You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Excuse me, I find that when model training, remove from corpus will be used.
but i am doubt that, whether it will loss corpus information and incur error?
For example, the first utterance of 35 interaction is:
"utterance": "how many dorms have a TV Lounge ?",
and the original sql is
"select count ( * ) from dorm as t1 join has_amenity as t2 on t1 . dormid = t2 . dormid join dorm_amenity as t3 on t2 . amenid = t3 . amenid where t3 . amenity_name = value"
after removefrom, it becomes:
"select count ( * ) where dorm_amenity.amenity_name = value"
it seems that the removefrom sequence miss much information and not equal to the original SQL sequence
so my question is whether original SQL and removefrom SQL are equivalent, (i mean, whether they can be converted one-to-one). And has anyone (paper/article) done this in the same way before?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Excuse me, I find that when model training, remove from corpus will be used.
but i am doubt that, whether it will loss corpus information and incur error?
For example, the first utterance of 35 interaction is:
"utterance": "how many dorms have a TV Lounge ?",
and the original sql is
"select count ( * ) from dorm as t1 join has_amenity as t2 on t1 . dormid = t2 . dormid join dorm_amenity as t3 on t2 . amenid = t3 . amenid where t3 . amenity_name = value"
after removefrom, it becomes:
"select count ( * ) where dorm_amenity.amenity_name = value"
it seems that the removefrom sequence miss much information and not equal to the original SQL sequence
so my question is whether original SQL and removefrom SQL are equivalent, (i mean, whether they can be converted one-to-one). And has anyone (paper/article) done this in the same way before?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: