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	['arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg', 'arg']	paper quality