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].

Example Input: This paper proposes integrating word sense inventories into existing approaches for the lexical substitution task by using these inventories to filter candidates. To do so, the authors first propose a metric to measure the mutual substitutability of sense inventories with human judgments for the lexsub task, and empirically measure the substitutability of inventories from various sources such as WordNet and PPDB. Next, they propose clustering different paraphrases of a word from PPDB using a multi-view clustering approach, to automatically generate a sense inventory instead of using the aforementioned inventories. Finally, they use these clusters with a naive (majority in top 5) WSD technique to filter existing ranked list of substitution candidates.  - Strengths:  * The key idea of marrying vector space model based approaches and sense inventories for the lexsub task is useful since these two techniques seem to have complementary information, especially since the vector space models are typically unaware of sense and polysemy.  * The oracle evaluation is interesting as it gives a clear indication of how much gain can one expect in the best case, and while there is still a large gap between the oracle and actual scores, we can still argue for the usefulness of the proposed approach due to the large difference between the unfiltered GAP and the oracle GAP.  - Weaknesses:  * I don't understand effectiveness of the multi-view clustering approach. Almost all across the board, the paraphrase similarity view does significantly better than other views and their combination. What, then, do we learn about the usefulness of the other views? There is one empirical example of how the different views help in clustering paraphrases of the word 'slip', but there is no further analysis about how the different clustering techniques differ, except on the task directly. Without a more detailed analysis of differences and similarities between these views, it is hard to draw solid conclusions about the different views.                                    * The paper is not fully clear on a first read. Specifically, it is not immediately clear how the sections connect to each other, reading more like disjoint pieces of work. For instance, I did not understand the connections between section 2.1 and section 4.3, so adding forward/backward pointer references to sections should be useful in clearing up things. Relatedly, the multi-view clustering section (3.1) needs editing, since the subsections seem to be out of order, and citations seem to be missing (lines 392 and 393).  * The relatively poor performance on nouns makes me uneasy. While I can expect TWSI to do really well due to its nature, the fact that the oracle GAP for PPDBClus is higher than most clustering approaches is disconcerting, and I would like to understand the gap better. This also directly contradicts the claim that the clustering approach is generalizable to all parts of speech (124-126), since the performance clearly isn't uniform.  - General Discussion:  The paper is mostly straightforward in terms of techniques used and experiments. Even then, the authors show clear gains on the lexsub task by their two-pronged approach, with potentially more to be gained by using stronger WSD algorithms.  Some additional questions for the authors :  * Lines 221-222 : Why do you add hypernyms/hyponyms? * Lines 367-368 : Why does X^{P} need to be symmetric? * Lines 387-389 : The weighting scheme seems kind of arbitrary. Was this indeed arbitrary or is this a principled choice? * Is the high performance of SubstClus^{P} ascribable to the fact that the number of clusters was tuned based on this view? Would tuning the number of clusters based on other matrices affect the results and the conclusions? * What other related tasks could this approach possibly generalize to? Or is it only specific to lexsub?
Example Output: en

Example 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.
Example Output: es

Example Input: This paper introduces a polynomial linear model for supervised classification tasks. The model is based on a combination of the Tensor Train (TT) tensor decomposition method and a form of stochastic Riemannian  optimization. A few empirical experiments are performed that demonstrate the good performance of the proposed model relative to appropriate baselines.  From a theoretical standpoint, I think the approach is interesting and elegant. The main machinery underlying this work are the TT decomposition and the geometric structure of the manifold of tensors with fixed TT-rank, which have been established in prior work. The novelty of this paper is in the combination of this machinery to form an efficient polynomial linear model. As such, I would have hoped that the paper mainly focused on the efficacy of this combination and how it is superior to obvious alternatives. For example, I would have really appreciated seeing how FMs performed when optimized over the manifold of positive definite matrices, as another reviewer mentioned. Instead, there is a bit too much effort devoted to explaining prior work.  I think the empirical analysis could be substantially improved. I am particularly puzzled by the significant performance boost obtained from initializing with the ordinary logistic regression solution. I would have liked some further analysis of this effect, especially whether or not it is possible to obtain a similar performance boost with other models. Regarding the synthetic data, I think an important baseline would be against a vanilla feed forward neural network, which would help readers understand how complicated the interactions are and how difficult the dataset is to model. I agree with the previous reviewer regarding a variety of other possible improvements to the experimental section.  A few typos: 'Bernoulli distrbution', 'reproduce the experiemnts', 'generilize better'.  Overall, I am on the fence regarding this paper. The main idea is quite good, but insufficient attention was devoted to analyzing the aspects of the model that make it interesting and novel.
Example Output:
en