A Sensitivity Analysis of Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification

Chao Gao; Jianpeng Zhang; Jinghua Qu; Lixin Ji; Yang Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

A Sensitivity Analysis of Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Tuned hyperparameter settings—multi-window kernels, 200 and 10 feature maps, and keep rate 0.5—improve AGCNN sentence-classification accuracy by average gains of 0.81, 0.67, 0.47, and 0.45 percentage points across four model variants.

desk verdict A useful but flawed tuning guide: the sensitivity curves are real, but the headline static-model improvements are contradicted by the paper's own Table 6. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06263 v3 pith:WQX4HMNI submitted 2019-08-17 cs.CL cs.LG

Yang Liu , Jianpeng Zhang , Chao Gao , Jinghua Qu , Lixin Ji This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.LG

keywords sentenceclassificationattention-gatedconvolutionalneuralnetworksensitivityanalysishyperparametersettingskernelwindowsizedropoutkeeprateactivationfunctionAGCNN

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 sets out to map which hyperparameters control the accuracy of Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Networks (AGCNNs) for sentence classification, and to turn that map into better default settings. It varies one hyperparameter at a time across six datasets, then combines the winning choices into a final configuration. The paper's central result is that this configuration beats the original AGCNN settings by small but consistent margins: average gains of 0.81% and 0.67% for the two random-embedding variants and 0.47% and 0.45% for the two static-embedding variants. The practical value is that someone using an AGCNN can start from these settings instead of running an expensive search. The paper is explicit that it is not claiming state-of-the-art results; the contribution is the sensitivity analysis and the improved defaults.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Network (AGCNN): a CNN for sentence classification whose pooling layer is preceded by an attention-gated layer, a second convolution that produces per-feature attention weights from symmetric context windows and multiplies them into the first layer's feature maps. The analytic machinery is a controlled sensitivity study: keep every hyperparameter fixed at a baseline, vary only the component of interest, replicate each configuration 10 times with 10-fold cross-validation, and record average accuracy across six datasets. The final improved setting is then assembled from the best observed choices—multi-window kernels (1,2,3,4,5) in the first convolutional layer, (1,3,5,7) in the attention-gated layer, 200 and 10 feature maps respectively, and a dropout keep rate of 0.5. What this machinery establishes is a ranking of where the model's performance comes from: the attention-gated layer contributes most, followed by initialization method and activation function.

What would settle it

Run the four proposed configurations on held-out sentence-classification datasets that were not among the six used for selection, using the same 10-fold protocol; if the average accuracy is no better than the baselines, the central claim of consistent improvement fails. A second, sharper test would compare the proposed settings against random search over the same hyperparameter ranges; if random search matches or exceeds the gains, the specific combination is not what causes them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the AGCNN's accuracy is governed more by a few structural choices than by any single magic setting. The first convolutional layer's kernel window size is the most sensitive hyperparameter: large windows degrade accuracy, and combining several consecutive small windows, best at (1,2,3,4,5), improves it. For the attention-gated layer, odd symmetric window combinations, best at (1,3,5,7), outperform even ones. Accuracy rises with the number of feature maps in the first layer up to about 100 and flattens after 200, while the attention-gated layer works best with relatively few feature maps, in the 10 to 50 range. A dropout keep rate between 0.2 and 0.8 helps, with 0.5 serving as the final choice, and SELU generally outperforms NLReLU, the log-rescaled ReLU variant used in the original AGCNN, although SELU makes the model more sensitive to hyperparameter changes. Combining these observations yields the improved settings and the reported accuracy gains.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing premise is that the six datasets used to pick the final hyperparameters are representative enough that the gains measured on those same datasets will recur on other sentence-classification tasks; if that premise fails, the reported improvements are just in-sample tuning artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Using the proposed settings as defaults for AGCNN sentence classification should yield small accuracy gains on similar datasets without hyperparameter search.
The sensitivity ranking implies that effort spent on the first convolutional layer's kernel window sizes and on the attention-gated layer will pay off more than tuning other parts.
Odd, symmetric kernel windows for the attention-gated convolution are preferable to even ones, because they center attention weights on each target feature.
Feature-map counts beyond about 200 in the first layer give diminishing returns, so memory can be saved by staying near 200.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the final settings were selected and then evaluated on the same six datasets, the reported gains are likely optimistic; a held-out evaluation is needed to know how much transfers.
The pattern that multi-window small kernels help suggests AGCNNs benefit from capturing multiple n-gram granularities at once, a property that may also apply to other attention-based CNN text models.
In Table 6, the proposed settings slightly hurt some datasets, such as AGCNN-SELU-static on Subj and SST-2, so the average gain is not a guarantee of per-dataset improvement.
The one-factor-at-a-time method cannot capture interactions between hyperparameters; joint optimization might find better settings than the assembled best-of-each choices.

