-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Which table result is the real result #13
Comments
Hi, the result in Table 1 is the averaged result over 5 times. In table 2, since most of these previous approaches report the best model accuracy instead of the averaged model accuracy, we use the best model accuracy of ITA-All+CVA over 5 runs. You may read section 3.2 for more details. |
Thank you for your reply, but I would like to ask why the results of table 2 and table 4 are not consistent and the results of table 4 and table 1 are not consistent. What you replied to me is the reason why the results of table 1 and table 2 do not agree. |
Oh, in table 4, I put our initial results of Twitter 15/17. The models are trained with LA+GA+CVA. I will fix this issue in our newest arxiv version. You may take the results in Table 1 and Table 2. |
Thank you very much! |
According to the description of the paper, ITA-ALL+CVA in Table 2 should be the performance of the model, but in Table 4 the performance of ITA-ALL+CVA is different from that in Table 2. May I ask which table's result is the true result and why the two tables' results are different?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: