forefeather

Doctor Pennington? I really like the paper, as I said "This is really interesting work and a good paper.", but disagree that "troublesome" would be too strong. The original version claimed 11% improvement, Professor Goldberg found that it would be along the lines of 2-3%. Even if this is not the point of the paper it is how it was empirically evaluated and was the key performance statement in the original abstract and could mislead a reader to expect better model improvements. Nevertheless, I am a fan of your work and excited to see what you publish next.

I was not aware of these updates and will have to read the new version. It is great that it is possible for non reviewer feedback to have such an impact on a paper before it is published and presented. Was the camera ready version also changed?

This is really interesting work and a good paper. But, it should also be mentioned that some concerns have been raised about the evaluation. As troublesome as it is, it is a common problem with word representation papers since there is not yet a solid standardized way to approach evaluation.

https://plus.google.com/114479713299850783539/posts/BYvhAbgG...