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

The useful part of this paper is the sensitivity analysis itself. The authors systematically vary kernel sizes, feature-map counts, dropout, and activation functions for AGCNN across six standard datasets, using 10 repeats of 10-fold cross-validation. The curves and practical ranges (e.g., 100–400 filters in the first conv layer, 10–50 in the attention-gated layer) are a legitimate contribution for anyone stuck tuning this niche architecture. The finding that the first conv layer's window size matters more than the attention-gated layer's is plausible and supported by the figures. Credit where due: the experiments are extensive and the descriptive conclusions follow from the data.

But the headline improvement claims do not hold up. The abstract and Section IV.G state average gains of 0.47% and 0.45% for AGCNN-NLReLU-static and AGCNN-SELU-static. Recomputing from Table 6 gives 0.38% and 0.23% — not a rounding issue, a real arithmetic discrepancy. The rand-model claims (0.81%, 0.67%) check out, so the error is specific to the static rows, but it is present in the abstract and the summary, which is where readers land.

Beyond the arithmetic, the central improvement is selected on the same six datasets used for evaluation. The authors chose the final hyperparameters after inspecting accuracy on CR, MR, Subj, SST-1, SST-2, and TREC, then reported gains on those same datasets. That makes the improvement claim a fitted value, not a prediction. The advice itself can still be useful because the sensitivity curves describe behavior on these datasets, but the paper should say plainly that the gains are in-sample. The standard deviations also overlap with most of the per-dataset differences, so the improvements are fragile.

Minor issues: no code or data are released, and there is a typo in the settings — "(13,5,7)" should be "(1,3,5,7)".

Who is this for? Someone using AGCNN and looking for reasonable starting ranges. It will not change how I think about CNN-based sentence classification, but it is a competent empirical study of a real architecture. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, because the sensitivity data are worth publishing and the errors are correctable. The authors need to fix the static-model averages in the abstract, add an explicit statement that the tuned settings were selected on the same datasets, and ideally release code. If those changes are made, the paper is acceptable as a niche practitioner-oriented contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a sensitivity analysis of Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Networks (AGCNNs) for sentence classification. Using six standard datasets (CR, MR, Subj, SST-1, SST-2, TREC), the authors vary one hyperparameter at a time while holding others fixed, reporting accuracy changes for the first convolutional layer's kernel window sizes, the attention-gated layer's kernel window sizes, the numbers of feature maps in both layers, the dropout keep rate, and the activation function. Based on these analyses, they select a new hyperparameter configuration (200 feature maps in the first convolutional layer, 10 in the attention-gated layer, kernel windows (1,2,3,4,5) and (1,3,5,7), keep rate 0.5) and claim in the abstract and Section IV.G that it improves average accuracy over their baselines by 0.81% and 0.67% for the rand versions and 0.47% and 0.45% for the static versions of AGCNN-NLReLU and AGCNN-SELU.

