If the model were just repeating the distribution baked into the training data, could you help me understand why the R^2 values in Table 3 are mostly below 0.1?
Could you explain what you meant when you wrote "the women who published this"?
Could you explain what you meant when you wrote "the women who published this"?
Because it's only part of the picture. Firstly, the complexity metrics are not a silver-bullet, you'd have to actually evaluate the inputs against the outputs individually, against the metrics individually, to get a realistic guage. You also can't just lump 6 different metrics together under a single score and expect interpretable results, they behave differently. Secondly, the models are heavily fine-tuned. Statistical distribution repetition is the default mode of a base model and transformer, but obviously the models we use are heavily finetuned, so any stray from the distribution is due to post-training. That's not to suggest there's a wild stray from the distribution here though - the way the metrics are measured in this paper is not convincing and muddies the waters.
> Could you explain what you meant when you wrote "the women who published this"?
I meant what I said, I'm not sure what you're asking.
As to the latter bit, it just seemed a weird framing to me.