By Anonymous User
Review Details
Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous
Overall Impression: Excellent
Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes
Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good
Detailed Comments:
The authors have substantially improved their submission; the topic is relevant and the conclusions are interesting and may lead to follow-up work. The presentation has improved quite a bit and seems appropriate for publication; I have only a few remaining issues:
1) Too many acronyms in the Introduction! The reader is sure to be overwhelmed by so many letters. It would be better to write many of those names explicitly, at least in the Introduction.
2) Definition 2 is not really a formal definition; it is more a commentary. In fact, one might present a formal definition of LLMs (language models that predict tokens above a certain size, etc), but that does not seem necessary.
3) I believe that Section X, Table Y, etc, when explicitly numbered, should be capitalized.
4) There are several numeric penalties discussed after Expression (4); perhaps it is possible to justify the numbers in more detail?
5) Minor typo: first word of title of Section 4.1 should be "Discussion".
