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].

Input: Consider Input: This is an interesting paper about quantized networks that work on temporal difference inputs.  The basic idea is that when a network has only to process differences then this is computational much more efficient specifically with natural video data since large parts of an image would be fairly constant so that the network only has to process the informative sections of the image (video stream). This is of course how the human visual system works, and it is hence of interest even beyond the core machine learning community.   As an aside, there is a strong community interested in event-based vision such as the group of Tobi Delbrück, and it might be interesting to connect to this community. This might even provide a reference for your comments on page 1.  I guess the biggest novel contribution is that a rounding network can be replaced by a sigma-delta network, but that the order of discretization and summation doe make some difference in the actual processing load. I think I followed the steps and  Most of my questions have already been answers in the pre-review period. My only question remaining is on page 3, “It should be noted that when we refer to “temporal differences”, we refer not to the change in the signal over time, but in the change between two inputs presented sequentially. The output of our network only depends on the value and order of inputs, not on the temporal spacing between them.”  This does not make sense to me. As I understand you just take the difference between two frames regardless if you call this temporal or not it is a change in one frame. So this statement rather confuses me and maybe should be dropped unless I do miss something here, in which case some more explanation would be necessary.  Figure 1 should be made bigger.  An improvement of the paper that I could think about is a better discussion of the relevance of the findings. Yes, you do show that your sigma-delta network save some operation compared to threshold, but is this difference essential for a specific task, or does your solution has relevance for neuroscience?

Output: en


Input: Consider Input: The paper describes a method to evaluate generative models such as VAE, GAN and GMMN. This is very much needed in our community where we still eyeball generated images to judge the quality of a model. However, the technical increment over the NIPS 16 paper: “Measuring the reliability of MCMC inference with bidirectional Monte Carlo” is very small, or nonexistent (but please correct me if I am wrong!).  (Grosse et al). The relative contribution of this paper is the application of this method to generative models.  In section 2.3 the authors seem to make a mistake. They write E[p’(x)] <= p(x) but I think they mean: E[log p’(x)] <= log E[p’(x)] = log p(x). Also,  for what value of x? If p(x) is normalized it can’t be true for all values of x. Anyways, I think there are typos here and there and the equations could be more precise. On page 5 top of the page it is said that the AIS procedure can be initialized with q(z|x) instead of p(z). However, it is unclear what value of x is then picked? Is it perhaps Ep(x)[q(z|x)] ? I am confused with the use of the term overfitting (p8 bottom). Does a model A overfit relative to a another model B if the test accuracy of A is higher than that of B even though the gap between train and test accuracy is also higher for B than for A. I think not. Perhaps the last sentence on page 8 should say that VAE-50 underfits less than GMMN-50? The experimental results are interesting in that it exposes the fact that GANs and GMMNs seem to have much lover test accuracy than VAE despite the fact that their samples look great.

Output: en


Input: Consider Input: El trabajo expone de manera clara y con buenos argumentos un análisis de la colaboración entre distintos investigadores e instituciones. Es interesante el aporte realizado, primero como identificación de las oportunidades de mejora en el trabajo conjunto, y segundo, como análisis de la publicación local.  Sería interesante aplicar la misma metodología sobre otros congresos del área, ya sea Chilenos o latino-americanos y ver los resultados obtenidos.


Output: es