Significance. If the reported improvements were validated out of sample, the paper would provide useful practical guidance for tuning AGCNNs and a systematic empirical characterization of hyperparameter sensitivity. The sensitivity curves are based on 10 repeats of 10-fold cross-validation, which is a solid experimental protocol for this type of study, and the paper honestly states that its aim is analysis rather than state-of-the-art results. However, the central improvement claim is weakened by two issues: the final configuration is selected on the same six datasets used for evaluation, and the claimed static-model improvements are not supported by the paper's own Table 6. The sensitivity analysis itself remains valuable, but the headline result as stated is not reliable.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Section IV.G (Table 6)] The abstract, the contributions in Section I, and Section IV.G claim average improvements of 0.47% and 0.45% for AGCNN-NLReLU-static and AGCNN-SELU-static, respectively. Recomputing from Table 6 by subtracting the baseline row from the 'Ours' row gives mean differences of +0.38% (per-dataset differences: +0.52, +0.23, -0.03, +0.47, +0.04, +1.07) and +0.23% (+0.24, +0.21, -0.18, +0.41, -0.24, +0.95), respectively. These are far outside the ±0.02 rounding tolerance. The claimed 0.47% and 0.45% are therefore unsupported by the paper's own data and must be corrected.
[Section IV.G] The final hyperparameter configuration is selected after inspecting accuracy on the same six datasets (CR, MR, Subj, SST-1, SST-2, TREC) in Sections IV.A through IV.F, and Table 6 then reports accuracy on those same datasets. This is a post hoc selection on the evaluation set, so the reported gains are in-sample fitted values rather than out-of-sample predictions. To support the improvement claim, the authors should validate the chosen configuration on a held-out dataset or use nested cross-validation; alternatively, they should explicitly reframe the claim as an in-sample description.
[Section IV.G and Table 6] No statistical significance test is reported for the average improvements. Many per-dataset differences are within one standard deviation of the baseline (for example, SELU-static differences on Subj and SST-2 are -0.18 and -0.24, and several positive differences are smaller than the reported standard deviations). The authors should provide paired tests across the 10 repeats or confidence intervals to establish that the average gains are not attributable to noise.

minor comments (4)

[Section IV.G] The text says the attention-gated layer kernel window sizes are set to '(13,5,7)'; this should be '(1,3,5,7)'.
[Abstract and Section I] The improvement percentages in the abstract and the contributions list should be updated to match the corrected values from Table 6.
[Section IV.F] Figure 7 is referenced but its content is not described in the text beyond the sentence about SELU and ReLU; a brief summary of the observed trends would improve readability.
[Tables 2-6] There are several spacing/inconsistency issues in the table entries (for example, '85.54±0.33' in the (2,4,6,8) row of Table 4 and '47.45±0.27' in Table 3); a copyedit pass would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Same-dataset hyperparameter selection is reported as a predictive improvement; the static-model numbers in the abstract also do not match Table 6.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV.G, Table 6; Abstract]
"Based on the above practical results and conclusions, we improve the hyperparameter settings of AGCNN. We set the number of feature maps for the first convolutional layer and the attention-gated layer to 200 and 10, respectively. The multiple kernel window sizes for the first convolutional layer and the attention-gated layer are set to (1,2,3,4,5) and (1,3,5,7). Keep rate is 0.5. The results are summarized in Table 6."

The hyperparameters in Section IV.G are selected from the sensitivity results in Tables 2-4 and Figures 4-6, which are all measured on the same six datasets that Table 6 later reports. For example, Table 2 selects (1,2,3,4,5) as best on CR and Table 4 selects (1,3,5,7) as best on CR, and these values are then adopted in Section IV.G. Section III states that all reported results come from 10-fold cross-validation over all datasets, so there is no held-out set on which the selected configuration is an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the proposed hyperparameter settings improve AGCNN over its baselines. The settings are not derived from an independent theory or external validation; they are chosen 'based on the above practical results and conclusions' from the same six datasets on which the final Table 6 accuracy is reported. This fits the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern: the configuration is selected using the same datasets that are then used to demonstrate the improvement, with no held-out selection layer or nested cross-validation. The sensitivity analysis itself, however, is a legitimate empirical study of how each hyperparameter affects performance and does not reduce to its inputs, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The baseline is the authors' own prior AGCNN model [4], but using one's own model as a baseline is normal and not load-bearing circularity by itself. Separately, the abstract's static-model improvements (0.47% and 0.45%) do not match Table 6; recomputing from the table gives about +0.38% for AGCNN-NLReLU-static and +0.23% for AGCNN-SELU-static, which is a factual/arithmetic inconsistency rather than a circularity. Score 6 reflects that the headline improvement claim reduces to same-dataset selection, while the supporting sensitivity analysis retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim that the proposed settings improve AGCNN rests on hyperparameter values selected from the evaluation data itself, plus the validity of the authors' own baseline. The sensitivity curves themselves depend on the representativeness of the six datasets and on unspecified training details inherited from references [1] and [4].

