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]: Paper Summary:  Authors investigate identity re-parametrization in the linear and the non linear case.   Detailed comments:  — Linear Residual Network:  The paper shows that for a linear residual network any critical point is a global optimum. This problem is non convex it is interesting that this simple re-parametrization leads to such a result.    — Non linear Residual Network:  Authors propose a construction that maps the points to their labels via a resnet , using an initial random projection, followed by a residual block that clusters the data based on their label, and a last layer that maps the clusters to the label.   1- In Eq 3.4  seems the dimensions are not matching q_j in R^k and e_j in R^r. please clarify   2- The construction seems fine, but what is special about the resnet here in this construction? One can do a similar construction if we did not have the identity? can you discuss this point? In the linear case it is clear from a spectral point of view how the identity is helping the optimization. Please provide some intuition.    3-   Existence of a network in the residual  class that overfits does it give us any intuition on why residual network outperform other architectures? What does an existence result of such a network tell us about its representation power ?  A simple linear model under the assumption that points can not be too close can overfit the data, and get fast convergence rate (see for instance tsybakov noise condition).  4- What does the construction tell us about the number of layers?   5- clustering the activation independently from the label, is an old way to pretrain the network. One could use those centroids as weights for the next layer (this is also related to Nystrom approximation see for instance
[A]: en


[Q]: This work describes a gated attention-based recurrent neural network method for reading comprehension and question answering. This method employs a self-matching attention technique to counterbalance the limited context knowledge of gated attention-based recurrent neural networks when processing passages. Finally, authors use pointer networks  with signals from the question attention-based vector to predict the beginning and ending of the answer. Experimental results with the SQuAD dataset offer state-of-the-art performance compared with several recent approaches.   The paper is well-written, structured and explained. As far as I know, the mathematics look also good. In my opinion, this is a very interesting work which may be useful for the question answering community.  I was wondering if the authors have plans to release the code of this approach. From that perspective, I miss a bit of information about the technology used for the implementation (theano, CUDA, CuDNN...), which may be useful for readers.  I would appreciate if authors could perform a test of statistical significance of the results. That would highlight even more the quality of your results.  Finally, I know that the space may be a constraint, but an evaluation including some additional dataset would validate more your work.
[A]: en


[Q]: This paper addresses the network embedding problem by introducing a neural network model which uses both the network structure and associated text on the nodes, with an attention model to vary the textual representation based on the text of the neighboring nodes.  - Strengths:  The model leverages both the network and the text to construct the latent representations, and the mutual attention approach seems sensible.  A relatively thorough evaluation is provided, with multiple datasets, baselines, and evaluation tasks.  - Weaknesses:  Like many other papers in the "network embedding" literature, which use neural network techniques inspired by word embeddings to construct latent representations of nodes in a network, the previous line of work on statistical/probabilistic modeling of networks is ignored.  In particular, all "network embedding" papers need to start citing, and comparing to, the work on the latent space model of Peter Hoff et al., and subsequent papers in both statistical and probabilistic machine learning publication venues:  P.D. Hoff, A.E. Raftery, and M.S. Handcock. Latent space approaches to social network analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 97(460):1090–1098, 2002.  This latent space network model, which embeds each node into a low-dimensional latent space, was written as far back as 2002, and so it far pre-dates neural network-based network embeddings.  Given that the aim of this paper is to model differing representations of social network actors' different roles, it should really cite and compare to the mixed membership stochastic blockmodel (MMSB):  Airoldi, E. M., Blei, D. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Xing, E. P. (2008). Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels. Journal of Machine Learning Research.  The MMSB allows each node to randomly select a different "role" when deciding whether to form each edge.  - General Discussion:  The aforementioned statistical models do not leverage text, and they do not use scalable neural network implementations based on negative sampling, but they are based on well-principled generative models instead of heuristic neural network objective functions and algorithms.  There are more recent extensions of these models and inference algorithms which are more scalable, and which do leverage text.  Is the difference in performance between CENE and CANE in Figure 3 statistically insignificant? (A related question: were the experiments repeated more than once with random train/test splits?)  Were the grid searches for hyperparameter values, mentioned in Section 5.3, performed with evaluation on the test set (which would be problematic), or on a validation set, or on the training set?
[A]:
en