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].

[EX Q]: This paper proposes joint CTC-attention end-to-end ASR, which utilizes both advantages in training and decoding.   - Strengths: It provides a solid work of hybrid CTC-attention framework in training and decoding, and the experimental results showed that the proposed method could provide an improvement in Japanese CSJ and Mandarin Chinese telephone speech recognition task.   - Weaknesses: The only problem is that the paper sounds too similar with Ref [Kim et al., 2016] which will be officially published in the coming IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), March 2017. Kim at al., 2016, proposes joint CTC-attention using MTL for English ASR task, and this paper proposes joint CTC-attention using MTL+joint decoding for Japanese and Chinese ASR tasks. I guess the difference is on joint decoding and the application to Japanese/Chinese ASR tasks. However, the difference is not clearly explained by the authors. So it took sometimes to figure out the original contribution of this paper.  (a) Title:  The title in Ref [Kim et al., 2016] is “Joint CTC- Attention Based End-to-End Speech Recognition Using Multi-task Learning”, while the title of this paper is “Joint CTC-attention End-to-end Speech Recognition”. I think the title is too general. If this is the first paper about "Joint CTC-attention" than it is absolutely OK. Or if Ref [Kim et al., 2016] will remain only as pre-published arXiv, then it might be still acceptable. But since [Kim et al., 2016] will officially publish in IEEE conference, much earlier than this paper, then a more specified title that represents the main contribution of this paper in contrast with the existing publication would be necessary.   (b) Introduction: The author claims that “We propose to take advantage of the constrained CTC alignment in a hybrid CTC-attention based system. During training, we attach a CTC objective to an attention-based encoder network as a regularization, as proposed by [Kim at al., 2016].“ Taking advantage of the constrained CTC alignment in a hybrid CTC-attention is the original idea from [Kim at al., 2016]. So the whole argument about attention-based end-to-end ASR versus CTC-based ASR, and the necessary of CTC-attention combination is not novel. Furthermore, the statement “we propose … as proposed by [Kim et al, 2016]” is somewhat weird. We can build upon someone proposal with additional extensions, but not just re-propose other people's proposal. Therefore, what would be important here is to state clearly the original contribution of this paper and the position of the proposed method with respect to existing literature  (c) Experimental Results: Kim at al., 2016 applied the proposed method on English task, while this paper applied the proposed method on Japanese and Mandarin Chinese tasks. I think it would be interesting if the paper could explain in more details about the specific problems in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese tasks that may not appear in English task. For example, how the system could address multiple possible outputs. i.e., Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana given Japanese speech input without using any linguistic resources. This could be one of the important contributions from this paper.  - General Discussion: I think it would be better to cite Ref [Kim et al., 2016] from the official IEEE ICASSP conference, rather than pre-published arXiv: Kim, S., Hori, T., Watanabe, S., "Joint CTC- Attention Based End-to-End Speech Recognition Using Multi-task Learning", IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), March 2017, pp. to appear.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: Resulta interesante el desarrollo de un web framework para la gestión de cámaras IP. Un tema que es, para mí, novedoso y que puede ser extendido en su utilidad.  Hay problemas de redacción y presentación (por ejemplo, "cuenta con una cámara IP las cuales pueden ..."). Además, queda poco claro si se han desarrollado aplicaciones sobre el framework y si estas tienen un funcionamiento adecuado.
[EX A]: es

[EX Q]: The paper introduces a time dependent recommender system based on point processes parametrized by time dependent user and item latent representations. The later are modeled as coupled – autoregressive processes – i.e. the representation of a user/item changes when he interacts with an item/user, and is a function of both the user and the item representations before time t. This is called coevolution here and the autoregressive process is called recurrent NN. The model may also incorporate heterogeneous inputs. Experiments are performed on several datasets, and the model is compared with different baselines. There are several contributions in the paper: 1) modeling recommendation via parametrized point processes where the parameter dynamics are modeled by latent user/item representations, 2) an optimization algorithm for maximizing the likelihood of this process, with different technical tricks that seem to break its intrinsic complexity, 3) evaluation experiments for time dependent recommendation. The paper by the same authors (NIPS 2016) describes a similar model of continuous time coevolution, and a similar evaluation. The difference lies in the details of the model: the point process model is not the same and of the latent factor dynamic model is slightly different, but the modeling approach and the arguments are exactly the same. By the end, one does not know what makes this model perform better than the one proposed in NIPS, is it the choice for the process, the new parametrization? Both are quite similar. There is no justification on the choice of the specific form of the point process in the two papers. Did the authors tried other forms as well? The same remark applies for the form of the dynamical process: the non-linearity used for the modeling of the latent user/item vectors here is limited to a sigmoid function, which probably does not change much w.r.t. a linear model, but there is no evidence of the role of this non linearity in the paper. Note that there are some inconsistencies between the results in the two papers. Concerning the evaluation, the authors introduce two criteria. I did not get exactly how they evaluate the item recommendation: it is mentioned that at each time t, the model predicts the item the user will interact with. Do you mean, the next item the user will interact with after time t? For the time prediction, why is it a relevant metric for recommendation? A comparison of the complexity, or execution time of the different methods would be helpful. The complexity of your method is apparently proportional to #items*#users, what are the complexity limits of your methods. Overall, the paper is quite nice and looks technically sound, albeit many details are missing. On the other hand, I have a mixed feeling because of the similarity with NIPS paper. The authors should have make a better work at convincing us that this is not a marginal extension of previous work by the authors.  I was not convinced either by the evaluation criteria and there is no evidence that the model can be used for large datasets.
[EX A]:
en

