Sequential Learning of Convolutional Features for Effective Text Classification

Avinash Madasu; Vijjini Anvesh Rao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 13 references

Sequential Learning of Convolutional Features for Effective Text Classification

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Convolution applied word-by-word, followed by LSTM and attention, yields a text classifier the authors report beats RCNN, C-LSTM, and equally sized deep CNN/LSTM baselines on seven datasets.

desk verdict The architecture is plausible and the diagnostic study is interesting, but the 'outperforms' claim rests on single-run author-implemented baselines with several near-chance numbers, so the paper deserves review with a demand for code and reruns. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00080 v2 pith:KMROTYX6 submitted 2019-08-30 cs.CL

Avinash Madasu , Vijjini Anvesh Rao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords textclassificationSCARNconvolutionalneuralnetworksLSTMattentionmechanismmaxpoolingwordordersentimentanalysis

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that fixed-window convolution and max pooling, the two standard CNN building blocks, are mismatched to text, and it builds a classifier around that critique. The proposed network, SCARN (Sequential Convolutional Attentive Recurrent Network), applies convolution to individual words to turn embeddings into task-specific representations, then feeds that transformed sequence to an LSTM; a parallel branch runs attention over an LSTM's hidden states on the original embeddings. On seven benchmarks covering sentiment analysis and question classification, SCARN reports higher accuracy than the recurrent-convolutional baselines RCNN and C-LSTM while using about 68K to 167K parameters instead of their 181K to 677K. The paper also reports that SCARN beats equally large deep CNN, LSTM, and attention baselines on those datasets. If the comparisons are stable, the practical upshot is that a small, carefully structured recurrent-convolutional model can outperform larger standard alternatives for text classification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is SCARN's split into two subnetworks. In the Convolution Recurrent subnetwork, $K$ convolution filters of size $1 \times d$ act on each word embedding separately, producing a new feature vector per word, and the sequence of these feature vectors is learned by an LSTM. In the Recurrent Attentive subnetwork, the original embeddings are processed by a second LSTM and attention combines the hidden states into an alternative context vector. The final activations of both branches are concatenated for classification. This split is what carries the argument: the single-word convolution cannot destroy word order and is presented as a learned task-specific embedding transformation, illustrated by t-SNE plots of sentiment clustering, while attention substitutes for max pooling by weighting words by task relevance rather than by activation magnitude. The shuffle and nth-max-pooling experiments are the supporting diagnostics that motivate these choices.

What would settle it

Reimplement SCARN, RCNN, C-LSTM, and the parameter-matched deep CNN and LSTM baselines on SST-2 with the paper's hyperparameters, run each with at least five random seeds, and report the mean and standard deviation of accuracy; if SCARN's advantages over RCNN and C-LSTM fall within one standard deviation or reverse, the paper's central comparison is not supported. A second check is to repeat the nth-max-pooling experiment under matched hyperparameter tuning; if accuracy rises monotonically or tracks task importance for some n, the critique of max pooling weakens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SCARN's central claim is that the weakness of CNNs on text is not convolution itself but how it is applied and pooled. The authors show with random- and alternate-shuffle experiments that accuracy on shuffled sentences stays close to accuracy on correctly ordered sentences and that the gap narrows as window size grows, which they read as evidence that fixed-window convolution does not fully preserve word order. They further show, by selecting the nth-largest pooled value for various n, that accuracy varies arbitrarily with n, which they read as evidence that max pooling does not reliably select task-relevant words. The proposed architecture therefore uses convolution with window size one only as a per-word embedding transformation, preserves order through an LSTM, and replaces max pooling with attention over the recurrent states of a second branch. The paper reports that this design outperforms RCNN and C-LSTM with fewer parameters and outperforms equally sized deep CNN and LSTM architectures on all seven datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single accuracy scores in Table 1, produced by the authors' own reimplementations of all baselines, are stable and meaningful differences; if independent runs with different seeds reorder those scores, the claim that SCARN outperforms the other models collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fixed-window convolution can be replaced by single-word convolution plus a recurrent layer without giving up accuracy, and with fewer parameters.
Max pooling should not be the default pooling choice for text; attention over recurrent states is the alternative SCARN uses.
Recurrent-convolutional text classifiers can be competitive at 68K to 167K parameters, roughly a quarter to a tenth of C-LSTM's 677K, which changes the practical compute budget for such models.
The two diagnostic experiments, shuffled order and nth-max pooling, give future work cheap checks for whether a convolutional text encoder is actually using word order and task-relevant features.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the shuffle diagnostic could be used as a routine sanity metric for any new text encoder; a model whose accuracy barely drops under random word order is not learning order-sensitive representations, regardless of its architecture.
Editorial inference: if the t-SNE interpretation is correct, the single-word convolution layer should be replaceable by other per-word transformations, such as a learned MLP or a task-tuned embedding adapter; comparing SCARN with such variants would isolate whether the benefit comes from the convolution operator itself or from per-word task adaptation.
Editorial inference: the same two-branch structure could be tested on token-level tasks beyond classification, such as aspect extraction or named entity recognition, where per-word task-specific representations and word order both matter; the paper does not report those settings.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

