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].

[Q]: The authors of this work propose a learnable approach to reducing the dimensionality of learned filters in deep neural networks. This is an interesting approach, but the presented work looks a bit raw.  1. There are many typos in this manuscript.  2. The experimental results are rather weak and don't show much improvement in accuracy. Instead the authors could position this work as a compression mechanism and would have to compare to low rank approximation of filters for DNNs. Yet this is not done.  3. Aside from compression, OMG can be viewed as a form of regularization to reduce the unnecessary capacity of the network to improve generalization. Again, this is not addressed in enough detail. 4. If the authors care to compare their approach to other 1-shot learning methods, then they would have to evaluate their approach with siamese and triplet learning networks. This isn't done.
[A]: en


[Q]: Este es un trabajo interesante, donde el autor quiere mostrar a las Honeynets como medida de seguridad alternativa, para aprendizaje del  modo de operar de intrusos y así crear nuevas formas de protección.  Observaciones:  - El nombre del único autor debe estar centralizado en el artículo. - Palabras y figuras en inglés. El artículo está en español. - Las referencias están inadecuadas: hay  un único artículo citado y con referencia incompleta. Mejorar la revisión bibliográfica, citando artículos y libros  actuales.
[A]: es


[Q]: The idea of universality that is independent of input distribution and dimension, depending only on the algorithm is an appealing one. However, as an empirical study, this paper comes up somewhat short:  1. Exactly one algorithm is shown for the deep learning example. It would have been more convincing to compare distributions with one or more algorithms.   2. The definition (1),  and much of the work of Section 2.1 seems to have already been covered in Deift (2014), Section 1.3. In that paper, a number of different algorithms for the solution of linear systems are considered, and then the concept of universality becomes more plausible. I do not see enough of such algorithmic comparisons in this paper (same problem setup, different algorithms).  3.  It seems to me that what practitioners might care about in practice are both the mean and variance in running times; these quantities are buried in (1). So I question how useful the distribution itself might be for algorithm tuning.   At the least, many more empirical comparisons should be provided to convince me that the universality holds across a broad range of algorithms.
[A]:
en