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:
*** Paper Summary *** This paper simplify matching network by considering only a single prototype per class which is obtained as the average of the embedding of the training class samples. Empirical comparisons with matching networks are reported. *** Review *** The paper reads well and clearly motivate the work. This work of learning metric learning propose to simplify an earlier work (matching network) which is a great objective. However, I am not sure it achieve better results than matching networks. The space of learning embeddings to optimize nearest neighbor classification has been explored before, but the idea of averaging the propotypes is interesting (as a non-linear extension of Mensink et al 2013). I would suggest to improve the discussion of related work and to consolidate the results section to help distinguish between the methods you outperform and the one you do not. The related work section can be extended to include work on learning distance metric to optimize a nearest neighbor classification, see Weinberger et al, 2005 and subsequent work. Extensions to perform the same task with neural networks can be found in Min et al, 09 that purse a goal very close to yours. Regarding approaches pursuing similar goals with a different learning objective, you cite siamese network with pairwise supervision. The learning to rank (for websearch) litterature with triplet supervision or global ranking losses is also highly relevant, ie. one example "the query" defines the class and the embedding space need to be such that positive/relevant document are closer to the query than the others. I would suggest to start with Chris Burges 2010 tutorial. One learning class I am not sure the reported results correctly reflect the state of the art for all tasks. The results are positive on Omniglot but I feel that you should also report the better results of matching networks on miniImageNet with fine tuning and full contextual embeddings. It can be considered misleading not to report it. On Cub 200, I thought that the state-of-the-art was 50.1%, when using features from GoogLeNet (Akata et al 2015), could you comment on this? Overall, paper could greatly be improved, both in the discussion of related work and with a less partial reporting of prior empirical results. *** References *** Large Margin Nearest Neighbors. Weinberger et al, 2005 From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: An Overview, Chris J.C. Burges, June 23, 2010 A Deep Non-linear Feature Mapping for Large-Margin kNN Classification, Min et al, 09

Ex Output:
en

Ex Input:
In this paper a well known soft mixture of experts model is adapted for, and applied to, a specific type of transfer learning problem in reinforcement learning (RL), namely transfer of action policies and value functions between similar tasks. Although not treated as such, the experimental setup is reminiscent of hierarchical RL works, an aspect which the paper does not consider at length, regrettably. One possible implication of this work is that architecture and even learning algorithm choices could simply be stated in terms of the objective of the target task, rather than being hand-engineered by the experimenter. This is clearly an interesting direction of future work which the paper illuminates. Pros: The paper diligently explains how the network architecture fits in with various widely used reinforcement learning setups, which does facilitate continuation of this work. The experiments are good proofs of concept, but do not go beyond that i.m.h.o. Even so, this work provides convincing clues that collections of deep networks, which were trained on not entirely different tasks, generalize better to related tasks when used together rather than through conventional transfer learning (e.g. fine-tuning). Cons: As the paper well recounts in the related work section, libraries of fixed policies have long been formally proposed for reuse while learning similar tasks. Indeed, it is well understood in hierarchical RL literature that it can be beneficial to reuse libraries of fixed (Fernandez & Veloso 2006) or jointly learned policies which may not apply to the entire state space, e.g. options (Pricop et. al). What is not well understood is how to build such libraries, and this paper does not convincingly shed light in that direction, as far as I can tell. The transfer tasks have been picked to effectively illustrate the potential of the proposed architecture, but the paper does not tackle negative transfer or compositional reuse in well known challenging situations outlined in previous work (e.g. Parisotto et. al 2015, Rusu el. al 2015, 2016). Since the main contributions are of an empirical nature, I am curious how the results shown in figures 6 & 7 look plotted against wall-clock time, since relatively low data efficiency is not a limitation for achieving perfect play in Pong (see Mnih. et al, 2015). It would be more illuminating to consider tasks where final performance is plausibly limited by data availability. It would also be interesting if the presented results were achieved with reduced amounts of computation, or reduced representation sizes compared to learning from scratch, especially when one of the useful source tasks is an actual policy trained on the target task. Finally, it is perhaps underwhelming that it takes a quarter of the data required for learning Pong from scratch just to figure out that a perfect Pong policy is already in the expert library. Simply evaluating each expert for 10 episodes and using an average-score-weighted majority vote to mix action choices would probably achieve the same final performance for a smaller fraction of the data.

Ex Output:
en

Ex Input:
This paper proposed an iterative query updating mechanism for cloze-style QA. The approach is novel and interesting and while it is only verified in the paper for two Cloze-style tasks (CBT and WDW), the concept of read/compose/write operations seem to be more general and can be potentially applied to other reasoning tasks beyond Cloze-style QA. Another advantage of the proposed model is to learn when to terminate the iteration by the so-called adaptive computation model, such that it avoids the issue of treating the number of iterations as another hyper-parameter, which is a common practice of iterative models/multi-hop reasoning in previous papers. There are a couple places that this paper can improve. First, I would like to see the results from CNN/Daily Mail as well to have a more comprehensive comparison. Secondly, it will be useful to visualize the entire M^q sequence over time t (not just z or the query gating) to help understand better the query regression and if it is human interpretable.

Ex Output:
en