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:
1.	Lo que se propone es interesante como una aplicación pero no es un trabajo científico. Además ya no es interesante la aplicación de un Datamart desde el punto de vista técnico como es presentado por el autor pues existe mucha documentación y trabajos al respecto. Por este motivo ahora hay que buscar "otros aspectos (diseño, metodología, etc.)" que hagan interesante un artículo del área Datamart.  2. Hay errores de diseño, por lo cual lo más probable es que los resultados que se muestran estén erróneos.  3. Debe tener cuidado con la sumarización.

Ex Output:
es


Ex Input:
This paper introduces a hierarchical clustering method using learned CNN features to build 'the tree of life'. The assumption is that the feature similarity indicates the distance in the tree. The authors tried three different ways to construct the tree: 1) approximation central point 2) minimum spanning tree and 3) multidimensional scaling based method. Out of them, MDS works the best. It is a nice application of using deep features. However, I lean toward rejecting the paper because the following reasons:  1) All experiments are conducted in very small scale. The experiments include 6 fish species, 11 canine species, 8 vehicle classes. There are no quantitative results, only by visualizing the generated tree versus the wordNet tree. Moreover, the assumption of using wordNet is not quite valid. WordNet is not designed for biology purpose and it might not reflect the true evolutionary relationship between species.  2) Limited technical novelty. Most parts of the pipeline are standard, e.g. use pretrained model for feature extraction, use previous methods to construct hierarchical clustering. I think the technical contribution of this paper is very limited.

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
First, let me praise the authors for generating and releasing an NLP data set: a socially useful task.  The authors use an algorithm to generate a 500-cluster-per-language data set in semantic similarity. This brings up a few points.  1. If the point of using the algorithm is to be scalable, why release such a small data set? It's roughly the same order of magnitude as the data sets released in the SemEval tasks over the recent years. I would have expected something orders of magnitude larger.  2. The authors hand checked a small subset of the clusters: they found one where it was ambiguous, and should probably have been removed. Mechanical Turk can scale pretty well -- why not post-facto filter all of the clusters using MT? This is (in effect) how ImageNet was created, and it has millions of items.  3. Evaluating data set papers is an tricky issue. What makes a data set "good" or publishable? There are a number of medium-sized NLP data sets released every year (e.g., through SemEval). Those are designed to address tasks in NLP that people find interesting. I don't know of a data set that exactly addresses the task that the authors propose: the task is trying to address the idea of semantic similarity, which has had multiple data sets thrown at it since SemEval 2012. I wish that the paper had included comparisons to show that the particular task / data combination is better suited for analyzing semantic similarity than other existing data sets.  Two final notes:  A. This paper doesn't seem very well-suited to ICLR.  New NLP data sets may be indirectly useful for evaluating word embeddings (and hence representations). But, I didn't learn much from the paper: GloVe is empirically less good for semantic similarity than other embeddings? If true, why? That would be interesting.  B. The first proposal for the "put a word into a cluster and see if it stands out" task (in the context of human evaluation of topic models), is  Jonathan Chang, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Chong Wang, Sean Gerrish, and David M. Blei. Reading Tea Leaves: HowHumans Interpret Topic Models. Neural Information Processing Systems, 2009  which deserves a citation, I think.

Ex Output:

en