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].

Example Input: Ese trabajo muestra el procedimiento propuesto para la Identificación automática de fracturas en imágenes de pozos. La metodología se ve novedosa e interesante. El artículo muestra bien la metodología y tiene una buena redacción. Se agregaron métricas para medir la efectividad del algoritmo.  Este trabajo fue presentado en INFONOR 2014 y la redacción actual es la misma, que si bien es cierto es buena, presenta los mismos pequeños errores que en el artículo anterior. Por lo tanto, debe volver a revisarlo.  Aunque ahora muestra métricas para medir el resultado no se indica qué tan efectivo es este sistema respecto al utilizado antes.  Debe mejorar las figuras 12 y 15, en donde muestras las métricas. La figura 2, izquierda no se distingue. Falta incluir una referencia a la figura 11 en el texto.
Example Output: es

Example Input: This paper discusses Hyperband, an extension of successive halving by Jamieson & Talwalkar (AISTATS 2016). Successive halving is a very nice algorithm that starts evaluating many configurations and repeatedly cuts off the current worst half to explore many configuration for a limited budget.  Having read the paper for the question period and just rereading it again, I am now not entirely sure what its contribution is meant to be: the only improvement of Hyperband vs. successive halving is in the theoretical worst case bounds (not more than 5x worse than random search), but you can (a) trivially obtain that bound by using a fifth of your time for running random configurations to completion and (b) the theoretical analysis to show this is said to be beyond the scope of the paper. That makes me wonder whether the theoretical results are the contribution of this paper, or whether they are the subject of a different paper and the current paper is mostly an empirical study of the method? I hope to get a response by the authors and see this made clearer in an updated version of the paper.  In terms of experiments, the paper fails to show a case where Hyperband actually performs better than the authors' previous algorithm successive halving with its most agressive setting of bracket b=4. Literally, in every figure, bracket b=4 is at least as good (and sometimes substantially better) than Hyperband. That makes me think that in practice I would prefer successive halving with b=4 over Hyperband. (And if I really want Hyperband's guarantee of not being more than 5x worse than random search I can run random search on a fifth of my machines.)  The experiments also compare to some Bayesian optimization methods, but not to the most relevant very closely related Multi-Task Bayesian Optimization methods that have been dominating effective methods for deep learning in that area in the last 3 years: "Multi-Task Bayesian Optimization" by Swersky, Snoek, and Adams (2013) already showed 5x speedups for deep learning by starting with smaller datasets, and there have been several follow-up papers showing even larger speedups.   Given that this prominent work on multitask Bayesian optimization exists, I also think the introduction, which sells Hyperband as a very new approach to hyperparameter optimization is misleading. I would've much preferred a more down-to-earth pitch that says "configuration evaluation" has been becoming a very important feature in hyperparameter optimization, including Bayesian optimization, that sometimes yields very large speedups (this can be quantified by examples from existing papers) and this paper adds some much-needed theoretical understanding to this and demonstrates how important configuration evaluation is even in the simplest case of being used with random search. I think this could be done easily and locally by adding a paragraph to the intro.  As another point regarding novelty, I think the authors should make clear that approaches for adaptively deciding how many resources to use for which evaluation have been studied for (at least) 23 years in the ML community -- see Maron & Moore, NIPS 1993: "Hoeffding Races: Accelerating Model Selection Search for Classification and Function Approximation" (
Example Output: en

Example Input: El artículo presenta el diseño e implementación de un esquema de base de datos espacial.  El artículo muestra la implementación sobre un SGBD relacional con una extensión que soporta modelos espaciales (PostGIS).  Específicamente se presenta el modelo Entidad-Relación y modelo Relacional del Sistema de Gestión de Base de Datos.  En general el artículo explica claramente el trabajo realizado, sin embargo, muestra algunas deficiencias en la redacción y ortografía de algunas palabras. La figura 2 no se visualiza correctamente.  No se comprende ¿por qué se diseña bajo metodología Relacional si lo que se busca es modelar una Base de Datos Espacial que es basada en Objetos y además en este caso PostGIS es object-oriented? Por qué no usar un diseño orientado a objetos?.  Sería recomendable revisar el artículo de Worboys: "Object-Oriented Data Modelling for Spatial Databases"  El artículo no muestra una evaluación y resultados de la investigación realizada.  Hay muchas referencias de sitios WEB de aplicaciones, pero muy pocas referencias a artículos científicos actuales asociados al tema presentado.
Example Output:
es