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.

Q: Detection: In hypernymy detection, the task is to classify whether pairs of words are in a hypernymy relation. For this task, we evaluate all models on five benchmark datasets: First, we employ the noun-noun subset of bless, which contains hypernymy annotations for 200 concrete, mostly unambiguous nouns. Second, we evaluate on leds BIBREF13 , which consists of 2,770 noun pairs balanced between positive hypernymy examples, and randomly shuffled negative pairs. Direction: In direction prediction, the task is to identify which term is broader in a given pair of words. For this task, we evaluate all models on three datasets described by BIBREF16 : On bless, the task is to predict the direction for all 1337 positive pairs in the dataset. Pairs are only counted correct if the hypernymy direction scores higher than the reverse direction, i.e. INLINEFORM0 . We reserve 10% of the data for validation, and test on the remaining 90%. On wbless, we follow prior work BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 and perform 1000 random iterations in which 2% of the data is used as a validation set to learn a classification threshold, and test on the remainder of the data. We report average accuracy across all iterations. Finally, we evaluate on bibless BIBREF16 , a variant of wbless with hypernymy and hyponymy pairs explicitly annotated for their direction. Graded Entailment: In graded entailment, the task is to quantify the degree to which a hypernymy relation holds. For this task, we follow prior work BIBREF19 , BIBREF18 and use the noun part of hyperlex BIBREF20 , consisting of 2,163 noun pairs which are annotated to what degree INLINEFORM0 is-a INLINEFORM1 holds on a scale of INLINEFORM2 . 
 Question: Which benchmark datasets are used?

A: noun-noun subset of bless leds BIBREF13 bless wbless bibless hyperlex BIBREF20
****
Q: As explained in Section SECREF15 , the corruption introduced in Doc2VecC acts as a data-dependent regularization that suppresses the embeddings of frequent but uninformative words. In contrast, Doc2VecC manages to clamp down the representation of words frequently appear in the training set, but are uninformative, such as symbols and stop words. 
 Question: How do they determine which words are informative?

A: Informative are those that will not be suppressed by regularization performed.
****
Q: Guidelines for Evaluating Faithfulness
We propose the following guidelines for evaluating the faithfulness of explanations. These guidelines address common pitfalls and sub-optimal practices we observed in the literature.

Guidelines for Evaluating Faithfulness ::: Be explicit in what you evaluate.
Conflating plausability and faithfulness is harmful. You should be explicit on which one of them you evaluate, and use suitable methodologies for each one. Of course, the same applies when designing interpretation techniques—be clear about which properties are being prioritized.

Guidelines for Evaluating Faithfulness ::: Faithfulness evaluation should not involve human-judgement on the quality of interpretation.
We note that: (1) humans cannot judge if an interpretation is faithful or not: if they understood the model, interpretation would be unnecessary; (2) for similar reasons, we cannot obtain supervision for this problem, either. Therefore, human judgement should not be involved in evaluation for faithfulness, as human judgement measures plausability.

Guidelines for Evaluating Faithfulness ::: Faithfulness evaluation should not involve human-provided gold labels.
We should be able to interpret incorrect model predictions, just the same as correct ones. Evaluation methods that rely on gold labels are influenced by human priors on what should the model do, and again push the evaluation in the direction of plausability.

Guidelines for Evaluating Faithfulness ::: Do not trust “inherent interpretability” claims.
Inherent interpretability is a claim until proven otherwise. Explanations provided by “inherently interpretable” models must be held to the same standards as post-hoc interpretation methods, and be evaluated for faithfulness using the same set of evaluation techniques.

Guidelines for Evaluating Faithfulness ::: Faithfulness evaluation of IUI systems should not rely on user performance.
End-task user performance in HCI settings is merely indicative of correlation between plausibility and model performance, however small this correlation is. While important to evaluate the utility of the interpretations for some use-cases, it is unrelated to faithfulness. 
 Question: Which are key points in guidelines for faithfulness evaluation?

A:
Be explicit in what you evaluate. Faithfulness evaluation should not involve human-judgement on the quality of interpretation. Faithfulness evaluation should not involve human-provided gold labels. Do not trust “inherent interpretability” claims. Faithfulness evaluation of IUI systems should not rely on user performance.
****
