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 Q]: This paper studies neural models that can be applied to set-structured inputs and thus require permutation invariance or equivariance. After a first section that introduces necessary and sufficient conditions for permutation invariance/equivariance, the authors present experiments in supervised and semi-supervised learning on point-cloud data as well as cosmology data.    The reviewers agreed that this is a very promising line of work and acknowledged the effort of the authors to improve their paper after the initial discussion phase. However, they also agree that the work appears to be missing more convincing numerical experiments and insights on the choice of neural architectures in the class of permutation-covariant.     In light of these reviews, the AC invites their work to the workshop track.   Also, I would like to emphasize an aspect of this work that I think should be addressed in the subsequent revision.    As the authors rightfully show (thm 2.1), permutation equivariance puts very strong constraints in the class of 1-layer networks. This theorem, while rigorous, reflects a simple algebraic property of matrices that commute with permutation matrices. It is therefore not very surprising, and the resulting architecture relatively obvious. So much so that it already exists in the literature. In fact, it is a particular instance of the graph neural network model of Scarselli et al. '09 (
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: This paper proposed to use the BPA criterion for classifier ensembles.  My major concern with the paper is that it attempts to mix quite a few concepts together, and as a result, some of the simple notions becomes a bit hard to understand. For example:  (1) "Distributed" in this paper basically means classifier ensembles, and has nothing to do with the distributed training or distributed computation mechanism. Granted, one can train these individual classifiers in a distributed fashion but this is not the point of the paper.  (2) The paper uses "Transfer learning" in its narrow sense: it basically means fine-tuning the last layer of a pre-trained classifier.  Aside from the concept mixture of the paper, other comments I have about the paper are:  (1) I am not sure how BPA address class inbalance better than simple re-weighting. Essentially, the BPA criteria is putting equal weights on different classes, regardless of the number of training data points each class has. This is a very easy thing to address in conventional training: adding a class-specific weight term to each data point with the value being the inverse of the number of data points will do.  (2) Algorithm 2 is not presented correctly as it implies that test data is used during training, which is not correct: only training and validation dataset should be used. I find the paper's use of "train/validation" and "test" quite confusing: why "train/validation" is always presented together? How to properly distinguish between them?  (3) If I understand correctly, the paper is proposing to compute the BPA in a batch fashion, i.e. BPA can only be computed when running the model over the full train/validation dataset. This contradicts with the stochastic gradient descent that are usually used in deep net training - how does BPA deal with that? I believe that an experimental report on the computation cost and timing is missing.  In general, I find the paper not presented in its clearest form and a number of key definitions ambiguous.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: This paper motivates the combination of autoregressive models with Variational Auto-Encoders and how to control the amount the amount of information stored in the latent code. The authors provide state-of-the-art results on MNIST, OMNIGLOT and Caltech-101. I find that the insights provided in the paper, e.g. with respect to the effect of having a more powerful decoder on learning the latent code, the bit-back coding, and the lossy decoding are well-written but are not novel. The difference between an auto-regressive prior and the inverse auto-regressive posterior is new and interesting though. The model presented combines the recent technique of PixelRNN/PixelCNN and Variational Auto-Encoders with Inverse Auto-Regressive Flows, which enables the authors to obtain state-of-the-art results on MNIST, OMNIGLOT and Caltech-101. Given the insights provided in the paper, the authors are also able to control the amount of information contained in the latent code to an extent. This paper gather several insight on Variational Auto-Encoders scattered through several publications in a well-written way. From these, the authors are able to obtain state-of-the-art models on small complexity datasets. Larger scale experiments will be necessary.
[EX A]:
en