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].

Taking into account the loss in the binarization step through a proximal Newton algorithm is a nice idea. This is at least one approach to bringing in the missing loss in the binarization step, which has recently gone from a two step process of train and binarize to a single step simultaneous train/compress. Performance on a few small tasks show the benefit. It would be nice to see some results on substantial networks and tasks which really need compression on embedded systems (a point made in the introduction). Is it necessary to discuss exploding/vanishing gradients when the RNN experiments are carried out by an LSTM, and handled by the cell error carousel? We see the desire to tie into proposition 2, but not clear that the degradation we see in the binary connect is related. Adam is used in the LSTM optimization, was gradient clipping really needed, or is the degradation of binary connect simply related to capacity? For proposition 3.1, theorem 3.1 and proposition 3.2 put the pointers to proofs in appendix.
en

This paper is an extension of Lenc&Vedaldi15 paper, showing CNN representations at FC7 layer are to certain extent equivariant to various classes of transformations and that training with a certain group of transformation makes the representations more equivalent.  Authors performed a large amount of experiments, training over 30 networks with different forms of jitter, which is quite impressive. However it is rather difficult to find a main message of this work. Yes, authors measured the properties on a different layer than the Lenc&Vedaldi15, however it is hard to find some novel insights other than the known fact that jitter helps to achieve invariance. The evaluation seems to be mostly correct, however the paper does not seem to be solving the task advertised in its title really well.  Major issues are in the experiments with the representation distances: * The selection of only FC7 is a bit controversial - it is followed only by a single classification layer (FC8) to the common output - class likelyhoods. Because the FC8 is just a linear projections, what the equivalence map does is just to re-project the FC8 weights of the attached network to the weights of the original network. Probably performing similar experiments but on more layers may be more useful (as the networks are already trained). * The experiment with representation distance is missing what is the classification error on the testing dataset. This would answer whether the representations are actually compatible up to linear transformation at all... * It is not clear for the experiment with K-NN whether this is measured per each test set example? After training the equivalence map? More clear would be to show that networks trained on similar group of jitter transformations are more compatible on the target task. * The proposed method does not seem to improve equivariance consistently on all tasks. Especially with \lambda_1 and \lambda_2 having such small values, the loss is basically equal to simple data jitter as it just adds up the loss of the original and transformed image. Maybe the issue is in the selection of the FC7 layer?  In general, this paper shows some interesting results on the FC7 equivariance, but it does not seem to be drawing many interesting new observations out of these experiments. Due to some issues with the equivalence experiments and the finetuning of equivariance, I would not recommend acceptance of this manuscript. However, refining the experiments on already trained networks and restructuring this manuscript into more investigative work may lead to interesting contribution to the field.  There are also few minor issues: * It is not experimentally verified that the new criterion for equivariance mapping helps to gain better results. * The angles on page 1 and 5 are missing units (degrees?). * On page three, "In practice, it is difficult... ", it is not M_g which is maximised/minimised, but the loss over the M_g * Page 4, footnote 2 - if you are just halving the activations, it is hard to call it a dropout as this constant factor can be passed to the following/preceding weights * Is the network for RVL-CDIP the same architecture as Alexnet? * On page 7, Figure 3a+3b - in my opinion, turning the diagonal elements to white is really misleading, and probably even incorrect, as the distance between the same representations should be zero (which is also a way how to verify that the experiments are performed correctly).
en

El trabajo es interesante. Se nota que se invirtió bastante tiempo en la revisión bibliográfica del tema. El aporte es que permite revisar las técnicas de extracción de información para bases de datos noSQL. Una vez que se apliquen las técnicas se encontraran nuevos desafíos que se pueden "ver" sólo al momento de la implementación. Por otro lado el riesgo está en cuantos investigadores están trabajando en el tema en distintas partes. Esto debido a que es un tema de línea principal. ¿Qué hay implementado al respecto? ¿Vale la pena aplicar las técnicas? Una mirada a estos aspectos es importante para no encontrar sorpresas en la implementación.  El trabajo está bien presentado y es claro.  Hay algunos errores: - Los números de páginas no están correlativos. Después de la página 5 vuelve a la página 3. - El esquema de la figura 2 indica que la " selección de fuentes" y " procesamiento:calidad de datos" son actividades de " 1. Determinación de objetivos". Sin embargo en la redacción están asociadas a "2. Preparación de datos" ¿A qué actividad están asociadas 1 o 2?

es