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: El documento describe un trabajo exploratorio en el desarrollo de una aplicación software en el área de informática médica, concretamente en los sistemas HIS (Hospital Information System). La propuesta es interesante pero el documento denota que es un trabajo insipiente, o se entiende esto, dado que se describe la arquitectura propuesta y la metodología del proyecto, pero no se describe un escenario de prueba o un caso concreto de validación. Igualmente, no se observa en el documento la descripción de un software resultado del proyecto, y por el título del artículo y el abstract se espera la descripción de alguna propuesta software.

Answer: es


Question: Authors' response well answered my questions. Thanks.  Evaluation not changed.  ###  This paper proposes a neural model for generating tree structure output from scratch. The model does 1) separate the recurrence between depths and siblings; 2) separate the topology and label generation, and outperforms previous methods on a benchmark IFTTT dataset. Compared to previous tree-decoding methods, the model avoids manually annotating subtrees with special tokens, and thus is a very good alternative to such problems. The paper does solid experiments on one synthetic dataset, and outperforms alternative methods on one real-world IFTTT dataset.   There are couple of interesting results in the paper that I believe is worth further investigation. Firstly, on the synthetic dataset, the precision drops rapidly with the number of nodes. Is it because that the vector representation of the sequential encoder fails to provide sufficient information of long sequences, such that the tree decoder can not do a good job? Or is it because that such tree decoder is not tolerant to the long sequence input, i.e., large tree structure? I believe that it is important to understand this before a better model can be developed. For example, if it is the fault of encoder, maybe an attention layer can be added, as in a seq-to-seq model, to preserve more information of the input sequence.   Moreover, besides only showing how the precision changes with the number of nodes in the tree, it might be interesting to investigate how it goes with 1) number of depths; 2) number of widths; 3) symmetricity; etc. Moreover, as greedy search is used in decoding, it might be interesting to see how it helps, if it does, to use beam-search in tree decoding.   On the IFTTT dataset, listing more statistics about this dataset might be helpful for better understanding the difficulty of this task. How deep are the trees? How large are the vocabularies on both language and program sides?  The paper is well written, except for minor typo as mentioned in my pre-review questions.   In general, I believe this is a solid paper, and more can be explored in this direction. So I tend to accept it.

Answer: en


Question: This paper explores the use of Open Bigrams as a target representation of words, for application to handwriting image recognition.   Pros: - The use of OBs is novel and interesting. - Clearly written and explained.  Cons: - No comparison to previous state of the art, only with author-generated results.  - More ablation studies needed -- i.e. fill in Table3 with rnn0,1 rnn0,1,2 rnn0,1' etc etc. It is not clear where the performance is coming from, as it seems that it is single character modelling (0) and word endings (') that are actually beneficial. - While the use of Open bigrams is novel, there are works which use bag of bigrams and ngrams as models which are not really compared to or explored. E.g.

Answer:
en