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]: Summary: In this paper, the authors study ResNets through a theoretical formulation of a spin glass model. The conclusions are that ResNets behave as an ensemble of shallow networks at the start of training (by examining the magnitude of the weights for paths of a specific length) but this changes through training, through which the scaling parameter C (from assumption A4) increases, causing it to behave as an ensemble of deeper and deeper networks.  Clarity: This paper was somewhat difficult to follow, being heavy in notation, with perhaps some notation overloading. A summary of some of the proofs in the main text might have been helpful.  Specific Comments: - In the proof of Lemma 2, I'm not sure where the sequence beta comes from (I don't see how it follows from 11?)  - The ResNet structure used in the paper is somewhat different from normal with multiple layers being skipped? (Can the same analysis be used if only one layer is skipped? It seems like the skipping mostly affects the number of paths there are of a certain length?)  - The new experiments supporting the scale increase in practice are interesting! I'm not sure about Theorems 3, 4 necessarily proving this link theoretically however, particularly given the simplifying assumption at the start of Section 4.2?
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: Quality, Clarity: There is no consensus on this, with the readers having varying backgrounds, and one reviewer commenting that they found it to be unreadable.     Originality, Significance:   The reviews are mixed on this, with the high score (7) acknowledging a lack of expertise on program induction.  The paper is based on the published TerpreT system, and some think that it marginal and contradictory with respect to the TerpreT paper. In the rebuttal, point (3) from the authors points to the need to better understand gradient-based program search, even if it is not always better. This leaves me torn about a decision on this paper, although currently it does not have strong support from the most knowledgeable reviewers.  That said, due to the originality of this work, the PCs are inclined to invite this work to be presented as a workshop contribution.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: El trabajo presenta la propuesta para un modelo de calidad para software de banca por Internet.  El trabajo presenta varias debilidades: - El objetivo del trabajo no está claramente especificado, y aparece descrito en forma diferente en varias secciones. - La metodología de investigación no está clara. --> Los elementos constitutivos de la propuesta (Dromey, ISO 25010, MOSCA...). No se describe la motivación de por qué fueron seleccionados. Ni se describe el sesgo que esta selección puede tener en el modelo. --> Se describe el uso de una metodología de Investigación/Acción, pero no se describe el fenómeno que se ha estudiado para consolidar el modelo.  --> La Secciones de marco teórico, también parecen estar sesgadas, y no se describe las fuentes que dieron lugar a la selección de referencias.  Otros comentarios menores: - La traducción del abstract a inglés debe ser revisada. - La bibliográfica de calidad de software, sale de libros de texto, y puede ser actualizada. - El alcance hacia a tributos de calidad, es a la vez, introducido como parte del marco metodológico, y expuesto como conclusiones. No puede ser las dos. Al orientar la investigación hacia owasp, el constructo se orienta hacia atributos de seguridad, por tanto la conclusión: "En el mismo sentido se establece que la calidad de un sistema para Banca por Internet debe considerar la seguridad como punto obligatorio, además de la funcionalidad" Es resultado del diseño de su investigación, y no puede extraerse del trabajo.  - La referencia 6 y la 11 es la misma.
[EX A]:
es