Withdraw
withdraw
 The paper conducts empirical comparisons between well-known architectures for sequence labeling. Specifically, it compares LSTM-CNN-CRF (Ma and Hovy, 2016) and LSTM-CRF (Lample et al., 2016), combined with character-based architectures based on CNN or LSTM, and also different regularization techniques including a new word-level dropout scheme. Quality: Low, minor/incremental contribution due to lack of novelty and lack of significantly useful findings. Clarity: Readable with some typos (e.g., "let the model being aware..."). Experimental results are thoroughly tabulated. Originality: Very low. The finding that LSTMs have advantages over CNNs in modeling characters is not new (see the last paragraph of Section 4.1 of Lample et al.), though it*s good to have empirical verification. One of the only novel components is the word-wise dropout (Table 5), but the improvement is minor and the technique is too thin to be considered substantial novelty. Significance: The reported findings will be useful for practitioners who are specifically interested in incrementally improving sequence labeling performance. Otherwise, there isn*t much depth.
You are a member of the scientific community tasked with peer review. Review the following paper title and abstract.
### Title + Abstract
Withdraw
withdraw
user
<think>Okay, to do a decent peer review, I should start with summarizing what the work is about. This includes novelty, contributions, clarity, and impact. I might include suggestions to issues that I find critical to the usefulness of the work. Starting with novelty, there are different types of novelty. The first aspect of novelty is scope and scale. Is the work covering a broader perspective than previous works? The second aspect is methodology. Is the proposed methodology novel compared to previous methods? Do they provide any significant advantage over previous methodologies? The third aspect is results. Are the results different compared previous work? Does this lead to any novel theories or an extension of current theories? Next is clarity, I will be reading the work in depth and analyze if any sentences can be potentially ambiguous or misleading. If any sentences are ambiguous, I will state them and give a suggestion on how to rephrase such sentence or how to make more clear to the audience. Lastly, impact is important. I will attempt to predict how such work will impact the scientific community. This might include the applications of such work and how the work might transform the way we study a certain topic. Finally, I will might only mention issues that are critical. This is to keep the review as concise and helpful as possible.</think>



 The paper conducts empirical comparisons between well-known architectures for sequence labeling. Specifically, it compares LSTM-CNN-CRF (Ma and Hovy, 2016) and LSTM-CRF (Lample et al., 2016), combined with character-based architectures based on CNN or LSTM, and also different regularization techniques including a new word-level dropout scheme. Quality: Low, minor/incremental contribution due to lack of novelty and lack of significantly useful findings. Clarity: Readable with some typos (e.g., "let the model being aware..."). Experimental results are thoroughly tabulated. Originality: Very low. The finding that LSTMs have advantages over CNNs in modeling characters is not new (see the last paragraph of Section 4.1 of Lample et al.), though it*s good to have empirical verification. One of the only novel components is the word-wise dropout (Table 5), but the improvement is minor and the technique is too thin to be considered substantial novelty. Significance: The reported findings will be useful for practitioners who are specifically interested in incrementally improving sequence labeling performance. Otherwise, there isn*t much depth.
assistant
 The paper conducts empirical comparisons between well-known architectures for sequence labeling. Specifically, it compares LSTM-CNN-CRF (Ma and Hovy, 2016) and LSTM-CRF (Lample et al., 2016), combined with character-based architectures based on CNN or LSTM, and also different regularization techniques including a new word-level dropout scheme. Quality: Low, minor/incremental contribution due to lack of novelty and lack of significantly useful findings. Clarity: Readable with some typos (e.g., "let the model being aware..."). Experimental results are thoroughly tabulated. Originality: Very low. The finding that LSTMs have advantages over CNNs in modeling characters is not new (see the last paragraph of Section 4.1 of Lample et al. ), though it*s good to have empirical verification. One of the only novel components is the word-wise dropout (Table 5), but the improvement is minor and the technique is too thin to be considered substantial novelty. Significance: The reported findings will be useful for practitioners who are specifically interested in incrementally improving sequence labeling performance. Otherwise, there isn*t much depth.