Task: Language Identification
Input (Spanish, English): - Strengths:  * Elaborate evaluation data creation and evaluation scheme.  * Range of compared techniques: baseline/simple/complex  - Weaknesses:  * No in-depth analysis beyond overall evaluation results.  - General Discussion: This paper compares several techniques for robust HPSG parsing.  Since the main contribution of the paper is not a novel parsing technique but the empirical evaluation, I would like to see a more in-depth analysis of the results summarized in Table 1 and 2. It would be nice to show some representative example sentences and sketches of its analyses, on which the compared methods behaved differently.  Please add EDM precision and recall figures to Table 2. The EDM F1 score is a result of a mixed effects of (overall and partial) coverage, parse ranking, efficiency of search, etc. The overall coverage figures in Table 1 are helpful but addition of EDM recall to Table 2 would make the situations clearer.  Minor comment: - Is 'pacnv+ut' in Table 1 and 2 the same as 'pacnv' described in 3.4.3?
Output (English): en