The short version: the architecture is clearly described and the diagnostic study is worth reading, but the central 'outperforms' claim is not backed by the evidence as reported. The paper deserves a serious referee, but the referee should ask for code and reruns.

What's actually new: SCARN is a specific combination—one-word-wide convolution features fed into an LSTM, parallel with an LSTM-plus-attention branch, outputs concatenated. Each block is established, but this particular configuration is not in the cited RCNN/C-LSTM work. The parameter-efficiency story is plausible: 68K–167K parameters versus 180K for RCNN and 676K for C-LSTM. The diagnostic experiments on word-order sensitivity and nth-max-pooling are well framed, and the t-SNE analysis nicely illustrates that a one-word-wide convolution can act as a task-specific embedding transformation. The math is simple enough that no derivation is needed; the model is a standard composition of known blocks. The citation pattern is unobjectionable—the self-citations are peripheral references, not load-bearing. The architecture description is complete enough to reimplement.

Where it gets shaky: Table 1 is the entire empirical case, with one run per model per dataset and no variance. The footnote in Section 5.2 says all baselines are from the authors' implementations. That alone is not disqualifying, but several baseline numbers are implausibly low—Deep CNN at 28.999% on TREC (a six-way task) and Char CNN at 50% on RT (chance for a binary task) suggest misconfiguration. Parameter counts are only given for RCNN and C-LSTM, not for the 'equally large' deep CNN/LSTM baselines, so that comparison is uncheckable. The 0.4–2 point gaps separating SCARN from RCNN/C-LSTM on several datasets could easily reverse under a properly configured baseline or a different seed. The max-pooling critique relies on misclassified examples and a few datasets; it is suggestive, not established.

Bottom line: this is a plausible architecture with an honest, readable write-up and a diagnostic study that has more substance than most. But the empirical superiority claim is fragile as reported. I would send it to peer review with a request for code, repeated runs, and sanity-checked baselines. The reader's conditional verdict is right.

Best.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an experimental critique of two CNN building blocks for text classification, fixed-window convolution and max-pooling, and uses that critique to motivate a new architecture, SCARN. SCARN first applies single-word convolution to word embeddings, feeds the transformed representations into an LSTM, and combines this branch with a second LSTM branch that uses attention over the original embeddings. The model is evaluated on seven datasets (IMDB, TREC, SO, RT, Pol, AR, SST-2) against linear models, CNNs, LSTMs, attention models, RCNN, C-LSTM, and a concat-SCARN variant. The paper claims that SCARN outperforms recurrent convolutional models with fewer parameters and matches or beats equally sized deep CNN and LSTM models.

