Next Article in Journal
Partition Quantitative Assessment (PQA): A Quantitative Methodology to Assess the Embedded Noise in Clustered Omics and Systems Biology Data
Next Article in Special Issue
VivesDebate: A New Annotated Multilingual Corpus of Argumentation in a Debate Tournament
Previous Article in Journal
Towards DC Energy Efficient Homes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Negation Detection on Mexican Spanish Tweets: The T-MexNeg Corpus
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

MenuNER: Domain-Adapted BERT Based NER Approach for a Domain with Limited Dataset and Its Application to Food Menu Domain

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(13), 6007; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136007
by Muzamil Hussain Syed 1,* and Sun-Tae Chung 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(13), 6007; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136007
Submission received: 26 May 2021 / Revised: 20 June 2021 / Accepted: 24 June 2021 / Published: 28 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research applied known NLP algorithms to one particular use case, Food Menu Domain.
The authors have clearly presented the methods they used. 
Therefore I think that the paper is worth to publish after some additional explanations.
First of all I would like to see publiclly available annotated dataset for menu dishes. 
That is good either for result verification as well as for further research (open data concept).

4.1.3. Experiment Setting 
It will be interesting to obtain the information about training time.

4.2. Experimental Results
Table 1. - please compare executon time of various Embeddings. 
I think that the difference between obtained results (F1 score) are practically negligible.
Please comment the cases where the improvements have been achieved and why.

In any case, it would be good in more details to comment and explain the obtained results.
This is especially true of the 4.2.2. Evaluation for MenuNER.
The results are interesting but it should be explained why some model better interprets certain input data and why others miss them.

3. Conclusion and Future work (it is 5. Conclusion and Future work)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, interesting paper, easy to follow (well-written) -- though some English grammar could be improved, but it was not prohibitive to understanding the paper. And good methodology.

Author Response

Hi,

We have modified the paper to provide improved English language and phrasing wherever possible.

Thanks.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to all my remarks and accordingly corrected the paper.

Back to TopTop