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 Input:
This paper proposes a neural architecture for answering non-factoid questions. The author's model improves over previous neural models for answer sentence selection. Experiments are conducted on a Japanese love advice corpus; the coolest part of the paper for me was that the model was actually rolled out to the public and its answers were rated twice as good as actual human contributors!   It was hard for me to determine the novelty of the contribution. The authors mention that their model "fills the gap between answer selection and generation"; however, no generation is actually performed by the model! Instead, the model appears to be very similar to the QA-LSTM of Tan et al., 2015 except that there are additional terms in the objective to handle conclusion and supplementary sentences. The structure of the answer is fixed to a predefined template (e.g., conclusion --> supplementary), so the model is not really learning how to order the sentences. The other contribution is the "word embedding with semantics" portion described in sec 4.1, which is essentially just the paragraph vector model except with "titles" and "categories" instead of paragraphs.   While the result of the paper is a model that has actually demonstrated real-life usefulness, the technical contributions do not strike me as novel enough for publication at ICLR.  Other comments: - One major issue with the reliance of the model on the template is that you can't evaluate on commonly-used non-factoid QA datasets such as InsuranceQA. If the template were not fixed beforehand (but possibly learned by the model), you could conceivably evaluate on different datasets.  - The examples in Table 4 don't show a clear edge in answer quality to your model; QA-LSTM seems to choose good answers as well. - Doesn't the construction model have an advantage over the vanilla QA-LSTM in that it knows which sentences are conclusions and which are supplementary? Or does QA-LSTM also get this distinction?

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
The paper explores a VAE architecture and training procedure that allows to generate new samples of a concept based on several exemplars that are shown to the model. The proposed architecture processes the set of exemplars with a recurrent neural network and aggregation procedure similar to the one used in Matching Networks. The resulting "summary" is used to condition a generative model (a VAE) that produces new samples of the same kind as the exemplars shown. The proposed aggregation and conditioning procedure are better suited to sets of exemplars that come from several classes than simple averaging. Perhaps surprisingly the model generalizes from generation conditioned on samples from 2 classes to generation conditioned on samples from 4 classes. The experiments are conducted on the OMNIGLOT dataset and are quite convincing. An explicit comparison to previous works is lacking, but this is explained in the appendices, and a comparison to architectures similar to previous work is presented.

Ex Output:
en


Ex Input:
Resulta interesante el desarrollo de un web framework para la gestión de cámaras IP. Un tema que es, para mí, novedoso y que puede ser extendido en su utilidad.  Hay problemas de redacción y presentación (por ejemplo, "cuenta con una cámara IP las cuales pueden ..."). Además, queda poco claro si se han desarrollado aplicaciones sobre el framework y si estas tienen un funcionamiento adecuado.

Ex Output:

es