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 Input:
El artículo presenta una propuesta de un modelo para evaluar la calidad de productos de software para video conferencias basado en open source. Si bien es cierto es tema es de interés y la propuesta tiene elementos de interés, el artículo presenta algunas oportunidades de mejora que deberían ser abordadas antes de su aceptación.  Contenido: - El apartado de "Antecedentes" provee muy poca información para ser un apartado como tal. Se recomienda explicar brevemente el sustento teórico que entregan las investigaciones base utilizadas.  - En varias ocasiones se menciona que también se definieron métricas, pero en ningún momento se entrega alguna referencia respecto a dónde pueden ser vistas en detalles si el lector está interesado. Además, en la página 5 se indica que son 73 métricas, luego en la pág. 7 se dice que son 72 y en las conclusiones sólo se resaltan 68.  - Sugiero que la sección "Algoritmo para aplicar el Modelo de Calidad..." sea apoyado por algún diagrama para representar algoritmos, por ejemplo, un diagrama de flujo o de actividades, ya que el texto es algo confuso y no permite entender de manera fácil el algoritmo propuesto.  - No queda claro cómo se determinaron los valores de la Tabla 4.  - No queda claro cómo se aplicó el modelo, ¿cómo se calculan los porcentajes de la Tabla 5?  - La tablas 2 y 3 son muy extensas lo cual provoca que el lector se pierda un poco del contexto analizado. Sugiero separarlas en diferentes tablas (separar la tabla 2 por categoría y la tabla 3 por características)  Formato:  - En el apartado "Metodología" dice "...el objeto se define...." creo que debe decir "...el objetivo se define..."  - El nombre de la figura 1 presenta un error. Dice "Caliad" en lugar de "Calidad"  - El abstract en inglés no incorpora todo lo que dice en su versión en español (no se indica nada de las métricas)  - El formato de referencias bibliográficas indica que se numera según el orden de aparición, y en el artículo se parte por la referencia 6, luego del 6 salta al 13.  - Hay artículos mencionados en la sección de referencias que nunca son referenciadas en el texto del artículo.  - En la pág. 7 hay un error en el formato de las referencias, debe ser formato numerado, y aquí aparece "(Basili et. al., 2001)

Ex Output:
es


Ex Input:
The paper presents a way to "learn" approximate data structures. They train neural networks (ConvNets here) to perform as an approximate abstract data structure by having an L2 loss (for the unrolled NN) on respecting the axioms of the data structure they want the NN to learn. E.g. you NN.push(8), NN.push(6), NN.push(4), the loss is proportional to the distance with what is NN.pop()ed three times and 4, 6, 8 (this example is the one of Figure 1).  There are several flaws:  - In the case of the stack: I do not see a difference between this and a seq-to-seq RNN trained with e.g. 8, 6, 4 as input sequence, to predict 4, 6, 8.  - While some of the previous work is adequately cited, there is an important body of previous work (some from the 90s) on learning Peano's axioms, stacks, queues, etc. that is not cited nor compared to. For instance [Das et al. 1992], [Wiles & Elman 1995], and more recently [Graves et al. 2014], [Joulin & Mikolov 2015], [Kaiser & Sutskever 2016]...  - Using MNIST digits, and not e.g. a categorical distribution on numbers, is adding complexity for no reason.  - (Probably the biggest flaw) The experimental section is too weak to support the claims. The figures are adequate, but there is no comparison to anything. There is also no description nor attempt to quantify a form of "success rate" of learning such data structures, for instance w.r.t the number of examples, or w.r.t to the size of the input sequences. The current version of the paper (December 9th 2016) provides, at best, anecdotal experimental evidence to support the claims of the rest of the paper.  While an interesting direction of research, I think that this paper is not experimentally sound enough for ICLR.

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
This paper presents an approach to non-linear kernel dimensionality reduction with a trace norm regularizer in the feature space. The authors proposed an iterative minimization approach in order to obtain a local optimum of a relaxed problem.  The paper contains errors and the experimental evaluation is not convincing. Only old techniques are compared against in very toy datasets.   The authors claim state-of-the-art, however, the oil dataset is not a real benchmark, and the comparisons are to very old approaches.  The experimental evaluation should demonstrate robustness to more complex noise and outliers, as this was one of the motivations in the introduction.  The authors do not address the out-of-sample problem. This is a problem of kernel-based methods vs LVMs, and thus should be address here.   The paper contains errors:  - The last paragraph of section 1 says that this paper proposes a closed form solution to robust KPCA. This is simply wrong, as the proposed approach consists of iteratively solving iterativey a set of closed form updates  and Levenberg-Marquard optimizationd. This is not any more closed form!  - In the same paragraph (and later in the text) the authors claim that the proposed approach can be trivially generalized to incorporate other cost functions. This is not true, as in general there will be no more inner loop closed form updates and the authors will need to solve a much more complex optimization problem.   - The third paragraph of section 2 claims that this paper presents a novel energy minimization framework to solve problems of the general form of eq. (2). However, this is not what the authors solve at the end. They solve a different problem that has been subject to at least two relaxations. It is not clear how solving for a local optima of this double relaxed problem is related to the original problem they want to solve.   - The paper says that Geiger et al defined non linearities on a latent space of pre-defined dimensionality. This is wrong. This paper discovers the dimensionality of the latent space by means of a regularizer that encourages the singular values to be sparse. Thus, it does not have a fixed dimensionality, the latent space is just bounded to be smaller or equal than the dimensionality of the original space.    It is not clear to me why the author say for LVMs such as GPLVM that "the latent space is learned a priority with clean training data". One can use different noise models within the GP framework. Furthermore, the proposed approach assumes Gaussian noise (see eq. 6), which is also the trivial case for GP-based LVMs.     It is not clear what the authors mean in the paper by "pre-training" or saying that techniques do not have a training phase. KPCA is trained via a closed-form update, but there is still training.

Ex Output:

en