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].

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.
en

Este es un tema que no ha sido abordado suficientemente y que por lo mismo es bueno el tratarlo en forma "seria".  Justamente por lo planteado anteriormente, es que a esta temática se le puede "sacar mayor partido". A pesar que considero adecuada la clasificación deducida, creo que podría haberse profundizado un poco más.
es

Contributions The paper presents an adaptation of batch normalization for RNNs in the case of LSTMs, along the horizontal depth. Contrary to previous work from (Laurent 2015; Amodei 2016), the work demonstrates that batch-normalizing the hidden states of RNNs can improve optimization, and argues with quantitative experiments that the key factor to making this work is proper initialization of parameters, in particular gamma. Experiments show some gain in performance over vanilla LSTMs on Sequential MNIST, PTB, Text8 and CNN Question-Answering.  Novelty+Significance Batch normalization has been key for training deeper and deeper networks (e.g. ResNets) and it seems natural that we would want to extend it to RNNs.  The paper shows that it is possible to do so with proper initialization of parameters, contrary to previous work from (Laurent 2015; Amodei 2016). Novelty comes from where to batch norm (i.e. not in the cell update) and in the per-time step statistics.   Adding batch normalization to LSTMs incurs additional computational cost and bookkeeping; for training speed comparisons (e.g. Figure 2) the paper only compares LSTM and BN-LSTM by iteration count; given the additional complexity of the BN-LSTM I would have also liked to see a wall-clock comparison.  As RNNs are used across many tasks, this work is of interest to many.  However, the results gains are generally minor and require several tricks to work in practice. Also, this work doesn’t address a question about batch normalization that it seems natural that it helps with faster training, but why would it also improve generalization?   Clarity The paper is overall very clear and well-motivated. The model is well described and easy to understand, and the plots illustrate the points clearly.  Summary Interesting though relatively incremental adaptation, but shows batch normalization to work for RNNs where previous works have not succeeded. Comprehensive set of experiments though it is questionable if the empirical gains are significant enough to justify the increased model complexity as well as computational overhead.  Pros - Shows batch normalization to work for RNNs where previous works have not succeeded - Good empirical analysis of hyper-parameter choices and of the activations - Experiments on multiple tasks - Clarity  Cons - Relatively incremental - Several ‘hacks’ for the method (per-time step statistics, adding noise for exploding variance, sequence-wise normalization) - No mention of computational overhead - Only character or pixel-level tasks, what about word-level?

en