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:
The paper proposed to analyze several recently developed machine readers and found that some machine readers could potentially take advantages of the entity marker (given that the same marker points out to the same entity). I usually like analysis papers, but I found the argument proposed in this paper not very clear. I like the experiments on the Stanford reader, which shows that the entity marker in fact helps the Stanford reader on WDW. I found that results rather interesting. However, I found the organization and the overall message of this paper quite confusing. First of all, it feels that the authors want to explain the above behavior with some definition of the "structures". However, I am not sure that how successful the attempt is. For me, it is still not clear what the structures are. This makes reading section 4 a bit frustrating. I am also not sure what is the take home message of this paper. Does it mean that the entity marking should be used in the MR models? Should we design models that can also model the entity reference at the same time? What are the roles of the linguistic features here? Should we use linguistic structure to overcome the reference issue? Overall, I feel that the analysis is interesting, but I feel that the paper can benefit from having a more focused argument.
answer:
en

question:
I agree with the other reviewer that the application areas are limited in the paper. I agree with the overall sentiment of the paper to evaluate effectiveness of some of the more recent techniques in this area, in conjunction with the recurrent networks. The paper advertises itself as a method (or a list of methods) of improving the recurrent baselines when performing experiments, however fails (or not shown) to generalize to other tasks. Effectiveness of these methods need to be shown across a wide variety of tasks if we intend to replace traditional baselines in general, rather than a specific subset of applications. I like the desire to evaluate many of the recent techniques and having many replications of experiments towards this end (which is a strong point of the paper). However, whether there are synergies of some of the enhancements with sentiment analysis or not, we cannot see from these results. It would be interesting to see whether some of these results generalize across a wide variety of tasks.
answer:
en

question:
Resumen: Este trabajo describe una experiencia del uso de un lenguaje "grafico" en una escuela. Evaluacion: El topico del trabajo es interesante, sin embargo, a) la descripcion del trabajo es debil y b) los resultados parecen no repetibles. Por ejemplo para a), la descripcion no muestra ninguna imagen de como funciona el lenguaje (recordar que es un lenguaje grafico). Un ejemplo de scratch es fuertemente recomendable para introducir el lenguaje. Por ejemplo para b), no hay una clara descripcion de la configuracion de los experimentos, los resultados que se quieren medir y tabla para apreciar facilmente los resultados obtenidos. Detalles menores: a) El comienzo del abstract es super complejo de entender b) Un excesivo uso de "esto es" c) algunas faltas de ortografia como "preunta" d) Oraciones muy largas.
answer:
es