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:
From my original comments:  The results looks good but the baselines proposed are quite bad.  For instance in the table 2 "Misclassification rate for a 784-1024-1024-1024-10 " the result for the FC with floating point is 1.33%. Well far from what we can obtain from this topology, near to 0.8%. I would like to see "significant" compression levels on state of the art results or good baselines. I can get 0,6% with two FC hidden layers...  In CIFAR-10 experiments, i do not understand  why "Sparsely-Connected 90% + Single-Precision Floating-Point" is worse than "Sparsely-Connected 90% + BinaryConnect". So it is better to use binary than float.   Again i think that in the experiments the authors are not using all the techniques that can be easily applied to float but not to binary (gaussian noise or other regularizations). Therefore under my point of view the comparison between float and binary is not fair. This is a critic also for the original papers about binary and ternary precision.   In fact with this convolutional network, floating (standard) precision we can get lower that 9% of error rate. Again bad baselines.  ----  The authors reply still does not convince me.  I still think that the same technique should be applied on more challenging scenarios.

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
This paper tackles the problem of compressing trained convnets with the goal of reducing memory overhead and speeding up the forward pass. As I understand it, the main contribution of this work is to develop fast convolution routines for sparse conv weights int he case of general sparsity (as compared with structured sparsity). They evaluate their method on both AlexNet and GoogLeNet as well as on various platforms. The authors make code available online. The paper is well written and does a good job of putting this work in the context of past model reduction techniques.  My main request of the authors would be to provide a concise summary of the speedup/memory gains achievable with this new work compared with previously published work. The authors do show the various sparsity level obtained with various methods of pruning but it is unclear to me how to translate the information given in the paper into an understanding of gains relative to other methods.

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
I'd like to thank the authors for their detailed response and clarifications.  This work proposes new training scheme for online sparse dictionary learning. The model assumes a non-stationary flow of the incoming data. The goal (and the challenge) is to learn a model in an online manner in a way that is capable of  adjusting to the new incoming data without forgetting how to represent previously seen data. The proposed approach deals with this problem by incorporating a mechanism for adding or deleting atoms in the dictionary. This procedure is inspired by the adult neurogenesis phenomenon in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus.   The paper has two main innovations over the baseline approach (Mairal et al): (i) “neuronal birth” which represents an adaptive way of increasing the number of atoms in the dictionary (ii) "neuronal death", which corresponds to removing “useless” dictionary atoms.  Neural death is implemented by including an group-sparsity regularization to the dictionary atoms themselves (the group corresponds to a column of the dictionary). This promotes to shrink to zero atoms that are not very useful, keeping controlled the increase of the dictionary size.  I believe that the strong side of the paper is its connections with the adult neurogenesis phenomenon, which is, in my opinion a very nice feature. The paper is very well written and easy to follow.  On the other hand, the overall technique is not very novel. Although not exactly equivalent, similar ideas have been explored. While the neural death is implemente elegantly with a sparsity-promoting regularization term, the neural birth is performed by relying on heuristics that measure how well the dictionary can represent new incoming data. Which depending on the "level" of non-stationarity in the incoming data (or presence of outliers) could be difficult to set. Still, having adaptive dictionary size is very interesting.  The authors could also cite some references in model selection literature. In particular, some ideas such as MDL have been used for automatically selecting the dictionary size (I believe this work does not address the online setting, but still its a relevant reference to have). For instance,  Ramirez, Ignacio, and Guillermo Sapiro. "An MDL framework for sparse coding and dictionary learning." IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 60.6 (2012): 2913-2927.

Ex Output:

en