instruction:
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].
question:
Contributions The paper presents an adaptation of batch normalization for RNNs in the case of LSTMs, along the horizontal depth. Contrary to previous work from (Laurent 2015; Amodei 2016), the work demonstrates that batch-normalizing the hidden states of RNNs can improve optimization, and argues with quantitative experiments that the key factor to making this work is proper initialization of parameters, in particular gamma. Experiments show some gain in performance over vanilla LSTMs on Sequential MNIST, PTB, Text8 and CNN Question-Answering.  Novelty+Significance Batch normalization has been key for training deeper and deeper networks (e.g. ResNets) and it seems natural that we would want to extend it to RNNs.  The paper shows that it is possible to do so with proper initialization of parameters, contrary to previous work from (Laurent 2015; Amodei 2016). Novelty comes from where to batch norm (i.e. not in the cell update) and in the per-time step statistics.   Adding batch normalization to LSTMs incurs additional computational cost and bookkeeping; for training speed comparisons (e.g. Figure 2) the paper only compares LSTM and BN-LSTM by iteration count; given the additional complexity of the BN-LSTM I would have also liked to see a wall-clock comparison.  As RNNs are used across many tasks, this work is of interest to many.  However, the results gains are generally minor and require several tricks to work in practice. Also, this work doesn’t address a question about batch normalization that it seems natural that it helps with faster training, but why would it also improve generalization?   Clarity The paper is overall very clear and well-motivated. The model is well described and easy to understand, and the plots illustrate the points clearly.  Summary Interesting though relatively incremental adaptation, but shows batch normalization to work for RNNs where previous works have not succeeded. Comprehensive set of experiments though it is questionable if the empirical gains are significant enough to justify the increased model complexity as well as computational overhead.  Pros - Shows batch normalization to work for RNNs where previous works have not succeeded - Good empirical analysis of hyper-parameter choices and of the activations - Experiments on multiple tasks - Clarity  Cons - Relatively incremental - Several ‘hacks’ for the method (per-time step statistics, adding noise for exploding variance, sequence-wise normalization) - No mention of computational overhead - Only character or pixel-level tasks, what about word-level?
answer:
en


question:
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.
answer:
en


question:
El trabajo presenta un metodo de detección de fracturas en imágenes de pozos.  El trabajo en general, es muy poco convincente por varias razones:  1.- Invierte MUCHO espacio en describir los fundamentos pero no comparar y/o discutir con el estado del arte. Existen MUCHOS métodos adaptivos de clasificación de imágenes, y el problema que se presenta no tiene nada diferente, salvo una aplicación diferente.  2.- No está clara la hipótesis, por lo que no se puede medir la contribución del trabajo.  3.- El metodo de detección que se describe solo define formulas matemáticas para la caracterización geométrica de las fracturas. Esto es un procedimiento bastante poco robusto y más aún, los resultados evaluando el metodo tampoco son convincentes en  métricas estándares utilizadas (accuracy, error,  ROC curve, etc).  4.- La metodología experimental es muy débil, tampoco compara el metodo con el estado del arte, ni usa métricas estándares para analizar la precision/exactitud del metodo.
answer:

es