Teacher: 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].
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
Este articulo no es un articulo de investigacion, ya que solo muestra como programar un robot mediante la herramienta de logica difusa. Este tema ya ha sido propuesto como solucion en navegacion de robots.
Solution: es
Reason: This review is written in spanish. Hence, the label is 'es'.

Now, solve this instance: - Strengths: This paper presents an extension to A* CCG parsing to include dependency information. Achieving this while maintaining speed and tractability is a very impressive feature of this approach. The ability to precompute attachments is a nice trick. I also really appreciated the evaluation of the effect of the head-rules on normal-form violations and would love to see more details on the remaining cases. - Weaknesses: I'd like to see more analysis of certain dependency structures. I'm particularly interested in how coordination and relative clauses are handled when the predicate argument structure of CCG is at odds with the dependency structures normally used by other dependency parsers. - General Discussion: I'm very happy with this work and feel it's a very nice contribution to the literature. The only thing missing for me is a more in-depth analysis of the types of constructions which saw the most improvement (English and Japanese) and a discussion (mentioned above) reconciling Pred-Arg dependencies with those of other parsers.
Student:
en