TASK DEFINITION: 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].
PROBLEM: - El artículo describe varios enfoques para elaborar requisitos, y aplica uno de ellos (GAIA) a la construcción de sistemas multi-agentes (MAS).  - La Introducción es larguísima y cubre muchos temas; debería ser dividida en varias secciones, y dejar en Introducción sólo el contexto general y descripción del resto del artículo. - No hay un ejemplo para ilustrar la técnica, que es descrita en 1,5 páginas, siendo lo esencial de la contribución. - No hay validación de tipo alguno.

SOLUTION: es

PROBLEM: - Strengths:  This is the first neural network-based approach to argumentation mining. The proposed method used a Pointer Network (PN) model with multi-task learning and outperformed previous methods in the experiments on two datasets.  - Weaknesses:  This is basically an application of PN to argumentation mining. Although the combination of PN and multi-task learning for this task is novel, its novelty is not enough for ACL long publication. The lack of qualitative analysis and error analysis is also a major concern.  - General Discussion:  Besides the weaknesses mentioned above, the use of PN is not well-motivated. Although three characteristics of PN were described in l.138-143, these are not a strong motivation against the use of bi-directional LSTMs and the attention mechanism. The authors should describe what problems are solved by PN and discuss in the experiments how much these problems are solved.  Figures 2 and 3 are difficult to understand. What are the self link to D1 and the links from D2 to E1 and D3/D4 to E2? These are just the outputs from the decoder and not links. The decoder LSTM does not have an input from e_j in these figures, but it does in Equation (3). Also, in Figure 3, the abbreviation "FC" is not defined.  Equation (8) is strange. To calculate the probability of each component type, the probability of E_i is calculated.  In the experiments, I did not understand why only "PN", which is not a joint model, was performed for the microtext corpus.  It is not clear whether the BLSTM model is trained with the joint-task objective.  There are some studies on discourse parsing using the attention mechanism. The authors should describe the differences from these studies.  Minor issues:  l.128: should related -> should be related  l.215: (2015) is floating  l.706: it able -> it is able  I raised my recommendation score after reading the convincing author responses. I strongly recommend that the authors should discuss improved examples by PN as well as the details of feature ablation.

SOLUTION: en

PROBLEM: This paper proposes a new kind of generative model based on an annealing process, where the transition probabilities are learned directly to maximize a variational lower bound on the log-likelihood. Overall, the idea is clever and appealing, but I think the paper needs more quantitative validation and better discussion of the relationship with prior work.  In terms of prior work, AIS and RAISE are both closely related algorithms, and share much of the mathematical structure with the proposed method. For this reason, it’s not sufficient to mention them in passing in the related work section; those methods and their relationship to variational walkback need to be discussed in detail. If I understand correctly, the proposed method is essentially an extension of RAISE where the transition probabilities are learned rather than fixed based on an existing MRF. I think this is an interesting and worthwhile extension, but the relationship to existing work needs to be clarified.  The analysis of Appendix D seems incorrect. It derives a formula for the ratios of prior and posterior probabilities, but this formula only holds under the assumption of constant temperature (in which case the ratio is very large). When the temperature is varied, the analysis of Neal (2001) applies, and the answer is different.   One of the main selling points of the method is that it optimizes a variational lower bound on the log-likelihood; even more accurate estimates can be obtained using importance sampling. It ought to be easy to report log-likelihood estimates for this method, so I wonder why such estimates aren’t reported. There are lots of prior results to compare against on MNIST. (In addition, a natural baseline would be RAISE, so that one can check if the ability to learn the transitions actually helps.)  I think the basic idea here is a sound one, so I would be willing to raise my score if the above issues are addressed in a revised version.   Minor comments:  “A recognized obstacle to training undirected graphical models… is that ML training requires sampling from MCMC chains in the inner loop of training, for each example.” This seems like an unfair characterization, since the standard algorithm is PCD, which usually takes only a single step per mini-batch.  Some of the methods discussed in the related work are missing citations.  The method is justified in terms of “carving the energy function in the right direction at each point”, but I’m not sure this is actually what’s happening. Isn’t the point of the method that it can optimize a lower bound on the log-likelihood, and therefore learn a globally correct allocation of probability mass?

SOLUTION:
en

