input: Text: Professor D: OK. So, uh You can fill those out, uh <unk>pause<unk> after, actually, so So, I got, uh <unk>pause<unk> these results from, uh, Stephane. Also, um, I think that, uh <unk>pause<unk> um <unk>pause<unk> we might hear later today, about other results. I think s that, uh, there were some other very good results that we're gonna wanna compare to. But, <unk>vocalsound<unk> r our results from other <unk>disfmarker<unk> other places, yeah. PhD A: I I'm sorry? I didn't Professor D: Um, I got this from you PhD A: Yeah. Professor D: and then I sent a note to Sunil about the <unk>disfmarker<unk> cuz he has been running some other systems PhD A: Mm - hmm. Professor D: other than the <unk>disfmarker<unk> the ICSI OGI one. PhD A: Oh yeah. Professor D: So <unk>pause<unk> um, I wan wanna <unk>disfmarker<unk> wanna see what that is. But, uh, you know, so we 'll see what it is comparatively later. But <unk>pause<unk> it looks like, um PhD A: M yeah. Professor D: You know most of the time, even <unk>disfmarker<unk> I mean even though it's true that the overall number for Danish <unk>disfmarker<unk> we didn't improve it If you look at it individually, what it really says is that there's, um, uh Looks like out of the six cases, between the different kinds of, uh, matching conditions <unk>pause<unk> out of the six cases, there's basically, um, a couple where it stays about the same, uh, three where it gets better, and one where it gets worse. PhD A:
  Question: What did the Professor think about Danish and German models?
  Answer:
output: The professor explained that while the Danish model did not improve overall, the results were mixed over six cases. The team's models led to improvements, even without bug fixes, but they were better on the Danish than German.