Significance. The proposed architecture is simple and parameter-efficient, and the accompanying qualitative experiments (t-SNE projections, word-ordering permutations, and nth-max pooling) are thought-provoking and could inform future architecture design. If the empirical claims are substantiated, the paper would offer a useful text-classification model and a constructive analysis of convolution and pooling in NLP. However, the central quantitative claim is currently supported only by a single table of unreplicated, author-implemented baselines, with no variance or significance evidence, and several baseline scores are implausible. The paper is better treated as a proposal with a motivating study than as a benchmark result until the evaluation is strengthened.

major comments (3)

[Table 1, Section 5.2] The abstract and Section 6 claim that SCARN 'outperforms' RCNN/C-LSTM and equally sized deep CNN/LSTM models, but Table 1 is the only quantitative support and it contains one accuracy value per model/dataset. The footnote in Section 5.2 says that 'for lack of code, results are from our implementations,' yet no repeated runs, standard deviations, or significance tests are provided. Several baseline numbers are implausible for the published architectures being represented: Char CNN reaches exactly 50.000 on RT (chance for a binary task), 50.249 on Pol, and Deep CNN reaches 28.999 on TREC. Because the margins on the decisive comparisons are small (TREC: SCARN 90.799 vs C-LSTM 90.400; Pol: SCARN 78.750 vs RCNN 78.250; IMDB: SCARN 89.788 vs Bi-LSTM 88.690), the headline claim is not established as written. Please report repeated runs with variance, use significance tests or confidence intervals, and provide code or published baseline numbers so the comparisons are checkable.
[Table 2, Section 5.2] The parameter-efficiency and 'equally large' claims cannot be checked because Table 2 reports parameter counts only for Small SCARN, Large SCARN, RCNN, and C-LSTM. The abstract's comparison with 'equally large various deep CNN and LSTM architectures' is therefore unverifiable: Deep CNN, Char CNN, LSTM, Bi-LSTM, LSTM+Attention, and concat-SCARN are omitted. Please provide parameter counts for every model and describe how the sizes were matched for the models said to be 'approximately matching.'
[Section 3.1-3.2, Figures 2-3, Appendix B] The design choices of SCARN are motivated by the ordering and nth-max pooling experiments, but these experiments also appear to be single runs per condition, with no error bars, repeats, or statistical tests. In particular, the conclusion in Section 3.2 that there is 'no apparent correlation' between max-pooling rank and task importance is a negative claim that cannot be supported by a single curve (e.g., Figure 3 on TREC and SST-2). Please add repeated runs or quantitative correlation measures; otherwise the motivation for replacing max-pooling with attention remains suggestive rather than established.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.2, Eq. (2)] The dimension of C is written as R^{N×d×K}, but Equation (1) and the surrounding text define C_i as a vector of K filter outputs for word i, which implies C∈R^{N×K}. Please correct this notation, as it propagates to the description of the LSTM input shapes.
[Section 5.3] Please specify the number of random seeds, whether the dev split in Table 3 was used for early stopping or model selection, and whether the scores in Table 1 are on the test split; this would make the single-run results more interpretable.
[Section 6, Figure 7] The distribution-mismatch explanation for SCARN versus concat-SCARN is based on a visual comparison of the mean and standard deviation of one layer on the training set; please describe how these statistics were computed and provide a quantitative discrepancy measure.
[Section 3.1, Figure 1] The t-SNE analysis would be easier to reproduce if the color assignment criteria for 'semantically close to negative' words and the t-SNE hyperparameters (perplexity, number of iterations) were stated.
[Appendix A] The max-pooling misclassification examples are illustrative, but the claim that certain words have 'near majority share' should be quantified; please report the actual pooled values or proportions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SCARN's claims are empirical evaluations against held-out test sets, with no derivation chain reducing to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper contains no mathematical derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to an input. The central claim is that the proposed SCARN architecture achieves higher accuracy on standard text-classification benchmarks than various baselines. These accuracies are measured on held-out test splits, which is an external, falsifiable benchmark rather than a construction from the model's training objective. The diagnostic experiments in Section 3 motivate the architecture but are design iteration, not circular reasoning. The self-citations (Madasu and Rao 2019a,b) appear only in a related-work remark about shallow CNNs and are not load-bearing for any result. The footnote in Section 5.2, 'For lack of code, results are from our implementations,' is a reproducibility and baseline-fidelity concern; it does not make any reported test accuracy equal to a fitted parameter by construction. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. The empirical superiority claim may be fragile due to missing significance tests or baseline implementation details, but fragility is not circularity. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No theoretical derivation is offered; the claim rests on empirical comparison. Key hand-chosen hyperparameters are listed as free parameters. No hidden postulated entity is needed beyond the SCARN architecture itself, which is disclosed and evaluated on held-out test sets.

