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: Resumen: Este artículo analiza un conjunto de estudios con el objetivo de conocer que piensan los investigadores sobre la técnica de educación más adecuada.  Evaluación: El trabajo tiene una estructura de un paper y la propuesta se ve interesante. Sin embargo,  - Aunque el trabajo discute las consecuencias de los resultados, (creo que) no discute claramente las potenciales causas. Tal vez, se pueden obtener conclusiones interesantes de por qué existe esta divergencia mencionada.  - No me queda claro de por qué se quiere tener una convergencia absoluta sobre estas técnicas. A una simple vista, me da la impresión que un conjunto técnicas aplicadas a cierto contexto parece ser apropiado.  - Background es demasiado corto para introducir los conceptos necesarios para comprender la propuesta y  Related work es sumamente pobre (hay solamente 1 cita)  Detalles menores:  1) El nombre de la sección 2 “background & …” es sumamente ambiguo, lo cual se vuelve difícil de saber de qué se trata la sección. Sugiero ser más específico (ej. “systematic review for elicitation techniques”?) 2) No se explica “systematic mapping”, solamente se explica su uso. 3) ¿Por qué no se habla de meta-analisis? Meta-analisis pareciera que puede contribuir a esta discusión. 4) Reemplazaría “authors” por “we” cuando amerita (ej. párrafo 2 - página 2). En ocasiones, cuesta saber si hablan de autores de un trabajo en particular o del trabajo que están presentando. 5) Reemplazaría “you” por “one”. “You” es informal. 6) “El **estudio** identificó 42 **estudios**” —> demasiado “estudio” ??? 7) Texto de “Figure 3” está separado de su imagen. 8) Hay una página en blanco en el medio del documento. 9) “In order to move in this direction, this study aims auscultating how researchers represent the appropriateness of the techniques.” ¿Cuál dirección? Es ambiguo está oración.

Answer: es


Question: The paper presents a new environment, called Retro Learning Environment (RLE), for reinforcement learning. The authors focus on Super Nintendo but claim that the interface supports many others (including ALE). Benchmark results are given for standard algorithms in 5 new Super Nintendo games, and some results using a new "rivalry metric".  These environments (or, more generally, standardized evaluation methods like public data sets, competitions, etc.) have a long history of improving the quality of AI and machine learning research. One example in the past few years was the Atari Learning Environment (ALE) which has now turned into a standard benchmark for comparison of algorithms and results. In this sense, the RLE could be a worthy contribution to the field by encouraging new challenging domains for research.  That said, the main focus of this paper is presenting this new framework and showcasing the importance of new challenging domains. The results of experiments themselves are for existing algorithms. There are some new results that show reward shaping and policy shaping (having a bias toward going right in Super Mario) help during learning. And, yes, domain knowledge helps, but this is obvious. The rivalry training is an interesting idea, when training against a different opponent, the learner overfits to that opponent and forgets to play against the in-game AI; but then oddly, it gets evaluated on how well it does against the in-game AI!   Also the part of the paper that describes the scientific results (especially the rivalry training) is less polished, so this is disappointing. In the end, I'm not very excited about this paper.  I was hoping for a more significant scientific contribution to accompany in this new environment. It's not clear if this is necessary for publication, but also it's not clear that ICLR is the right venue for this work due to the contribution being mainly about the new code (for example, mloss.org could be a better 'venue', JMLR has an associated journal track for accompanying papers:

Answer: en


Question: Most dialog systems are based on chit-chat models. This paper explores goal-directed conversations, such as those that arise in booking a restaurant. While the methodology is rather thin, this is not the main focus of the paper. The authors provide creative evaluation protocols, and datasets. The reviewers liked the paper, and so does the AC. The paper will make a nice oral, on a topic that is largely explored but opening a direction that is quite novel.

Answer:
en