments, we use the second version of Multi-Domain Sentiment Dataset BIBREF0 . The data set contains Amazon product reviews of four different domains: Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E) and Kitchen appliances (K). Reviews contain star ratings (from 1 to 5) which are converted into binary labels as follows: reviews rated with more than 3 stars are labeled as positive, and those with less than 3 stars as negative. In each domain, there are 1000 positive and 1000 negative reviews.

Answers:
Books, DVDs, Electronics, Kitchen appliances
Question: How long is the dataset?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Data set. For the cross-domain polarity classification experiments, we use the second version of Multi-Domain Sentiment Dataset BIBREF0 . The data set contains Amazon product reviews of four different domains: Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E) and Kitchen appliances (K). Reviews contain star ratings (from 1 to 5) which are converted into binary labels as follows: reviews rated with more than 3 stars are labeled as positive, and those with less than 3 stars as negative. In each domain, there are 1000 positive and 1000 negative reviews.

Answers:
8000
Question: What machine learning algorithms are used?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Baselines. We compare our approach with several methods BIBREF1 , BIBREF31 , BIBREF11 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF39 in two cross-domain settings. Using string kernels, Giménez-Pérez et al. BIBREF10 reported better performance than SST BIBREF31 and KE-Meta BIBREF11 in the multi-source domain setting. In addition, we compare our approach with SFA BIBREF1 , CORAL BIBREF8 and TR-TrAdaBoost BIBREF39 in the single-source setting.
Transductive string kernels. We present a simple and straightforward approach to produce a transductive similarity measure suitable for strings. We take the following steps to derive transductive string kernels. For a given kernel (similarity) function INLINEFORM0 , we first build the full kernel matrix INLINEFORM1 , by including the pairwise similarities of samples from both the train and the test sets. For a training set INLINEFORM2 of INLINEFORM3 samples and a test set INLINEFORM4 of INLINEFORM5 samples, such that INLINEFORM6 , each component in the full kernel matrix is defined as follows: DISPLAYFORM0
We next present a simple yet effective approach for adapting a one-versus-all kernel classifier trained on a source domain to a different target domain. Our transductive kernel classifier (TKC) approach is composed of two learning iterations. Our entire framework is formally described in Algorithm SECREF3 .

Answers:
string kernels, SST, KE-Meta, SFA, CORAL, TR-TrAdaBoost, Transductive string kernels, transductive kernel classifier
Question: What is a string kernel?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In recent years, methods based on string kernels have demonstrated remarkable performance in various text classification tasks BIBREF35 , BIBREF36 , BIBREF22 , BIBREF19 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF17 , BIBREF26 . String kernels represent a way of using information at the character level by measuring the similarity of strings through character n-grams. Lodhi et al. BIBREF35 used string kernels for document categorization, obtaining very good results. String kernels were also successfully used in authorship identification BIBREF22 . More recently, various combinations of string kernels reached state-of-the-art accuracy rates in native language identification BIBREF19 and Arabic dialect identification BIBREF17 . Interestingly, string kernels have been used in cross-domain settings without any domain adaptation, obtaining impressive results. For instance, Ionescu et al. BIBREF19 have employed string kernels in a cross-corpus (and implicitly cross-domain) native language identification experiment, improving the state-of-the-art accuracy by a remarkable INLINEFORM0 . Giménez-Pérez et al. BIBREF10 have used string kernels for single-source and multi-source polarity classification. Remarkably, they obtain state-of-the-art performance without using knowledge from the target domain, which indicates that string kernels provide robust results in the cross-domain setting without any domain adaptation. Ionescu et al. BIBREF17 obtained the best performance in the Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task of the 2017 VarDial Evaluation Campaign BIBREF37 , with an improvement of INLINEFORM1 over the second-best method. It is important to note that the training and the test speech samples prepared for the shared task were recorded in different setups BIBREF37 , or in other words, the training and the test sets are drawn from different distributions. Different from all these recent approaches BIBREF19 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF17 , we use unlabeled data from the target domain to significantly increase the performance of string kernels in cross-domain text classification, particularly in English polarity classification.

Answers:
String kernel is a technique that uses character n-grams to measure the similarity of strings
Question: Which dataset do they use to learn embeddings?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We use two datasets in this work: the training is done on the Fisher Corpus English Part 1 (LDC2004S13) BIBREF15 and testing on the Suicide Risk Assessment corpus BIBREF16 , along with Fisher.

Answers:
Fisher Corpus English Part 1
Question: How do they correlate NED with emotional bond levels?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: According to prior work, both from domain theory BIBREF16 and from experimental validation BIBREF6 , a high emotional bond in patient-therapist interactions in the suicide therapy domain is associated with more entrainment. In this experiment, we compute the correlation of the proposed NED measure with the patient-perceived emotional bond ratings. Since the proposed measure is asymmetric in nature, we compute the measures for both patient-to-therapist and therapist-to-patient entrainment. We also compute the correlation of emotional bond with the baselines used in Experiment 1. We report Pearson's correlation coefficients ( INLINEFORM0 ) for this experiment in Table TABREF26 along with their INLINEFORM1 -values. We test against the null hypothesis INLINEFORM2 that there is no linear association between emotional bond and the candidate measure.