free parameters (7)

Number of convolution filters K = 50 (small), 100 (large)
Hand-chosen per dataset size in Section 5.3; directly sets model capacity and parameter count comparison.
Number of LSTM hidden units = 32 (small), 64 (large)
Hand-chosen in Section 5.3; determines recurrent capacity and parameter count.
Dropout probability = 0.5
Applied to embeddings and dense layer in Section 5.3; chosen without reported tuning.
Learning rate = 0.0003
Adam optimizer setting in Section 5.3; no schedule or search reported.
Batch size = 16 (small), 50 (large)
Section 5.3, chosen by architecture variant.
Training epochs = 30
Section 5.3, fixed; no early stopping or validation-based selection described.
Maximum sentence lengths = 30 for TREC/SO/RT/Pol/SST-2, 400 for IMDB, 100 for AR
Section 5.3; truncation choices affect information available to all models.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption GloVe and word2vec pretrained embeddings provide a useful semantic initialization
Section 5.3 states GloVe used for SCARN and word2vec for C-LSTM; the central model relies on pretrained vectors rather than learning from scratch.
domain assumption Single-run accuracy on seven datasets is sufficient evidence of relative model quality
Table 1 reports one number per model per dataset; no variance, seeds, or significance tests are given, yet the superiority claim is based on these numbers.
domain assumption The authors' baseline implementations fairly represent the published methods
The footnote in Section 5.2 says baselines are 'from our implementations' due to lack of code; the comparison assumes these implementations match original hyperparameters and tuning.
standard math Backpropagation with Adam converges to a comparable local optimum for all compared models
Section 5.3 uses Adam for all models; no convergence or reproducibility guarantees are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential Learning of Convolutional Features for Effective Text Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMROTYX6

@misc{pith2026190900080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential Learning of Convolutional Features for Effective Text Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMROTYX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00080}
}

read the original abstract

Text classification has been one of the major problems in natural language processing. With the advent of deep learning, convolutional neural network (CNN) has been a popular solution to this task. However, CNNs which were first proposed for images, face many crucial challenges in the context of text processing, namely in their elementary blocks: convolution filters and max pooling. These challenges have largely been overlooked by the most existing CNN models proposed for text classification. In this paper, we present an experimental study on the fundamental blocks of CNNs in text categorization. Based on this critique, we propose Sequential Convolutional Attentive Recurrent Network (SCARN). The proposed SCARN model utilizes both the advantages of recurrent and convolutional structures efficiently in comparison to previously proposed recurrent convolutional models. We test our model on different text classification datasets across tasks like sentiment analysis and question classification. Extensive experiments establish that SCARN outperforms other recurrent convolutional architectures with significantly less parameters. Furthermore, SCARN achieves better performance compared to equally large various deep CNN and LSTM architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00080 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Accuracy (y-axis) percentage on Rotten Tomatoes dataset with varying window size. and green words are those which are semantically close to negative sentiment words. However, in the context of movie reviews, their sentiment value is close to positive sentiment words. From this experiment we observe: • The transformation of the green words between original and convoluted outputs, shows that the convolution layer is… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** SCARN Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: concat-SCARN architecture volution to individual words preserve the sequential information. Convolution learns the higher level representations for the input words. Each word will be transformed to a new representation pertinent to the task. The new feature representa…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Attention weights for some of the sentences from the SST2 dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Statistics of each feature in concatenation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: n th Max pooling experiments on RT, IMDB and SO Datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Accuracy (y-axis) percentage on SO dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Accuracy (y-axis) percentage on SST2 dataset with varying window size. co-relation between importance for task and magnitude of the values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882

