Peer Review

Hi Shunsuke,

Here is some feedback for your submission.

Overall, the problem definition is clear and interesting. You also cite everything properly, which helps distinguishing what the authors' claims are.

I think you used the bullet points very well in the section introducing the two papers' methods. However, some of them might need more primitive definitions and less details to help understand the big picture.

In the Case Study section, it's not clear what "the additional features provided by the ontology extraction" exactly were. You summarize some of the components under the section header, but I don't see how the learning features in the experiment use the relations and concept ordering.

I agree with your criticism around the high-level design experiments, i.e. sample size and lack of randomization. However, I think some criticism on the methods themselves might be helpful.