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: In the first one, shown in Figure FIGREF12, a special dedicated discriminator is added to the model to control that the latent representation does not contain stylistic information. The second extension of the baseline architecture does not use an adversarial component $D_z$ that is trying to eradicate information on $c$ from component $z$. Instead, the system, shown in Figure FIGREF16 feeds the "soft" generated sentence $\tilde{G}$ into encoder $E$ and checks how close is the representation $E(\tilde{G} )$ to the original representation $z = E(x)$ in terms of the cosine distance. We further refer to it as shifted autoencoder or SAE. We also study a combination of both approaches described above, shown on Figure FIGREF17. 
 Question: What are three new proposed architectures?
Example Output: special dedicated discriminator is added to the model to control that the latent representation does not contain stylistic information shifted autoencoder or SAE combination of both approaches

Example Input: All cases exhibit high scores—in the vast majority of the cases substantially higher than reported in previous work. In particular, in BIBREF1 we assess the ability of LSTMs to learn subject-verb agreement patterns in English, and evaluate on naturally occurring wikipedia sentences.  BIBREF2 also consider subject-verb agreement, but in a “colorless green ideas” setting in which content words in naturally occurring sentences are replaced with random words with the same part-of-speech and inflection, thus ensuring a focus on syntax rather than on selectional-preferences based cues.  BIBREF3 consider a wider range of syntactic phenomena (subject-verb agreement, reflexive anaphora, negative polarity items) using manually constructed stimuli, allowing for greater coverage and control than in the naturally occurring setting. 
 Question: Were any of these tasks evaluated in any previous work?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: In order to provide directions for future work, we analyze the errors made by the classifier trained on the extended features on the four prediction tasks.

Errors on Intention (I) prediction: The lack of background is a major problem when identifying trolling comments. Non-cursing aggressions and insults This is a challenging problem, since the majority of abusive and insulting comments rely on profanity and swearing.  Another source of error is the presence of controversial topic words such as “black”,“feminism”, “killing”, “racism”, “brown”, etc. that are commonly used by trolls. Errors on Disclosure (D) prediction: A major source of error that affects disclosure is the shallow meaning representation obtained from the BOW model even when augmented with the distributional features given by the glove vectors. Errors on Interpretation (R) prediction: it is a common practice from many users to directly ask the suspected troll if he/she is trolling or not.  Errors on Response Strategy (B) prediction: In some cases there is a blurry line between “Frustrate” and “Neutralize”.  Another challenging problem is the distinction between the classes “Troll” and “Engage”.  
 Question: What is an example of a difficult-to-classify case?
Example Output:
The lack of background Non-cursing aggressions and insults the presence of controversial topic words   shallow meaning representation directly ask the suspected troll if he/she is trolling or not a blurry line between “Frustrate” and “Neutralize” distinction between the classes “Troll” and “Engage”