Convolutional neural net- works for sentence classiﬁcation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882. Siwei Lai, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao

arXiv
[5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827

Se- quential short-text classiﬁcation with recurrent and convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827. Xin Li and Dan Roth

arXiv
[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03609

Attentive pooling networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03609. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts

arXiv
[11]

The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958

Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overﬁtting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna

work page 1929
[12]

In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 1480–1489

Hierarchi- cal attention networks for document classiﬁcation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 1480–1489. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun

work page 2016
[13]

it is also stupider

A c-lstm neural network for text clas- siﬁcation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08630. (a) RT (b) IMDB (c) SO Figure 8: nth Max pooling experiments on RT, IMDB and SO Datasets Figure 9: Percentage distribution of max pooling out- puts for misclassiﬁed samples from SST2 dataset A Max Pooling: missclassiﬁed examples For this experiment, after convolution over s...

arXiv
[2008]

Effectiveness of Self Normalizing Neural Networks for Text Classification

Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(Nov):2579–2605. Avinash Madasu and Vijjini Anvesh Rao. 2019a. Effectiveness of self normalizing neural net- works for text classiﬁcation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.01338. Avinash Madasu and Vijjini Anvesh Rao. 2019b. Gated convolutional neural networks for domain adaptation. In Internat...

work page Pith review arXiv 1905
[2013]

In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages 1631–1642

Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages 1631–1642. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov

work page 2013

Show all 13 references

[2014]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473

Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473. Alexis Conneau, Holger Schwenk, Lo ¨ıc Barrault, and Yann Lecun

arXiv
[2015]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04025

Effective approaches to attention- based neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04025. Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y . Ng, and Christopher Potts

arXiv
[2016]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01781

Very deep convolutional networks for text classiﬁcation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01781. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova

arXiv
[2017]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03130

A structured self-attentive sentence embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03130. Minh-Thang Luong, Hieu Pham, and Christopher D Manning

arXiv
[2018]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. Ruining He and Julian McAuley

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882

Convolutional neural net- works for sentence classiﬁcation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882. Siwei Lai, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao

arXiv

[2] [5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827

Se- quential short-text classiﬁcation with recurrent and convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827. Xin Li and Dan Roth

arXiv

[3] [9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03609

Attentive pooling networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03609. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts

arXiv

[4] [11]

The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958

Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overﬁtting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna

work page 1929

[5] [12]

In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 1480–1489

Hierarchi- cal attention networks for document classiﬁcation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 1480–1489. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun

work page 2016

[6] [13]

it is also stupider

A c-lstm neural network for text clas- siﬁcation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08630. (a) RT (b) IMDB (c) SO Figure 8: nth Max pooling experiments on RT, IMDB and SO Datasets Figure 9: Percentage distribution of max pooling out- puts for misclassiﬁed samples from SST2 dataset A Max Pooling: missclassiﬁed examples For this experiment, after convolution over s...

arXiv

[7] [2008]

Effectiveness of Self Normalizing Neural Networks for Text Classification

Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(Nov):2579–2605. Avinash Madasu and Vijjini Anvesh Rao. 2019a. Effectiveness of self normalizing neural net- works for text classiﬁcation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.01338. Avinash Madasu and Vijjini Anvesh Rao. 2019b. Gated convolutional neural networks for domain adaptation. In Internat...

work page Pith review arXiv 1905

[8] [2013]

In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages 1631–1642

Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages 1631–1642. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov

work page 2013