In this task, you are given a paper review. Based on the review, your job is to identify language and generate "en" if the review is in English or generate "es" if the review is in Spanish. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: El artículo propone y evalúa una aplicación desarrollada para representar de mejor forma los resultados de algoritmos de reglas de asociación. En general el artículo me parece bien escrito y estructurado. Tal vez, para mejorar, la estructura del documento agregaría una sección especial dedicada a la metodología y describiría ésta más detalladamente. Los autores evalúan cualitativamente el rendimiento de la interfaz en términos de la facilidad de interpretación de la información que entrega. Para ello exponen la información a un grupo de usuarios. El método de evaluación por usuarios es uno conocido y validado. No obstante, el artículo explica muy superficialmente el proceso de validación de usuarios usado. Por otra parte, los resultados de la evaluación presentados son sólo descriptivos. Podría haberse usado técnicas estadísticas de medición de consensos de intérpretes como el índice de Kappa u otros para analizar la calidad de la coincidencia entre los evaluadores. En síntesis, me parece un buen artículo con una idea bien elaborada pero que metodológicamente debería ser mejorado.
[EX A]: es

[EX Q]: This paper proposes joint CTC-attention end-to-end ASR, which utilizes both advantages in training and decoding.   - Strengths: It provides a solid work of hybrid CTC-attention framework in training and decoding, and the experimental results showed that the proposed method could provide an improvement in Japanese CSJ and Mandarin Chinese telephone speech recognition task.   - Weaknesses: The only problem is that the paper sounds too similar with Ref [Kim et al., 2016] which will be officially published in the coming IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), March 2017. Kim at al., 2016, proposes joint CTC-attention using MTL for English ASR task, and this paper proposes joint CTC-attention using MTL+joint decoding for Japanese and Chinese ASR tasks. I guess the difference is on joint decoding and the application to Japanese/Chinese ASR tasks. However, the difference is not clearly explained by the authors. So it took sometimes to figure out the original contribution of this paper.  (a) Title:  The title in Ref [Kim et al., 2016] is “Joint CTC- Attention Based End-to-End Speech Recognition Using Multi-task Learning”, while the title of this paper is “Joint CTC-attention End-to-end Speech Recognition”. I think the title is too general. If this is the first paper about "Joint CTC-attention" than it is absolutely OK. Or if Ref [Kim et al., 2016] will remain only as pre-published arXiv, then it might be still acceptable. But since [Kim et al., 2016] will officially publish in IEEE conference, much earlier than this paper, then a more specified title that represents the main contribution of this paper in contrast with the existing publication would be necessary.   (b) Introduction: The author claims that “We propose to take advantage of the constrained CTC alignment in a hybrid CTC-attention based system. During training, we attach a CTC objective to an attention-based encoder network as a regularization, as proposed by [Kim at al., 2016].“ Taking advantage of the constrained CTC alignment in a hybrid CTC-attention is the original idea from [Kim at al., 2016]. So the whole argument about attention-based end-to-end ASR versus CTC-based ASR, and the necessary of CTC-attention combination is not novel. Furthermore, the statement “we propose … as proposed by [Kim et al, 2016]” is somewhat weird. We can build upon someone proposal with additional extensions, but not just re-propose other people's proposal. Therefore, what would be important here is to state clearly the original contribution of this paper and the position of the proposed method with respect to existing literature  (c) Experimental Results: Kim at al., 2016 applied the proposed method on English task, while this paper applied the proposed method on Japanese and Mandarin Chinese tasks. I think it would be interesting if the paper could explain in more details about the specific problems in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese tasks that may not appear in English task. For example, how the system could address multiple possible outputs. i.e., Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana given Japanese speech input without using any linguistic resources. This could be one of the important contributions from this paper.  - General Discussion: I think it would be better to cite Ref [Kim et al., 2016] from the official IEEE ICASSP conference, rather than pre-published arXiv: Kim, S., Hori, T., Watanabe, S., "Joint CTC- Attention Based End-to-End Speech Recognition Using Multi-task Learning", IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), March 2017, pp. to appear.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: The authors propose an approach to learning optimization algorithms by framing the problem as a policy search task, then using the guided policy search algorithm. The method is a nice contribution to the "learning to learn" framework, and actually was developed simultaneously to a few papers that have since already been published. It's definitely a useful addition to this space.    The biggest issue with this paper is that the results simply aren't that compelling. The methodology and proposed approach is nice, and the text is improved upon a previous version posted to Arxiv, but it seems that for most problems the results aren't that much better than some of the more common off-the-shelf optimization approaches that _don't_ require learning anything. Furthermore, in the one domain where the method does seem to (marginally) outperform the other methods, the neural net domain, it's unclear why we'd want to use the proposed approaches instead of SGD-based methods and their like (which of course everyone actually does for optimization).    Pros:  + Nice contribution to the learning to learn framework  + Takes a different approach from past (concurrent) work, namely one based upon policy search    Cons:  - Experiments are not particularly compelling    Overall, this work is a little borderline. Still, the PCs have determined that it was deserving of appearing at the conference. We hope the authors can strengthen the empirical validation for the camera ready version.
[EX A]:
en