In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.

Example Input: Proposed Fusion Techniques ::: Step-Wise Decoder Fusion
Our first proposed technique is the step-wise decoder fusion of visual features during every prediction step i.e. we concatenate the visual encoding as context at each step of the decoding process. Proposed Fusion Techniques ::: Multimodal Attention Modulation
Similar to general attention BIBREF8, wherein a variable-length alignment vector $a_{th}(s)$, whose size equals the number of time steps on the source side, is derived by comparing the current target hidden state $h_{t}$ with each source hidden state $\overline{h_{s}}$; we consider a variant wherein the visual encoding $v_{t}$ is used to calculate an attention distribution $a_{tv}(s)$ over the source encodings as well. Proposed Fusion Techniques ::: Visual-Semantic (VS) Regularizer
In terms of leveraging the visual modality for supervision, BIBREF1 use multi-task learning to learn grounded representations through image representation prediction. 
 Question: What are 3 novel fusion techniques that are proposed?
Example Output: Step-Wise Decoder Fusion Multimodal Attention Modulation Visual-Semantic (VS) Regularizer

Example Input: Using our methodology, we tagged 10,000 Arabic tweet dataset for offensiveness, where offensive tweets account for roughly 19% of the tweets. Further, we labeled tweets as vulgar or hate speech.  
 Question: How many tweets are in the dataset?
Example Output: 10,000 Arabic tweet dataset 

Example Input: In this section, we evaluate the proposed method intrinsically in terms of whether the co-occurrence matrix after the low-rank approximation is able to capture similar concepts on student response data sets, and also extrinsically in terms of the end task of summarization on all corpora. In the following experiments, summary length is set to be the average number of words in human summaries or less. An alternative way to evaluate the hypothesis is to let humans judge whether two bigrams are similar or not, which we leave for future work. 
 Question: Do they quantitavely or qualitatively evalute the output of their low-rank approximation to verify the grouping of lexical items?
Example Output:
They evaluate quantitatively.