free parameters (5)

Number of feature maps in first convolutional layer = 200
Chosen after sensitivity sweep in Section IV.C showed accuracy plateau in the 200 to 600 range; used in final proposal in Section IV.G.
Number of feature maps in attention-gated layer = 10
Recommended range in Section IV.D is 10 to 50; 10 is used in the final proposal.
Kernel window sizes of first convolutional layer = (1,2,3,4,5)
Selected as best combination in Table 2 (CR) and Table 3 (SST-1) experiments; used in Section IV.G.
Kernel window sizes of attention-gated layer = (1,3,5,7)
Selected by grid search in Table 4 on CR; used in Section IV.G.
Dropout keep rate = 0.5
Kept at the baseline value; Section IV.E advises tuning within 0.2 to 0.8 but the final proposal does not tune it per dataset.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The six datasets used (CR, MR, Subj, SST-1, SST-2, TREC) are representative of sentence classification tasks.
The paper generalizes tuning advice across these six datasets without evidence of coverage of other text domains.
domain assumption The original AGCNN baseline implementation and settings from reference [4] are correct and reproducible.
All comparisons use the authors' own prior model; no independent implementation is employed.
domain assumption Average accuracy from 10-fold cross-validation repeated 10 times is a reliable performance estimate.
The paper ranks settings by this average without significance tests or reporting fold-level variance.
domain assumption Data preprocessing and training details follow references [1] and [4].
The paper states consistency with prior work but does not specify exact preprocessing or optimizer settings.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Sensitivity Analysis of Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQX4HMNI

@misc{pith2026190806263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Sensitivity Analysis of Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQX4HMNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06263}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate the effect of different hyperparameters as well as different combinations of hyperparameters settings on the performance of the Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Networks (AGCNNs), e.g., the kernel window size, the number of feature maps, the keep rate of the dropout layer, and the activation function. We draw practical advice from a wide range of empirical results. Through the sensitivity analysis, we further improve the hyperparameters settings of AGCNNs. Experiments show that our proposals could achieve an average of 0.81% and 0.67% improvements on AGCNN-NLReLU-rand and AGCNN-SELU-rand, respectively; and an average of 0.47% and 0.45% improvements on AGCNN-NLReLU-static and AGCNN-SELU-static, respectively.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification

Y . Kim , “ Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification ”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882 , 20 14

arXiv
[2]

Se mantic clustering and convolutional neural network for short text ca tegorization

P . Wang, J . Xu, B . Xu, C . Liu, H . Z hang, F . Wang , H . Hao , “ Se mantic clustering and convolutional neural network for short text ca tegorization ”, Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th Internat ional Joint Con fere nce on Natural Lan g u age Processin g, pp. 352 – 357 , 2015

work page 2015
[3]

Attention pooling - based convolutional neural network for sentence modelling

M.J. Er, Y. Zhang, N. Wang, M. Pratama, “ Attention pooling - based convolutional neural network for sentence modelling ”, Information Sciences, vol. 373, pp. 388 - 403 , 2016

work page 2016
[4]

An Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Network for Sentence Classification

Y. Liu, L. Ji, R. Huang, T. Mi ng, C. Gao, J. Zhang, “ A n Attention - Gated Convolut ional Neural Network for Sentence Classification ”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07325v3,

work page Pith review arXiv
[5]

