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: The authors propose a RNN-method for time-series classification with missing values, that can make use of potential information in missing values. It is based on a simple linear imputation of missing values with learnable parameters. Furthermore, time-intervals between missing values are computed and used to scale the RNN computation downstream. The authors demonstrate that their method outperforms reasonable baselines on (small to mid-sized) real world datasets. The paper is clearly written. IMO the authors propose a reasonable approach for dealing with missing values for their intended application domain, where data is not abundant and requires smallish models. I’m somewhat sceptical if the benefits would carry over to big datasets, where more general, less handcrafted multi-layer RNNs are an option.

Output: en


Input: Consider Input: This paper proposes to use an encoder-decoder framework for keyphrase generation. Experimental results show that the proposed model outperforms other baselines if supervised data is available.  - Strengths: The paper is well-organized and easy to follow (the intuition of the proposed method is clear). It includes enough details to replicate experiments. Although the application of an encoder-decoder (+ copy mechanism) is straightforward, experimental results are reasonable and support the claim (generation of absent keyphrases) presented in this paper.  - Weaknesses: As said above, there is little surprise in the proposed approach. Also, as described in Section 5.3, the trained model does not transfer well to new domain (it goes below unsupervised models). One of the contribution of this paper is to maintain training corpora in good quantity and quality, but it is not (explicitly) stated.  - General Discussion: I like to read the paper and would be pleased to see it accepted. I would like to know how the training corpus (size and variation) affects the performance of the proposed method. Also, it would be beneficial to see the actual values of p_g and p_c (along with examples in Figure 1) in the CopyRNN model. From my experience in running the CopyNet, the copying mechanism sometimes works unexpectedly (not sure why this happens).

Output: en


Input: Consider Input: This is a solidly executed paper that received good reviews. However, the originality is a bit lacking. In addition, the paper would have been stronger with a comparison to the method proposed in Zweig et al. (2013). We recommend this paper for the workshop.


Output: en