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:
The paper describes an idea to learn phrasal representation and facilitate them in RNN-based language models and neural machine translation  -Strengths:  The  idea to incorporate phrasal information into the task is interesting.  - Weaknesses:  - The description is hard to follow. Proof-reading by an English native speaker would benefit the understanding - The evaluation of the approach has several weaknesses  - General discussion  - In Equation 1 and 2 the authors mention a phrase representation give a fix-length word embedding vector. But this is not used in the model. The representation is generated based on an RNN. What the propose of this description? - Why are you using GRU for the Pyramid and LSTM for the sequential part? Is the combination of two architectures a reason for your improvements? - What is the simplified version of the GRU? Why is it performing better? How is it performing on the large data set? - What is the difference between RNNsearch (groundhog) and RNNsearch(baseline) in Table 4? -  What is the motivation for only using the ending phrases and e.g. not using the starting phrases? - Did you use only the pyramid encoder? How is it performing? That would be a more fair comparison since it normally helps to make the model more complex. - Why did you run RNNsearch several times, but PBNMT only once?  - Section 5.2: What is the intent of this section

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
The paper presents two approaches for generating English poetry. The first approach combine a neural phonetic encoder predicting the next phoneme with a phonetic-orthographic HMM decoder computing the most likely word corresponding to a sequence of phonemes. The second approach combines a character language model with a weigthed FST to impose rythm constraints on the output of the language model. For the second approach, the authors also present a heuristic approach which permit constraining the generated poem according to theme (e.g;, love) or poetic devices (e.g., alliteration). The generated poems are evaluated both instrinsically by comparing the rythm of the generated lines with a gold standard and extrinsically by asking 70 human evaluators to (i) determine whether the poem was written by a human or a machine and (ii) rate poems wrt to readability, form and evocation.  The results indicate that the second model performs best and that human evaluators find it difficult to distinguish between human written and machine generated poems.  This is an interesting, clearly written article with novel ideas (two different models for poetry generation, one based on a phonetic language model the other on a character LM) and convincing results.   For the evaluation, more precision about the evaluators and the protocol would be good. Did all evaluators evaluate all poems and if not how many judgments were collected for each poem for each task ? You mention 9 non English native speakers. Poems are notoriously hard to read. How fluent were these ?   In the second model (character based), perhaps I missed it, but do you have a mechanism to avoid generating non words ? If not, how frequent are non words in the generated poems ?  In the first model, why use an HMM to transliterate from phonetic to an orhographic representation rather than a CRF?   Since overall, you rule out the first model as a good generic model for generating poetry, it might have been more interesting to spend less space on that model and more on the evaluation of the second model. In particular, I would have been interested in a more detailed discussion of the impact of the heuristic you use to constrain theme or poetic devices. How do these impact evaluation results ? Could they be combined to jointly constrain theme and poetic devices ?   The combination of a neural mode with a WFST is reminiscent of the following paper which combine character based neural model to generate from dialog acts with an WFST to avoid generating non words. YOu should relate your work to theirs and cite them.   Natural Language Generation through Character-Based RNNs with Finite-State Prior Knowledge Goyal, Raghav and Dymetman, Marc and Gaussier, Eric and LIG, Uni COLING 2016

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
Paper fácil de leer y bien escrito.  Está en la línea de los trabajos de INFONOR.  Sin embargo, no queda claro cómo aplica la "Teoría de la relevancia", es demasiado escueto en este ámbito del artículo que a mi parecer es lo más importante. Por lo que no es posible dar una opinión certera sobre el trabajo.  Se sugiere expandir la sección 2.2, en lo referente a cómo los aspectos para determinar la relevancia son utilizados o mezclados para determinar si una "news" es relevante o no.  La herramienta elaborada es interesante como también los elementos utilizados en su desarrollo.

Ex Output:

es