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].

Q: I reviewed the manuscript as of December 6th.  Summary: The authors build upon generative adversarial networks for the purpose of steganalysis -- i.e. detecting hidden messages in a payload. The authors describe a new model architecture in which a new element, a 'steganalyser' is added a training objective to the GAN model.  Major Comments: The authors introduce an interesting new direction for applying generative networks. That said, I think the premise of the paper could stand some additional exposition. How exactly would a SGAN method be employed? This is not clear from the paper. Why does the model require a generative model? Steganalysis by itself seems like a classification problem (i.e. a binary decision if there a hidden message?) Would you envision that a user has a message to send and does not care about the image (container) that it is being sent with? Or does the user have an image and the network generates a synthetic version of the image as a container and then hide the message in the container? Or is the SGAN somehow trained as a method for detecting hidden codes performed by any algorithm in an image? Explicitly describing the use-case would help with interpreting the results in the paper.  Additionally, the experiments and analysis in this paper is quite light as the authors only report a few steganalysis performance numbers in the tables (Table 1,2,3). A more extensive analysis seems warranted to explore the parameter space and provide a quantitative comparison with other methods discussed (e.g. HUGO, WOW, LSB, etc.) When is it appropriate to use this method over the others? Why does the seed effect the quality of results? Does a fixed seed correspond realistic scenario for employing this method?  Minor comments: - Is Figure 1 necessary? - Why does the seed value effect the quality of the predictive performance of the model?

A: en
****
Q: The paper presents a way to "learn" approximate data structures. They train neural networks (ConvNets here) to perform as an approximate abstract data structure by having an L2 loss (for the unrolled NN) on respecting the axioms of the data structure they want the NN to learn. E.g. you NN.push(8), NN.push(6), NN.push(4), the loss is proportional to the distance with what is NN.pop()ed three times and 4, 6, 8 (this example is the one of Figure 1).  There are several flaws:  - In the case of the stack: I do not see a difference between this and a seq-to-seq RNN trained with e.g. 8, 6, 4 as input sequence, to predict 4, 6, 8.  - While some of the previous work is adequately cited, there is an important body of previous work (some from the 90s) on learning Peano's axioms, stacks, queues, etc. that is not cited nor compared to. For instance [Das et al. 1992], [Wiles & Elman 1995], and more recently [Graves et al. 2014], [Joulin & Mikolov 2015], [Kaiser & Sutskever 2016]...  - Using MNIST digits, and not e.g. a categorical distribution on numbers, is adding complexity for no reason.  - (Probably the biggest flaw) The experimental section is too weak to support the claims. The figures are adequate, but there is no comparison to anything. There is also no description nor attempt to quantify a form of "success rate" of learning such data structures, for instance w.r.t the number of examples, or w.r.t to the size of the input sequences. The current version of the paper (December 9th 2016) provides, at best, anecdotal experimental evidence to support the claims of the rest of the paper.  While an interesting direction of research, I think that this paper is not experimentally sound enough for ICLR.

A: en
****
Q: El artículo presenta un estudio de la percepción que tienen los ingenieros de requisitos (noveles y expertos) en relación a la efectividad de las diferentes técnicas de educción  para el descubrimiento de los requisitos en un proyecto de desarrollo de software.  El articulo trata un tema que merece cierta atención ante la gran cantidad de técnicas de educción que existen y la desorientación de los ingenieros de requisitos respecto de cuál utilizar en un determinado contexto.  El estudio realizado considera como noveles Ingenieros que no tienen conocimiento de técnicas de educción y uno de los atributos que debe ser calificado como base del estudio comparativo, es precisamente su experiencia. De hecho como conclusión se expresa que “una más amplia formación y principalmente de tipo práctica, es necesaria para que los ingenieros noveles puedan decidir….”, eso es de Perogrullo. Debería ser considera una gama mayor de atributos del contexto como los sugeridos en [14], que permitan conclusiones más veraces.

A:
es
****
