TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and you have to write an answerable question based on the context. Your questions can be extractive, abstractive, or yes-no questions.
PROBLEM: We pit our model against the following baselines: 1) SVM with unigram, bigram, and trigram features, which is a standard yet rather strong classifier for text features; 2) SVM with average word embedding, where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the embeddings of the composite words; 3) SVM with average transformed word embeddings (the INLINEFORM0 in equation EQREF6 ), where a document is represented as a continuous representation by averaging the transformed embeddings of the composite words; 4) two mature deep learning models on text classification, CNN BIBREF3 and Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks (RCNN) BIBREF0 , where the hyperparameters are based on their work; 5) the above SVM and deep learning models with comment information; 

SOLUTION: What are the baselines?

PROBLEM: To capture this interesting property, we propose a new tagging scheme consisting of three tags, namely { INLINEFORM0 }.

INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears before the pun in the given context.

INLINEFORM0 tag highlights the current word is a pun.

INLINEFORM0 tag indicates that the current word appears after the pun.

SOLUTION: What is the tagging scheme employed?

PROBLEM: Through the experiments, we empirically studied our analysis on DIRL and the effectiveness of our proposed solution in dealing with the problem it suffered from. In addition, we studied the impact of each step described in §SECREF10 and §SECREF14 to our proposed solution, respectively. To performe the study, we carried out performance comparison between the following models:

SO: the source-only model trained using source domain labeled data without any domain adaptation.

CMD: the centre-momentum-based domain adaptation model BIBREF3 of the original DIRL framework that implements $\mathcal {L}_{inv}$ with $\text{CMD}_K$.

DANN: the adversarial-learning-based domain adaptation model BIBREF2 of the original DIRL framework that implements $\mathcal {L}_{inv}$ with $\text{JSD}(\rm {P}_S, \rm {P}_T)$.

$\text{CMD}^\dagger $: the weighted version of the CMD model that only applies the first step (described in §SECREF10) of our proposed method.

$\text{DANN}^\dagger $: the weighted version of the DANN model that only applies the first step of our proposed method.

$\text{CMD}^{\dagger \dagger }$: the weighted version of the CMD model that applies both the first and second (described in §SECREF14) steps of our proposed method.

$\text{DANN}^{\dagger \dagger }$: the weighted version of the DANN model that applies both the first and second steps of our proposed method.

$\text{CMD}^{*}$: a variant of $\text{CMD}^{\dagger \dagger }$ that assigns $\mathbf {w}^*$ (estimate from target labeled data) to $\mathbf {w}$ and fixes this value during model training.

$\text{DANN}^{*}$: a variant of $\text{DANN}^{\dagger \dagger }$ that assigns $\mathbf {w}^*$ to $\mathbf {w}$ and fixes this value during model training. We conducted experiments on the Amazon reviews dataset BIBREF9, which is a benchmark dataset in the cross-domain sentiment analysis field.  From this dataset, we constructed 12 binary-class cross-domain sentiment analysis tasks: B$\rightarrow $D, B$\rightarrow $E, B$\rightarrow $K, D$\rightarrow $B, D$\rightarrow $E, D$\rightarrow $K, E$\rightarrow $B, E$\rightarrow $D, E$\rightarrow $K, K$\rightarrow $B, K$\rightarrow $D, K$\rightarrow $E.  We additionally constructed 12 multi-class cross-domain sentiment classification tasks. Tasks were designed to distinguish reviews of 1 or 2 stars (class 1) from those of 4 stars (class 2) and those of 5 stars (class 3).  Table TABREF27 shows model performance on the 12 binary-class cross-domain tasks. From this table, we can obtain the following observations. 

SOLUTION:
How is DIRL evaluated?

