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]: 1) Summary  This paper investigates the usefulness of decoupling appearance and motion information for the problem of future frame prediction in natural videos. The method introduces a novel two-stream encoder-decoder architecture, MCNet, consisting of two separate encoders -- a convnet on single frames and a convnet+LSTM on sequences of temporal differences -- followed by combination layers (stacking + convolutions) and a deconvolutional network decoder leveraging also residual connections from the two encoders. The architecture is trained end-to-end using the objective and adversarial training strategy of Mathieu et al.  2) Contributions  + The architecture seems novel and is well motivated. It is also somewhat related to the two-stream networks of Simonyan & Zisserman, which are very effective for real-world action recognition. + The qualitative results are numerous, insightful, and very convincing (including quantitatively) on KTH & Weizmann, showing the benefits of decoupling content and motion for simple scenes with periodic motions, as well as the need for residual connections.  3) Suggestions for improvement  Static dataset bias: In response to the pre-review concerns about the observed static nature of the qualitative results, the authors added a simple baseline consisting in copying the pixels of the last observed frame. On the one hand, the updated experiments on KTH confirm the good results of the method in these conditions. On the other hand, the fact that this baseline is better than all other methods (not just the authors's) on UCF101 casts some doubts on whether reporting average statistics on UCF101 is insightful enough. Although the authors provide some qualitative analysis pertaining to the quantity of motion, further quantitative analysis seems necessary to validate the performance of this and other methods on future frame prediction. At least, the results on UCF101 should be disambiguated with respect to the type of scene, for instance by measuring the overall quantity of motion (e.g., l2 norm of time differences) and reporting PSNR and SSIM per quartile / decile. Ideally, other realistic datasets than UCF101 should be considered in complement. For instance, the Hollywood 2 dataset of Marszalek et al would be a good candidate, as it focuses on movies and often contains complex actor, camera, and background motions that would make the "pixel-copying" baseline very poor. Experiments on video datasets beyond actions, like the KITTI tracking benchmark, would also greatly improve the paper.  Additional recognition experiments: As mentioned in pre-review questions, further UCF-101 experiments on action recognition tasks by fine-tuning would also greatly improve the paper. Classifying videos indeed requires learning both appearance and motion features, and the two-stream encoder + combination layers of the MCNet+Res architecture seem particularly adapted, if they indeed allowed for unsupervised pre-trainining of content and motion representations, as postulated by the authors. These experiments would also contribute to dispelling the aforementioned concerns about the static nature of the learned representations.  4) Conclusion  Overall, this paper proposes an interesting architecture for an important problem, but requires additional experiments to substantiate the claims made by the authors. If the authors make the aforementioned additional experiments and the results are convincing, then this paper would be clearly relevant for ICLR.  5) Post-rebuttal final decision  The authors did a significant amount of additional work, following the suggestions made by the reviewers, and providing additional compelling experimental evidence. This makes this one of the most experimentally thorough ones for this problem. I, therefore, increase my rating, and suggest to accept this paper. Good job!
[A]: en


[Q]: - Strengths: The idea to investigate the types of relations between lexical items is very interesting and challenging. The authors make a good argument why going beyond analogy testing makes sense.    - Weaknesses: The paper does not justify or otherwise contextualize the choice of clustering for evaluation, rather than using a classification task, despite the fact that classification tasks are more straightforward to evaluate. No attempt is being made to explain the overall level of the results. How well would humans do on this task (given only the words, no context)?  - General Discussion:  I have read the authors' response.
[A]: en


[Q]: - 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.
[A]:
es


