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].

[EX Q]: This paper proposes a novel approach ParMAC, a parallel and distributed framework of MAC (the Method of Auxiliary Coordinates) to learn nested and non-convex models which is based on the composition of multiple processing layers (i.e., deep nets). The basic idea of MAC to optimise the nested objective function, which is traditionally learned using methods based on the chain-rule gradients but inconvenient and is hard to parallelise, is to break nested functional relationships judiciously by introducing new variables ( the auxiliary coordinates) as equality constraints, and then to optimise a penalised function using alternating optimisation over the original parameters (W step) and over the coordinates (Z step).  The minimisation (W step) updates the parameters by splitting the nested model into independent submodels and training them using existing algorithms, and the coordination (Z step) ensures that corresponding inputs and outputs of submodels eventually match.  In this paper, the basic assumptions of ParMAC are that with large datasets in distributed systems, it is imperative to minimise data movement over the network because of the communication time generally far exceeds the computation time in modern architectures. Thus, the authors propose the ParMAC to translate the parallelism inherent in MAC into a distributed system by data parallelism and model parallelism. They also analyse its parallel speedup and convergence, and demonstrated it with MPI-based implementation to optimise binary autoencoders. The proposed ParMAC is tested on 3 colour image retrieval datasets.   The organization of the paper is well written, and the presentation is clear. My questions are included in the following: - The MAC framework solves the original problem approximately. If people use the sigmoid function to smooth the stepwise function, the naive optimization methods can be easier applied. What is the difference between these two? Or why do we want to use a new approach to solve it? - The authors do not compare their ParMAC model with other distributed approaches for the same nested function optimization problem.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: Thank you for an interesting read.   To my knowledge, very few papers have looked at transfer learning with **no** target domain data (the authors called this task as "extrapolation"). This paper clearly shows that the knowledge of the underlying system dynamics is crucial in this case. The experiments clearly showed the promising potential of the proposed EQL model. I think EQL is very interesting also from the perspective of interpretability, which is crucial for data analysis in scientific domains.  Quesions and comments:  1. Multiplication units. By the universal approximation theorem, multiplication can also be represented by a neural network in the usual sense. I agree with the authors' explanation of interpolation and extrapolation, but I still don't quite understand why multiplication unit is crucial here. I guess is it because this representation generalises better when training data is not that representative for the future?  2. Fitting an EQL vs. fitting a polynomial. It seems to me that the number of layers in EQL has some connections to the degree of the polynomial. Assume we know the underlying dynamics we want to learn can be represented by a polynomial. Then what's the difference between fitting a polynomial (with model selection techniques to determine the degree) and fitting an EQL (with model selection techniques to determine the number of layers)? Also your experiments showed that the selection of basis functions (specific to the underlying dynamics you want to learn) is crucial for the performance. This means you need to have some prior knowledge on the form of the equation anyway!  3. Ben-David et al. 2010 has presented some error bounds for the hypothesis that is trained on source data but tested on the target data. I wonder if your EQL model can achieve better error bounds?  4. Can you comment on the comparison of your method to those who modelled the extrapolation data with **uncertainty**?
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: The paper presents a general approach to modeling for natural language understanding problems with two distinct textual inputs (such as a question and a source text) that can be aligned in some way. In the approach, soft attention is first used to derive alignments between the tokens of the two texts, then a comparison function uses the resulting alignments (represented as pairs of attention queries and attention results) to derive a representations that are aggregated by CNN into a single vector from which an output can be computed. The paper both presents this as an overall modeling strategy that can be made to work quite well, and offers a detailed empirical analysis of the comparison component of the model.  This work is timely. Language understanding problems of this kind are a major open issue in NLP, and are just at the threshold of being addressable with representation learning methods. The work presents a general approach which is straightforward and reasonable, and shows that it can yield good results. The work borders on incremental (relative to their earlier work or that of Parikh et al.), but it contributes in enough substantial ways that I'd strongly recommend acceptance.  Detail:  - The model, at least as implemented for the problems with longer sequences (everything but SNLI), is not sensitive to word order. It is empirically competitive, but this insensitivity places a strong upper bound on its performance. The paper does make this clear, but it seems salient enough to warrant a brief mention in the introduction or discussion sections. - If I understand correctly, your attention strategy is based more closely on the general/bilinear strategy of Luong et al. '15 than it is on the earlier Bahdanau work. You should probably cite the former (or some other more directly relevant reference for that strategy). - Since the NTN risks overfitting because of its large number of parameters, did you try using a version with input dimension l and a smaller output dimension m (so an l*l*m tensor)? - You should probably note that SubMultNN looks a lot like the strategy for *sentence*-level matching in the Lili Mou paper you cite. - Is there a reason you use the same parameters for preprocessing the question and answer in (1)? These could require different things to be weighted highly.
[EX A]:
en