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]: 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.
[A]: en


[Q]: I reviewed the manuscript as of December 6th.  The authors perform a systematic investigation of various retraining methods for making a classification network robust to adversarial examples. The authors achieve lower error rates using their RAD and IAEC methods perform better then previously introduced distillation methods for retraining networks to be robust to adversarial examples. This method suggests a promising direction for building a defense for adversarial examples.  Major Comments: I find the paper to not be lacking in exposition and clarity. The paper has a laundry list of related results (page 2) but no clear message. I *think* one larger point is the superior performance of their retraining techniques but it is not clear how well these techniques perform compared to other retraining techniques, nor are the details of the retraining techniques clear. The paper requires more discussion and a clear exposition about the methods the authors introduced (i.e. RAD, IAEC). What follow are some more detailed comments along this theme of improving the exposition and clarity:  - The authors should provide more details about how they constructed the auto-encoder in the IAEC method (diagram?). The same needs to be said for the RAD method. The authors point to a previous workshop submission (
[A]: en


[Q]: The paper describes a network architecture for inverse problems in computer vision. Example inverse problems considered are image inpainting, computing intrinsic image decomposition and foreground/background separation. The architecture is composed of (i) a generator that produces target (latent) output (such as foreground / background regions),  (ii) renderer that composes that latent output back to the image that can be compared with the input to measure reconstruction error,  and (iii) adversarial prior that ensures the target output (latent) image respects a certain image statistics.  Strong  points. - The proposed architecture with memory database is interesting and appears to be novel.   Weak points: - Experimental results are only proof-of-concept in toy set-ups and do not clearly demonstrate benefits of the proposed architecture. - It is unclear whether the memory retrieval engine that retrieves images based on L2 distance on pixel values is going generalize to other more realistic scenarios.  - Clarity. The clarity of explanation can be also improved (see below).   Detailed evaluation.  Originality: - The novelty of this work lies in the (iii) adversarial prior that places an adversarial loss between the generated latent output and a single image retrieved from a large unlabelled database of target output examples (called memory). The adversarial prior has a convolutional form matching local image statistics, rather than the entire image.  The particular form of network architecture with the memory-based fully convolutional adversarial loss appears to be novel and potentially interesting.  - Motivation for the Architecture. The weakest point of the proposed architecture is the "Memory retrieval engine" R (section 2.4), where images are retrieved from the memory by measuring L2 distance on pixel intensities. While this maybe ok for simple problems considered in this work, it is unclear how this can generalize to other more complicated datasets and problems.   This should be better discussed, better justified and ideally results in some more realistic set-up shown (see below).   Quality: - Experiments. Results are shown for inpainting of MNIST digits, intrinsic image decomposition on the MIT intrinsic image database, and figure/ground layer extraction on the synthesized dataset of 3D chairs rendered onto background from real photographs.    The experimental validation of the model is not very strong and proof-of-concept only. All the experiments are performed in simplified toy set-ups. The MNIST digit inpainting is far from current state-of-the-art on image inpainting in real photographs (see e.g. Pathak et al., 2016). The foreground background separation is done on  only synthetically generated test data. Even for intrinsic image demposition problem there is now relatively large-scale dataset of (Bell et al., 2014), see the citation below.    While this is probably ok for the ICLR paper, it diminishes the significance of the work. Is this model going to be useful in a real settings? One possibility to address this would be to focus on one of the problems and show results on a challenging state-of-the-art data. It would be great to see the benefits of the memory database.   S. Bell, K. Bala, and N. Snavely. Intrinsic images in the wild. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 33(4):159, 2014.  Clarity: - The clarity of the writing can be improved. I found some of the terminology of the paper, specially the “imagination” and “memory” confusing. From figure 2, it is not clear how the “memories” for the given input image are obtained, which also took me some time to understand.  - To help understand the proposed architecture, it would be useful to draw an illustration of what is happening in the "feature space”, similar in spirit e.g. to figure 2 in
[A]:
en