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.

 We defined a sequence labeling task to extract custom entities from user input. We assumed seven (7) possible entities (see Table TABREF43) to be recognized by the model: topic, subtopic, examination mode and level, question number, intent, as well as the entity other for remaining words in the utterance.   We defined a classification problem to predict the system's next action according to the given user input. We assumed 13 custom actions (see Table TABREF42) that we considered being our labels. In the conversational dataset, each input was automatically labeled by the rule-based system with the corresponding next action and the dialogue-id. Thus, no additional post-labeling was required.  
 Question: How does the IPA label data after interacting with users?
It defined a sequence labeling task to extract custom entities from user input and label the next action (out of 13  custom actions defined).

We make copies of the monolingual model for each language and add additional crosslingual latent variables (CLVs) to couple the monolingual models, capturing crosslingual semantic role patterns. Concretely, when training on parallel sentences, whenever the head words of the arguments are aligned, we add a CLV as a parent of the two corresponding role variables. 
 Question: Do they add one latent variable for each language pair in their Bayesian model?
Yes

Without ELMo (the same setting as 4-th row in Table 3 ), our data settings is the same as qin-EtAl:2017:Long whose performance was state-of-the-art and will be compared directly. We see that even without the pre-trained ELMo encoder, our performance is better, which is mostly attributed to our better sentence pair representations. 
 Question: Why does their model do better than prior models?

better sentence pair representations

