- In section 4.3 and 4.4, words such as “somewhat” and “good generative ability” appears in the description yet I am concerned that even with beam search, only 77% of the result lists contain the ground truth logical forms. If the relationships and entities were replaced, how do we ensure that the plugged-in entities/relationships were the right one? In what percentage were the right entities/relationships being plugged in if no ground truth is available?
- In section 4.5, the authors claim that Graph-Query-of-Thoughts are a way to improve QA’s interpretability and avoid LLM’s hallucinations, which has no evidence support in the result/analysis section. This seems to be an exaggerated claim and I am not convinced.
- Presentation of the paper needs improvement. Multiple grammatical errors, and the description of the method is confusing. Explanation of methods like QLora.etc can be moved to related work, since now it is interrupting the flow of the writing.
- In section 4.3 and 4.4, words such as “somewhat” and “good generative ability” appears in the description yet I am concerned that even with beam search, only 77% of the result lists contain the ground truth logical forms. If the relationships and entities were replaced, how do we ensure that the plugged-in entities/relationships were the right one? In what percentage were the right entities/relationships being plugged in if no ground truth is available?