Efficient estimat ion of word rep rese ntations in vector s pace

T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, J. Dean, “ Efficient estimat ion of word rep rese ntations in vector s pace ”, arXiv preprint arXi v: 1301.3781 , 2013

arXiv 2013
[6]

Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality

T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G.S. Corrado, J. Dean, “ Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality ”, Advances in Neural Information Proc essing Syste ms, pp. 3111 - 3119 , 2013

work page 2013
[7]

A com parison of event models for naive bayes text classification

A . McCallum, K. Nigam, “ A com parison of event models for naive bayes text classification ”, AAAI - 98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, pp.41 - 48 , 1998

work page 1998
[8]

Text classifica tion using mach ine learning technique s

M. Ikonomakis, S. Kotsiantis, V. Tampakas, “ Text classifica tion using mach ine learning technique s ” , WSEAS transactions on co mputers , vol. 4, pp. 966 - 974 , 2005

work page 2005

Show all 29 references

[9]

Text categorization based on LDA and SVM

Z. Wang , X. Qian, “ Text categorization based on LDA and SVM ”, International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, pp.674 - 677 , 2008

2008
[10]

A s enti mental education: S e ntiment analysis using sub jectivity summarization based on minimum cuts

B. Pan g, L. Lee, “ A s enti mental education: S e ntiment analysis using sub jectivity summarization based on minimum cuts ”, Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting on Assoc iation for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, pp.271 , 2004

2004
[11]

Mining and summar izing customer revi ews

M. Hu, B. Liu, “ Mining and summar izing customer revi ews ”, Proceedings o f the tenth ACM SIGKDD Inte rnational Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Seattle, pp.168 - 177 , 2004

2004
[12]

Practical recommendations for gradient - based training of deep architectures

Y . Bengio , “ Practical recommendations for gradient - based training of deep architectures ”, Neural Networ ks: Tricks of t he T rade, pp. 437 – 478 , S p ringer , Berlin, Heidelberg , 2012

2012
[13]

Towards automatically - tuned neural networks

H. Mendoza, A. Klein, M. Feurer, J.T. Springenberg, F. Hutter, “ Towards automatically - tuned neural networks ”, Workshop on Automatic Machine Learning , pp.58 - 65 , 2016

2016
[14]

Bayesi an o ptimization of tex t representations

D . Yogatama , N . A . Smith , “ Bayesi an o ptimization of tex t representations ”, arXiv pr eprint arXiv:1503.00693 , 2015

2015 arXiv
[15]

Making a science of model search: Hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures

J . Bergstra, D . Yamins, D . D . Cox , “ Making a science of model search: Hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures ”, Proceeding s of the 30th I nter national Conferenc e on Machine Learning , pp. 11 5 - 123 , 2013

2013
[16]

Towards automated deep learning: Efficient joint neural architecture and hyperparameter search

A. Zela, A. Klein, S. Falkner, F. Hutter, “ Towards automated deep learning: Efficient joint neural architecture and hyperparameter search ”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06906 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[17]

An anal y s is of single - layer network s in unsupervised feature learning

A . Coates, A . Y . Ng , H . Lee , “ An anal y s is of single - layer network s in unsupervised feature learning ”, International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, p p. 215 – 223 , 2011

2011
[18]

The effects of hyperparameters on SGD training of neur al networks

T . M . Breuel , “ The effects of hyperparameters on SGD training of neur al networks ”, a rXiv preprint arXiv:15 0 8 .02788 , 2015

2015
[20]

Attention is all you need

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer , N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin , “ Attention is all you need ”, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.5998 - 6008 , 2017

2017
[21]

Abcnn: Attent i o n - based convolutional neur al network for modeling sentence pairs

W. Yin, H. Schüt ze, B. Xiang, B . Zh ou, “ Abcnn: Attent i o n - based convolutional neur al network for modeling sentence pairs ”, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1512.05193 , 2015

