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].

This paper proposes joint CTC-attention end-to-end ASR, which utilizes both advantages in training and decoding. - Strengths: It provides a solid work of hybrid CTC-attention framework in training and decoding, and the experimental results showed that the proposed method could provide an improvement in Japanese CSJ and Mandarin Chinese telephone speech recognition task. - Weaknesses: The only problem is that the paper sounds too similar with Ref [Kim et al., 2016] which will be officially published in the coming IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), March 2017. Kim at al., 2016, proposes joint CTC-attention using MTL for English ASR task, and this paper proposes joint CTC-attention using MTL+joint decoding for Japanese and Chinese ASR tasks. I guess the difference is on joint decoding and the application to Japanese/Chinese ASR tasks. However, the difference is not clearly explained by the authors. So it took sometimes to figure out the original contribution of this paper. (a) Title: The title in Ref [Kim et al., 2016] is "Joint CTC- Attention Based End-to-End Speech Recognition Using Multi-task Learning", while the title of this paper is "Joint CTC-attention End-to-end Speech Recognition". I think the title is too general. If this is the first paper about "Joint CTC-attention" than it is absolutely OK. Or if Ref [Kim et al., 2016] will remain only as pre-published arXiv, then it might be still acceptable. But since [Kim et al., 2016] will officially publish in IEEE conference, much earlier than this paper, then a more specified title that represents the main contribution of this paper in contrast with the existing publication would be necessary. (b) Introduction: The author claims that "We propose to take advantage of the constrained CTC alignment in a hybrid CTC-attention based system. During training, we attach a CTC objective to an attention-based encoder network as a regularization, as proposed by [Kim at al., 2016]." Taking advantage of the constrained CTC alignment in a hybrid CTC-attention is the original idea from [Kim at al., 2016]. So the whole argument about attention-based end-to-end ASR versus CTC-based ASR, and the necessary of CTC-attention combination is not novel. Furthermore, the statement "we propose as proposed by [Kim et al, 2016]" is somewhat weird. We can build upon someone proposal with additional extensions, but not just re-propose other people's proposal. Therefore, what would be important here is to state clearly the original contribution of this paper and the position of the proposed method with respect to existing literature (c) Experimental Results: Kim at al., 2016 applied the proposed method on English task, while this paper applied the proposed method on Japanese and Mandarin Chinese tasks. I think it would be interesting if the paper could explain in more details about the specific problems in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese tasks that may not appear in English task. For example, how the system could address multiple possible outputs. i.e., Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana given Japanese speech input without using any linguistic resources. This could be one of the important contributions from this paper. - General Discussion: I think it would be better to cite Ref [Kim et al., 2016] from the official IEEE ICASSP conference, rather than pre-published arXiv: Kim, S., Hori, T., Watanabe, S., "Joint CTC- Attention Based End-to-End Speech Recognition Using Multi-task Learning", IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), March 2017, pp. to appear.
en

El articulo muestra el diseno de una investigacion sobre el impacto de las competencias TI en la percepcion del exito profesional, pero no es lo que senala en su titulo. Se observa una seccion correspondiente a una extensa revision de trabajos previos y definiciones, en comparacion con la seccion que muestra el diseno de la investigacion, la cual es bastante breve. En mi opinion era conveniente haber presentado el articulo como una revision sistematica sobre la literatura existente del tema con el objeto de encontrar brechas y/o similitudes en el diseno de la investigacion, o haber puesto mas enfasis en esto ultimo. Si bien el tema puede ser novedoso, el articulo no lo demuestra, ya que solo es la presentacion de un diseno de investigacion. En la seccion de conclusiones, no se muestran conclusiones concretas a partir del trabajo realizado, solo se plantean posibles escenarios de un trabajo futuro. Con respecto a la forma, el articulo se encuentra bien estructurado, pero se observan detalles a corregir: - abuso de "TI" - en algunos parrafos se senalan trabajos previos sin ser referenciados - la figura del modelo es muy basica (no es un aporte) - parrafos no alineados (justificados) - la figura 1 debio ser una tabla - error en la correlacion de figuras
es

Summary: The paper proposes a neural model for predicting Python syntax trees from text descriptions. Guided by the actual Python grammar, the model generates tree nodes sequentially in a depth-first fashion. Key ideas include injecting the information from the parent node as part of the LSTM input, a pointer network for copying the terminals, and unary closure which collapses chains of unary productions to reduce the tree size. The model is evaluated on three datasets from different domains and outperforms almost all previous work. Strengths: The paper is overall very well-written. The explanation of system is clear, and the analysis is thorough. The system itself is a natural extension of various ideas. The most similar work include tree-based generation with parent feeding (Dong and Lapata, 2016) and various RNN-based semantic parsing with copy mechanism (Jia and Liang, 2016; Ling et al., 2016). [The guidance of parsing based on grammar is also explored in Chen Liang et al., 2016 ([Link] where a code-assist system is used to ensure that the code is valid.] Nevertheless, the model is this paper stands out as it is able to generate much longer and more complex programs than most previous work mentioned. Weaknesses: The evaluation is done on code accuracy (exact match) and BLEU score. These metrics (especially BLEU) might not be the best metrics for evaluating the correctness of programs. For instance, the first example in Table 5 shows that while the first two lines in boxes A and B are different, they have the same semantics. Another example is that variable names can be different. Evaluation based on what the code does (e.g., using test cases or static code analysis) would be more convincing. Another point about evaluation: other systems (e.g., NMT baseline) may generate code with syntactic error. Would it be possible to include the result on the highest-scoring well-formed code (e.g., using beam search) that these baseline systems generate? This would give a fairer comparison since these system can choose to prune malformed code. General Discussion: * Lines 120-121: some approaches that use domain-specific languages were also guided by a grammar. One example is Berant and Liang, 2014, which uses a pretty limited grammar for logical forms (Table 1). In addition to comparing to that line of work, emphasizing that the grammar in this paper is much larger than most previous work would make this work stronger. * Lines 389-397: For the parent feeding mechanism, is the child index being used? In other words, is p_t different when generating a first child versus a second child? In Seq2Tree (Dong and Lapata, 2016) the two non-terminals would have different hidden states. * Line 373: Are the possible tokens embedded? Is it assumed that the set of possible tokens is known beforehand? * The examples in the appendix are nice. --- I have read the author response.
en