instruction:
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].
question:
This paper proposes a method for generating datasets of pictures from simple building blocks, as well as corresponding logical forms and language descriptions. The goal seems to be to have a method where the complexity of pictures and corresponding desciptions can be controlled and parametrized.    - The biggest downside seems to be that the maximally achievable complexity is very limited, and way below the complexity typically faced with image-captioning and other multimodal tasks.   - The relative simplicity is also a big difference to the referenced bAbI tasks (which cover the whole qualitative spectrum of easy-to-hard reasoning tasks), whereas in the proposed method a (qualitatively) easy image reconition task can only be quantitatively made harder, by increasing the number of objects, noise etc in unnatural ways.  - This is also reflected in the experimental section. Whenever the experimental performance results are not satisfying, these cases seem like basic over/underfitting issues that may easily be tackled by restricting/extending the capacity of the networks or using more data. It is hard for me to spot any other qualitative insight.  - In the introduction it is stated that the "goal is not too achieve optimal performance" but to find out whether "architectures are able to successfully demonstrate the desired understanding" - there is a fundamental contradiction here, in that the proposed task on the one side is meant to provide a measure as to whether architectures demontrate "understanding", on the other hand the score is not supposed to be taken as meaningful/seriously.  General comments: The general approach should be made more tangible earlier (i.e. in the introction rather than in section 3)
answer:
en


question:
NO ME ENCUENTRO CAPACITADO PARA EFECTUAR ESTA REVISION. ESTA MUY LEJOS DE MI ESPECIALIZACION.
answer:
es


question:
Este artículo presenta una comparación, en base a una lista de criterios, de dos enfoques de bases de datos: relacional vs. temporal.  El artículo en general tiene un orden lógico y es legible. No obstante, la comparativa presenta al menos dos inconvenientes:  1) falta mucha información de cómo se obtuvieron los resultados de las tablas 3 y 4. Debe existir una descripción suficientemente detallada para luego poder replicar el trabajo.  2) El caso de estudio que se presenta forma la base de la comparación. Una real comparación debe sustentarse en una variedad de casos y dominios, para poder luego concluir con una base más amplia.  Sugiero abordar estos dos aspectos primero para sustentar mejor los resultados y conclusiones.
answer:

es