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].
--------
Question: 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" (

Answer: en


Question: Se presenta una aplicación que consiste en un sistema de vigilancia basado en cámaras ip y que puede ser monitoreado desde dispositivos móviles con android, donde el aporte del trabajo es crear un sistema centralizado para gestionar las cámaras. El paper muestra en detalle el diseño del sistema, lo cual puede ser de interés a la audiencia del congreso. El trabajo presenta algunos problemas en el formato: - presenta encabezados en cada página que parecen referenciar a que fue extraído o enviado a una revista, lo cual no se adecua al formato del workshop -muestra también fechas de envió y recepción, lo cual parece apunta en la misma dirección - presenta algunos problemas de redacción y sentido, como: "También, a esto se suma la incomodidad el tener acceso de un computador" "presenta el desarrollo de un sistema de vídeo vigilancia con cámaras IP, que engloba las ¿¿desventajas?? antes nombradas"  El paper debería arreglar los problemas en el formato para ser aceptado

Answer: es


Question: This paper evaluates several strategies to reduce output vocabulary size in order to speed up NMT decoding and training. It could be quite useful to practitioners, although the main contributions of the paper seem somewhat orthogonal to representation learning and neural networks, and I am not sure ICLR is the ideal venue for this work.  - Do the reported decoding times take into account the vocabulary reduction step? - Aside from machine translation, might there be applications to other settings such as language modeling, where large vocabulary is also a scalability challenge? - The proposed methods are helpful because of the difficulties induced by using a word-level model. But (at least in my opinion) starting from a character or even lower-level abstraction seems to be the obvious solution to the huge vocabulary problem.

Answer:
en