Doctor Pennington? I really like the paper, as I said "This is really interesting work and a good paper.", but disagree that "troublesome" would be too strong.

Doctor Pennington? I really like the paper, as I said "This is really interesting work and a good paper.", but disagree that "troublesome" would be too strong. The original version claimed 11% improvement, Professor Goldberg found that it would be along the lines of 2-3%. Even if this is not the point of the paper it is how it was empirically evaluated and was the key performance statement in the original abstract and could mislead a reader to expect better model improvements. Nevertheless, I am a fan of your work and excited to see what you publish next.