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 develops a differentiable interpreter for the Forth programming language. This enables writing a program "sketch" (a program with parts left out), with a hole to be filled in based upon learning from input-output examples. The main technical development is to start with an abstract machine for the Forth language, and then to make all of the operations differentiable. The technique for making operations differentiable is analogous to what is done in models like Neural Turing Machine and Stack RNN. Special syntax is developed for specifying holes, which gives the pattern about what data should be read when filling in the hole, which data should be written, and what the rough structure of the model that fills the hole should be. Motivation for why one should want to do this is that it enables composing program sketches with other differentiable models like standard neural networks, but the experiments focus on sorting and addition tasks with relatively small degrees of freedom for how to fill in the holes.  Experimentally, result show that sorting and addition can be learned given strong sketches.  The aim of this paper is very ambitious: convert a full programming language to be differentiable, and I admire this ambition. The idea is provocative and I think will inspire people in the ICLR community.  The main weakness is that the experiments are somewhat trivial and there are no baselines. I believe that simply enumerating possible values to fill in the holes would work better, and if that is possible, then it's not clear to me what is practically gained from this formulation. (The authors argue that the point is to compose differentiable Forth sketches with neural networks sitting below, but if the holes can be filled by brute force, then could the underlying neural network not be separately trained to maximize the probability assigned to any filling of the hole that produces the correct input-output behavior?)  Related, one thing that is missing, in my opinion, is a more nuanced outlook of where the authors believe this work is going. Based on the small scale of the experiments and from reading other related papers in the area, I sense that it is hard to scale up differentiable forth to large real-world problems. It would be nice to have more discussion about this, and perhaps even an experiment that demonstrates a failure case. Is there a problem that is somewhat more complex than the ones that appear in the paper where the approach does not work? What has been tried to make it work? What are the failure modes? What are the challenges that the authors believe need to be overcome to make this work.  Overall, I think this paper deserves consideration for being provocative. However, I'm hesitant to strongly recommend acceptance because the experiments are weak.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: Authors propose a competitive learning architecture that learn different RNN predictors independently, akin to a committee of experts which are chosen with a hard switch at run-time. This work is applied to the task of predictive different driving behaviors from human drivers, and combines behaviors at test time, often switching behaviors within seconds. Prediction loss is lower than the similar but non-competitive architecture used as a baseline. It is not very clear how to interpret the results, what is the real impact of the model. If behaviors switch very often, can this really be seen as choosing the best driving mode for a given situation? Maybe the motivation needs to be rephrased a little to be more convincing? The competitive approach presented is interesting but not really novel, thus the impact of this paper for a conference such as ICLR may be limited.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: El trabajo presenta una investigación en desarrollo relacionada con el costo que tiene la contratación de servicios de TI para las organizaciones, específicamente se propone un caso de estudio en la Industria Minera de Chile. El trabajo está enfocado en un caso de negocios, sin embargo aunque el documento hace énfasis en la recopilación teórica de los conceptos asociados a los aspectos financieros y de costos de los servicios contratados de TI, el caso de estudio no está claro y el artículo parece incompleto. La estructura del documento genera confusión debido a que en la introducción se establecen objetivos asociados al caso de estudio pero al finalizar el documento los resultados no se presentan porque la investigación está en desarrollo. Se sugiere acotar el artículo y estructurarlo mejor, de tal forma que se puedan presentar los resultados preliminares obtenidos hasta el punto en el que se encuentra el proyecto de investigación, es decir una revisión conceptual de aspectos financieros para Servicios de TI, sin generar expectativas frente al desarrollo de estadísticas o análisis de costos que todavía no se han calculado. Para tener un fuerte énfasis en la revisión de conceptos, el artículo tiene pocas referencias. Se recomienda mejorar los conceptos y la base conceptual a partir de una revisión de literatura amplia que permita fundamentar la investigación y presentar resultados parciales de la revisión de conceptos. Existen deficiencias acentuadas en la redacción del documento. Desde el resumen faltan letras y los signos de puntuación no son claros. En párrafos como el primero de la segunda columna de la página 3 es difícil de entender la idea y eso hace difícil la lectura del documento. En apartados de definición de conceptos tales como Costos de TI (pag 3) es necesario referenciar las afirmaciones conceptuales (base fundamental del artículo). Se recomienda tener en cuenta los términos en inglés unificar la forma de citar términos o conceptos. Algunos no pueden ser traducidos, pero es recomendable manejar conceptos en un solo idioma. Además, es recomendable definir el objetivo del artículo y enfocarlo a un solo fin. Es decir, si se quiere presentar la metodología paras el diseño de la investigación se debe hacer énfasis en ella. O bien, si lo que se quiere es hacer énfasis en los cálculos establecidos o diseñados por medio de la herramienta enfocar entonces el artículo en este objetivo. Como recomendación general se sugiere enfocar el artículo en una revisión conceptual de Costos financieros de la contratación de Servicios de TI en las empresas de Chile, teniendo en cuenta que la investigación está en una etapa inicial.
[EX A]:
es