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].

This paper discusses Hyperband, an extension of successive halving by Jamieson & Talwalkar (AISTATS 2016). Successive halving is a very nice algorithm that starts evaluating many configurations and repeatedly cuts off the current worst half to explore many configuration for a limited budget.  Having read the paper for the question period and just rereading it again, I am now not entirely sure what its contribution is meant to be: the only improvement of Hyperband vs. successive halving is in the theoretical worst case bounds (not more than 5x worse than random search), but you can (a) trivially obtain that bound by using a fifth of your time for running random configurations to completion and (b) the theoretical analysis to show this is said to be beyond the scope of the paper. That makes me wonder whether the theoretical results are the contribution of this paper, or whether they are the subject of a different paper and the current paper is mostly an empirical study of the method? I hope to get a response by the authors and see this made clearer in an updated version of the paper.  In terms of experiments, the paper fails to show a case where Hyperband actually performs better than the authors' previous algorithm successive halving with its most agressive setting of bracket b=4. Literally, in every figure, bracket b=4 is at least as good (and sometimes substantially better) than Hyperband. That makes me think that in practice I would prefer successive halving with b=4 over Hyperband. (And if I really want Hyperband's guarantee of not being more than 5x worse than random search I can run random search on a fifth of my machines.)  The experiments also compare to some Bayesian optimization methods, but not to the most relevant very closely related Multi-Task Bayesian Optimization methods that have been dominating effective methods for deep learning in that area in the last 3 years: "Multi-Task Bayesian Optimization" by Swersky, Snoek, and Adams (2013) already showed 5x speedups for deep learning by starting with smaller datasets, and there have been several follow-up papers showing even larger speedups.   Given that this prominent work on multitask Bayesian optimization exists, I also think the introduction, which sells Hyperband as a very new approach to hyperparameter optimization is misleading. I would've much preferred a more down-to-earth pitch that says "configuration evaluation" has been becoming a very important feature in hyperparameter optimization, including Bayesian optimization, that sometimes yields very large speedups (this can be quantified by examples from existing papers) and this paper adds some much-needed theoretical understanding to this and demonstrates how important configuration evaluation is even in the simplest case of being used with random search. I think this could be done easily and locally by adding a paragraph to the intro.  As another point regarding novelty, I think the authors should make clear that approaches for adaptively deciding how many resources to use for which evaluation have been studied for (at least) 23 years in the ML community -- see Maron & Moore, NIPS 1993: "Hoeffding Races: Accelerating Model Selection Search for Classification and Function Approximation" (
en

Es un artículo que presenta un tema novedoso en el área de la Ingeniería de Software. El artículo está muy bien documentado y fundamentado. Las tecnologías utilizadas en el desarrollo del prototipo son de interés actual.  Como lo describe el artículo, se trata de un primer paso en una línea de investigación y del desarrollo de un prototipo de una aplicación meta-case. Queda es este sentido, poco clara cual es el nivel de madurez actual, tanto de la investigación como de la aplicación desarrollada.
es

Este artículo presenta una interesante aplicación de algoritmos inmunes para  la programación de tareas.  Los resultados son de interés práctico.  Observaciones:  1.	Los autores hacen uso frecuente de términos en inglés, sin  la necesaria definición de los mismos o substitución por un término en español.  2.	Hay inúmeros errores de redacción que deben ser corregidos. A modo de ejemplo citamos la frase “Mientras la tecnología computacional avanza a pasos agigantados es importante en estos días optimizar la programación de una mejor manera con el fin de obtener mejores resultados, es por esto que se ha dado el uso de algoritmos inspirados en sistemas biológicos, dado que presentan una mayor optimización que el uso de heurísticas convencionales”;  3.	Un gran número de referencias está incompleta. Por ejemplo: 2, 3, 6 ......  Estas correcciones son necesarias  para la aceptación del trabajo

es