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].

Q: In this paper, the authors propose a Bayesian variant of the skipgram model to learn word embeddings. There are two important variant compared to the original model. First, aligned sentences from multiple languages are used to train the model. Therefore, the context words of a given target word can be either from the same sentence, or from an aligned sentence in a different language. This allows to learn multilingual embedding. The second difference is that each word is represented by multiple vectors, one for each of its different senses. A latent variable z models which sense should be used, given the context.  Overall, I believe that the idea of using a probabilistic model to capture polysemy is an interesting idea. The model introduced in this paper is a nice generalization of the skipgram model in that direction. However, I found the paper a bit hard to follow. The formulation might probably be simplified (e.g. why not consider a target word w and a context c, where c is either in the source or target language. Since all factors are independent, this should not change the model much, and would make the presentation easier). The performance of all models reported in Table 2 & 3 seem pretty low.  Overall, I like the main idea of the paper, which is to represent word senses by latent variables in a probabilistic model. I feel that the method could be presented more clearly, which would make the paper much stronger. I also have some concerns regarding the experimental results.  Pros: Interesting extension of skipgram to capture polysemy. Cons: The paper is not clearly written. Results reported in the paper seems pretty low.

A: en
****
Q: Pros :  - New representation with nice properties that are derived and compared with a mathematical baseline and background - A simple algorithm to obtain the representation  Cons : - The paper sounds like an applied maths paper, but further analysis on the nature of the representation could be done, for instance, by understanding the nature of each layer, or at least, the first.

A: en
****
Q: The paper describes an idea to learn phrasal representation and facilitate them in RNN-based language models and neural machine translation  -Strengths:  The  idea to incorporate phrasal information into the task is interesting.  - Weaknesses:  - The description is hard to follow. Proof-reading by an English native speaker would benefit the understanding - The evaluation of the approach has several weaknesses  - General discussion  - In Equation 1 and 2 the authors mention a phrase representation give a fix-length word embedding vector. But this is not used in the model. The representation is generated based on an RNN. What the propose of this description? - Why are you using GRU for the Pyramid and LSTM for the sequential part? Is the combination of two architectures a reason for your improvements? - What is the simplified version of the GRU? Why is it performing better? How is it performing on the large data set? - What is the difference between RNNsearch (groundhog) and RNNsearch(baseline) in Table 4? -  What is the motivation for only using the ending phrases and e.g. not using the starting phrases? - Did you use only the pyramid encoder? How is it performing? That would be a more fair comparison since it normally helps to make the model more complex. - Why did you run RNNsearch several times, but PBNMT only once?  - Section 5.2: What is the intent of this section

A:
en
****