4 ms·

I really wish that the code or at least a working demo was a requirement to make such claims public.

• rajangdavis 7y ago
  From how they set up the training, I think this is a nontrivial task. Also, from a casual read through, it looks like it is generally focused on Arxiv papers. To their credit, the authors included the models used and the metrics they used to validate their model. They also have detailed notes on the architecture for training which, at a quick glance, doesn't look easy to replicate unless you can borrow some GPU's in the cloud.
  • RobertDeNiro 7y ago
    It focused on arxiv because you need a large set of labelled data (i.e. long documents with summaries). There is not many datasets of that kind out there.
• tastroder 7y ago
  Playing the devil's advocate here: might I ask why? The paper seems pretty thorough w.r.t. the description of used corpora, models, and hyperparameters. They even point to the exact implementation of their evaluation scoring and include a few examples in the paper itself. Even if they put up a demo instance for the required infrastructure it would be dead as soon as it hit HN and, as research code goes, likely a security hazard to wherever it's hosted. In my view there seems to be enough here to replicate and validate the claims yourself if you wanted to. With a basic level of trust in academic integrity I'm completely fine with this paper.