Answers:
They compute Pearson’s correlation between NED measure for patient-to-therapist and patient-perceived emotional bond rating and NED measure for therapist-to-patient and patient-perceived emotional bond rating
Question: Which languages are evaluated?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: We evaluate the proposed methods in 8 languages, showing a significant ability to learn from partial data. We additionally experiment with initializing CBL with domain-specific instance-weighting schemes, showing mixed results. In the process, we use weighted variants of popular NER models, showing strong performance in both non-neural and neural settings. Finally, we show experiments in a real-world setting, by employing non-speakers to manually annotate romanized Bengali text. We show that a small amount of non-speaker annotation combined with our method can outperform previous methods.
We experiment on 8 languages. Four languages – English, German, Spanish, Dutch – come from the CoNLL 2002/2003 shared tasks BIBREF21, BIBREF22. These are taken from newswire text, and have labelset of Person, Organization, Location, Miscellaneous.
The remaining four languages come from the LORELEI project BIBREF23. These languages are: Amharic (amh: LDC2016E87), Arabic (ara: LDC2016E89), Hindi (hin: LDC2017E62), and Somali (som: LDC2016E91). These come from a variety of sources including discussion forums, newswire, and social media. The labelset is Person, Organization, Location, Geo-political entity. We define train/development/test splits, taking care to keep a similar distribution of genres in each split. Data statistics for all languages are shown in Table TABREF25.

Answers:
Bengali, English, German, Spanish, Dutch, Amharic, Arabic, Hindi, Somali
Question: Which model have the smallest Character Error Rate and which have the smallest Word Error Rate?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In this paper, we experimentally showed that end-to-end approaches and different orthographic units were rather suitable to model the French language. RNN-transducer was found specially competitive with character units compared to other end-to-end approaches. Among the two orthographic units, subword was found beneficial for most methods to address the problems described in section SECREF14 and retain information on ambiguous patterns in French. Extending with language models, we could obtain promising results compared to traditional phone-based systems. The best performing systems being for character unit the RNN-transducer with additional attention module, achieving 7.8% in terms of CER and 17.6% on WER. For subword units, classic RNN-transducer, RNN-transducer with attention and joint CTC-attention show comparable performance on subword error rate and WER, with the first one being slightly better on WER ($17.4\%$) and the last one having a lower error rate on subword ($14.5\%$).

Answers:
character unit the RNN-transducer with additional attention module, For subword units, classic RNN-transducer, RNN-transducer with attention and joint CTC-attention show comparable performance
Question: What will be in focus for future work?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: However, we also showed difference in produced errors for each method and different impact at word-level depending of the approach or units. Thus, future work will focus on analysing the orthographic output of these systems in two ways: 1) investigate errors produced by the end-to-end methods and explore several approaches to correct common errors done in French and 2) compare the end-to-end methods in a SLU context and evaluate the semantic value of the partially correct produced words.

Answers:
1) investigate errors produced by the end-to-end methods and explore several approaches to correct common errors done in French, 2) compare the end-to-end methods in a SLU context and evaluate the semantic value of the partially correct produced words
Question: What are the existing end-to-end ASR approaches for the French language?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In this context, we decided to study the three main types of architectures which have demonstrated promising results over traditional systems: 1) Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) BIBREF5, BIBREF6 which uses Markov assumptions (i.e. conditional independence between predictions at each time step) to efficiently solve sequential problems by dynamic programming, 2) Attention-based methods BIBREF7, BIBREF8 which rely on an attention mechanism to perform non-monotonic alignment between acoustic frames and recognized acoustic units and 3) RNN-tranducer BIBREF0, BIBREF9, BIBREF10 which extends CTC by additionally modeling the dependencies between outputs at different steps using a prediction network analogous to a language model. We extend our experiments by adding two hybrid end-to-end methods: a multi-task method called joint CTC-attention BIBREF11, BIBREF12 and a RNN-transducer extended with attention mechanisms BIBREF13. To complete our review, we build a state-of-art phone-based system based on lattice-free MMI criterion BIBREF14 and its end-to-end counterpart with both phonetic and orthographic units BIBREF15.

Answers:
1) Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC), 2) Attention-based methods, 3) RNN-tranducer
Question: How much is decoding speed increased by increasing encoder and decreasing decoder depth?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Table TABREF24 shows that while the acceleration of trading decoder layers for encoding layers in training is small, in decoding is significant. Specifically, the Transformer with 10 encoder layers and 2 decoder layers is $2.32$ times as fast as the 6-layer Transformer while achieving a slightly higher BLEU.

Answers:
the Transformer with 10 encoder layers and 2 decoder layers is $2.32$ times as fast as the 6-layer Transformer
Question: Did they experiment on this dataset?

Evidence:

Answers:
No
Question: What language are the conversations in?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: The language is Chinese, which is not easy for non-Chinese-speaking researchers to work on.

Answers:
The language is Chinese, which is not easy for non-Chinese-speaking researchers to work on.
Question: What is the size of the dataset?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Using our platform, we extracted anonymized user interaction data in the manner of real quizzes generated for a collection of several input video sources. We obtained a corpus of approximately 300,000 sentences, from which roughly 1.5 million single-quiz question training examples were derived. We split this dataset using the regular 70/10/20 partition for training, validation and testing.

Answers:
300,000 sentences with 1.5 million single-quiz questions
Question: Which two schemes are used?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In this paper we have formalized the problem of automatic fill-on-the-blanks quiz generation using two well-defined learning schemes: sequence classification and sequence labeling. We have also proposed concrete architectures based on LSTMs to tackle the problem in both cases.

Answers:
sequence classification, sequence labeling
Question: Does Grail accept Prolog inputs?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: In its general form, a type-logical grammar consists of following components:

Answers:
No