Task: Language Identification
Input (Spanish, English): Here is a summary of the reviews:    Strengths  Experiments are done on state-of-the-art networks, on a real speech recognition problem (R3, R1)  Networks themselves are of a very large size (R3)  Computational gains are substantial (R3, R4)  Paper is clear (R1)    Weaknesses  Experiments are all done on a private dataset (R3)  No comparison to other pruning approaches (e.g. Han et al.) (R3); AC notes that reviewers added new results which compare to an existing pruning method  No comparison to distillation techniques (R1)  Paper doesn't present much novelty in terms of ideas (R3)    The AC encouraged feedback from the reviewers following author rebuttal and paper improvements. Reviewers stated that the improvements made to the paper made it publishable but was still closer to the threshold. R1 who had originally rated the paper 3: a "clear reject" updated the score to 6 (just above acceptance).    Considering the reviews and discussions, the AC thinks that this paper is a poster accept. There are no serious flaws, the improvements made to the paper during the discussion paper have satisfied the reviewers, and this is an important topic with practical benefits; evaluated on a real large-scale problem.
Output (English): en