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].

Input: Consider Input: The paper presents a new environment, called Retro Learning Environment (RLE), for reinforcement learning. The authors focus on Super Nintendo but claim that the interface supports many others (including ALE). Benchmark results are given for standard algorithms in 5 new Super Nintendo games, and some results using a new "rivalry metric".  These environments (or, more generally, standardized evaluation methods like public data sets, competitions, etc.) have a long history of improving the quality of AI and machine learning research. One example in the past few years was the Atari Learning Environment (ALE) which has now turned into a standard benchmark for comparison of algorithms and results. In this sense, the RLE could be a worthy contribution to the field by encouraging new challenging domains for research.  That said, the main focus of this paper is presenting this new framework and showcasing the importance of new challenging domains. The results of experiments themselves are for existing algorithms. There are some new results that show reward shaping and policy shaping (having a bias toward going right in Super Mario) help during learning. And, yes, domain knowledge helps, but this is obvious. The rivalry training is an interesting idea, when training against a different opponent, the learner overfits to that opponent and forgets to play against the in-game AI; but then oddly, it gets evaluated on how well it does against the in-game AI!   Also the part of the paper that describes the scientific results (especially the rivalry training) is less polished, so this is disappointing. In the end, I'm not very excited about this paper.  I was hoping for a more significant scientific contribution to accompany in this new environment. It's not clear if this is necessary for publication, but also it's not clear that ICLR is the right venue for this work due to the contribution being mainly about the new code (for example, mloss.org could be a better 'venue', JMLR has an associated journal track for accompanying papers:

Output: en


Input: Consider Input: Presenta un framework para el trabajo de MVC con PHP de forma simple.  Podría ser un poco más técnico en cuanto a elementos de configuración y agregar comparación con otros frameworks existentes para entender por qué CakePHP y no otra alternativa.

Output: es


Input: Consider Input: This paper proposes Generative Adversarial Parallelization (GAP), one schedule to train N Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) in parallel. GAP proceeds by shuffling the assignments between the N generators and the N discriminators at play every few epochs. Therefore, GAP forces each generator to compete with multiple discriminators at random. The authors claim that such randomization reduces undesired "mode collapsing behaviour", typical of GANs.  I have three concerns with this submission.  1) After training the N GANs for a sufficient amount of time, the authors propose to choose the best generator using the GAM metric. I oppose to this because of two reasons. First, a single GAN will most likely be unable to express the full richness of the true data begin modeled. Said differently, a single generator with limited power will either describe a mode well, or describe many modes poorly. Second, GAM relies on the scores given by the discriminators, which can be ill-posed (focus on artifacts). Since there is There is nothing wrong with mode collapsing when this happens under control. Thus, I believe that a better strategy would be to not choose and combine all generators into a mixture. Of course, this would require a way to decide on mixture weights. This can be done, for instance, using rejection sampling based on discriminator scores.  2) The authors should provide a theoretical (or at least conceptual) comparison to dropout. In essence, this paper has a very similar flavour: every generator is competing against all N discriminators, but at each epoch we drop N-1 for every generator. Related to the previous point, after training dropout keeps all the neurons, effectively approximating a large ensemble of neural networks.  3) The qualitative results are not convincing. Most of the figures show only results about GAP. How do the baseline samples look like? The GAN and LAPGAN papers show very similar samples. On the other hand, I do not find Figures 3 and 4 convincing: for instance, the generator in Figure 3 was most likely under-parametrized.  As a minor comment, I would remove Figure 2. This is because of three reasons: it may be protected by copyright, it occupies a lot of space, and it does not add much value to the explanation. Also, the indices (i_t) are undefined in Algorithm 1.  Overall, this paper shows good ideas, but it needs further work in terms of conceptual development and experimental evaluation.


Output: en