The work would benefit from more detailed discussion of the training algorithm that provides some indication that the results aren't unduly sensitive to these details	['con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con', 'con']	paper quality