Review Comment:
I want to express my thanks to authors again for addressing the comments and the substantial effort for improving the paper, especially doing extra ablation study. This version has improved the clarity and consistency of the paper for a large part.
The authors are able to address most of the concerns mentioned in the last round of review. Well done! However, two minor concerns remain, which I believe could addressed to further improve the clarity and fidelity of the paper.
Firstly, on section 3.2 Task 2, I thank the authors' added explanation on classification problem, however, on the Evaluation section, the paper says: 'Task 2 can be assessed using standard multi-label classification metrics, including weighted accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score and hamming loss'. The authors may also wish to explicitly mention the evaluation metrics for single-label classification problem? The evalution metrics between single-label classification problem and mutiple label classification problem may overlap, but they are not exactly the same.
Secondly, this concern relate to R3C7, R3C8, R3C9, R3C10, and R3C11, I want to thank the author for detailed explanation and ablation study. The paper uses (constraint, restriction, property restriction) interchangeably creating a wording mismatch between the prompt and main part of manuscript. They authors provided a mapping table on Appendix A2, aligning the terms used in prompt and terms and types used in the paper writing. To avoid confusion and ensure consistency, the authors may want to justify why the paper use (constraint, restriction, property restriction) interchangeably and consider moving the mapping table and the explanation the main text rather than just in appendix. This would not only help reducing the need for readers to cross-reference Appendix A.2 while reading the main text but also avoid confusing if reader were not crossing referencing to appendix. At the current state, this detail can be easily overlooked by readers.
|