2015 arXiv
[22]

Dropout: a simple way to prevent neur al networks fro m ov erfitting

N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, R. Salakhutdinov, “ Dropout: a simple way to prevent neur al networks fro m ov erfitting ”, The Jo u r nal of Machine Learning Re search, vol. 15, pp. 1929 - 1958 , 201 4

1929
[24]

Self - normalizing neural networks

G. Kla mbauer, T. Unterthiner, A. Mayr, S. Hochreiter, “ Self - normalizing neural networks ”, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.971 - 980 , 2017

2017
[25]

Learning question cla ssifiers

X. Li , D. Roth, “ Learning question cla ssifiers ”, Proc eedi ngs of the 19th In t e rnational Conference on Co mputational Linguistics, pp.1 - 7 , 2002

2002
[26]

Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales

B. Pang, L. Lee, “ Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales ”, Proceedings of the 43rd annu al meeting on A ssoc iation for Computa t i onal Linguistics, pp.115 - 1 24 , 2005

2005
[27]

Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sen timent treebank

R. Socher, A. Perelygin, J. Wu, J. Chuang, C.D. Manning, A. Ng, C. Potts, “ Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sen timent treebank ”, Proceedings of the 2013 Co nference on Emp iric al Methods in Natu r a l Language Processing, pp. 1631 - 1642 , 2013

2013
[28]

Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines

V. Nair, G.E. Hinton, “ Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines ”, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.807 - 814 , 2010

2010
[29]

Rec t i fier nonlinearities improv e neural network acoustic models

A.L. Maas, A.Y. Han nun, A.Y. Ng, “ Rec t i fier nonlinearities improv e neural network acoustic models ”, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learnin g, pp.3 , 2013

2013
[30]

Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human - level performance on imagenet classification

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, “ Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human - level performance on imagenet classification ”, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer , pp.1026 - 1034 , 2015

2015
[31]

Fast and accurate deep network lea rning by exponential linear units (elus)

D.A. Clevert, T. Unterthiner, S. Hochreiter, “ Fast and accurate deep network lea rning by exponential linear units (elus) ”, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1511.07289v5 , 2016

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification

Y . Kim , “ Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification ”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882 , 20 14

arXiv

[2] [2]

Se mantic clustering and convolutional neural network for short text ca tegorization

P . Wang, J . Xu, B . Xu, C . Liu, H . Z hang, F . Wang , H . Hao , “ Se mantic clustering and convolutional neural network for short text ca tegorization ”, Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th Internat ional Joint Con fere nce on Natural Lan g u age Processin g, pp. 352 – 357 , 2015

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Attention pooling - based convolutional neural network for sentence modelling

M.J. Er, Y. Zhang, N. Wang, M. Pratama, “ Attention pooling - based convolutional neural network for sentence modelling ”, Information Sciences, vol. 373, pp. 388 - 403 , 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

An Attention-Gated Convolutional Neural Network for Sentence Classification

Y. Liu, L. Ji, R. Huang, T. Mi ng, C. Gao, J. Zhang, “ A n Attention - Gated Convolut ional Neural Network for Sentence Classification ”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07325v3,

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [5]

Efficient estimat ion of word rep rese ntations in vector s pace

T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, J. Dean, “ Efficient estimat ion of word rep rese ntations in vector s pace ”, arXiv preprint arXi v: 1301.3781 , 2013

arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality

T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G.S. Corrado, J. Dean, “ Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality ”, Advances in Neural Information Proc essing Syste ms, pp. 3111 - 3119 , 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

A com parison of event models for naive bayes text classification

A . McCallum, K. Nigam, “ A com parison of event models for naive bayes text classification ”, AAAI - 98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, pp.41 - 48 , 1998

work page 1998

[8] [8]

Text classifica tion using mach ine learning technique s

M. Ikonomakis, S. Kotsiantis, V. Tampakas, “ Text classifica tion using mach ine learning technique s ” , WSEAS transactions on co mputers , vol. 4, pp. 966 - 974 , 2005

work page 2005