- I found the paper's flow to be quite confusing. It seems the author's had a lot of material to cover, most of which is placed in the appendix. Perhaps because of this, the actual paper lacks clarity and the required detail. It would be helpful if the authors present the material in the main sections, and refer to the appropriate appendix in case the reader wants further detail.
- There seems to be forward referencing in the paper. Material is introduced without proper explanation, and is explained in later sections e.g. Figure1
- The exact contribution(s) need to be written more clearly in the Introduction. Moreover, the material supporting the main contributions seems to be in the appendix and not the main sections e.g. deep-rag algorithm or discussion on the high concurrency.
- The experiments section seems to be defining the evaluation measures rather than focusing on an explanation of the experiments and results
- The authors mention that the superior performance of their approach can be attributed to several factors. However, it is not clear which factor is actually contributing towards the better results
- Some sentences are confusing e.g. in the first para of the Introduction: HumanEval() first proposed to let LLM generating code based on .......
- There seems to be forward referencing in the paper. Material is introduced without proper explanation, and is explained in later sections e.g. Figure1 - The exact contribution(s) need to be written more clearly in the Introduction. Moreover, the material supporting the main contributions seems to be in the appendix and not the main sections e.g. deep-rag algorithm or discussion on the high concurrency.