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:
In the § Related work: "deeplearning4j 2 provides distributed computing of deep learning framework that runs on the distributed computing Hadoop. However, Hadoop must be installed in all computing nodes, thereby imposing high deployment and maintenance costs."  This is inexact, Deeplearning4j's most basic mode of operation is on a single machine, with Java installed. A GPU is used if available but is not a requirement (Deeplearning4j documentation: 
answer:
en


question:
Review: Multimodal Word Distributions  - Strengths:  Overall a very strong paper.  - Weaknesses: The comparison against similar approaches could be extended.  - General Discussion:  The main focus of this paper is the introduction of a new model for learning multimodal word distributions formed from Gaussian mixtures for multiple word meanings. i. e. representing a word by a set of many Gaussian distributions.  The approach, extend the model introduced by Vilnis and McCallum (2014) which represented word as unimodal Gaussian distribution. By using a multimodal, the current approach attain the problem of polysemy.  Overall, a very strong paper, well structured and clear. The experimentation is correct and the qualitative analysis made in table 1 shows results as expected from the approach.  There’s not much that can be faulted and all my comments below are meant to help the paper gain additional clarity.   Some comments:   _ It may be interesting to include a brief explanation of the differences between the approach from Tian et al. 2014 and the current one. Both split single word representation into multiple prototypes by using a mixture model.   _ There are some missing citations that could me mentioned in related work as :  Efficient Non-parametric Estimation of Multiple Embeddings per Word in Vector Space Neelakantan, A., Shankar. J. Passos, A., McCallum. EMNLP 2014 Do Multi-Sense Embeddings Improve Natural Language Understanding? Li and Jurafsky, EMNLP 2015 Topical Word Embeddings. Liu Y., Liu Z., Chua T.,Sun M. AAAI 2015  _ Also, the inclusion of the result from those approaches in tables 3 and 4 could be interesting.   _ A question to the authors: What do you attribute the loss of performance of w2gm against w2g in the analysis of SWCS?  I have read the response.
answer:
en


question:
This submission introduces a formulation of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) under the lens of density ratio estimation, when using Bregman divergences. Even thought GANs already perform density estimation, the motivation of using Bregman divergences is to obtain an objective function with stronger gradients. I have three concerns with this submission.  First, the exposition of the paper must be significantly improved. The current version of the manuscript is at some points unreadable, and does a poor job at motivating, describing, and justifying the contributions.  Second, the authors scatter a variety of alternatives and heuristics throughout the description of the proposed b-GAN. This introduces a great amount of complexity when it comes to understanding, implementing, and using b-GAN. Further work is necessary to rule out (in a principled manner!) many of the proposed variants of the algorithm.  Third, it is next to impossible to interpret the experimental results, in particular Figures 2, 3, 4. The authors claim that these figures show that "learning does not stop", but such behavior can also be attributed to the typical chaotic dynamics of GANs. Even after reading Appendix A, I am left unconvinced on whether the proposed approach provides with any practical advantage (even no comparison is offered to other GAN approaches with similar architectures).  Overall, I believe this submission calls for significant improvements before being considered for publication.
answer:

en