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
Dear Sir, greetings. Firstly, congratulations on the successful publication of your paper in NeurIPS. However, I have some minor questions regarding its content that I would like to consult with you. Concerning the Domain Specificity & Static Consistency module, in the subsequent operations, it is mentioned that "The static latent factors disentangled from the original sequence and the shuffled sequence should be ideally equal or be very close at least. This motivates us to minimize the distance between these two static factors. Meanwhile, to further enhance the domain specificity, we enforce the dynamic latent factors from different domains to have a large distance." This is the part I find perplexing. Shouldn't we aim to maximize static latent factors? This is in consideration of your earlier statement, "the dynamic latent factors are enforced to be domain-invariant."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear Sir, greetings. Firstly, congratulations on the successful publication of your paper in NeurIPS. However, I have some minor questions regarding its content that I would like to consult with you. Concerning the Domain Specificity & Static Consistency module, in the subsequent operations, it is mentioned that "The static latent factors disentangled from the original sequence and the shuffled sequence should be ideally equal or be very close at least. This motivates us to minimize the distance between these two static factors. Meanwhile, to further enhance the domain specificity, we enforce the dynamic latent factors from different domains to have a large distance." This is the part I find perplexing. Shouldn't we aim to maximize static latent factors? This is in consideration of your earlier statement, "the dynamic latent factors are enforced to be domain-invariant."
Hi, thanks for your interest in our work. This is a typo. It should be "we enforce the static latent factors from different domains to have a large distance".
Dear Sir, greetings. Firstly, congratulations on the successful publication of your paper in NeurIPS. However, I have some minor questions regarding its content that I would like to consult with you. Concerning the Domain Specificity & Static Consistency module, in the subsequent operations, it is mentioned that "The static latent factors disentangled from the original sequence and the shuffled sequence should be ideally equal or be very close at least. This motivates us to minimize the distance between these two static factors. Meanwhile, to further enhance the domain specificity, we enforce the dynamic latent factors from different domains to have a large distance." This is the part I find perplexing. Shouldn't we aim to maximize static latent factors? This is in consideration of your earlier statement, "the dynamic latent factors are enforced to be domain-invariant."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: