Hyperparameter Tuning with Renyi Differential Policy

1. On what points did the reviewers agree? On what points did they disagree?
   1. Agrees
      1. They agreed that this paper’s findings are significant and somewhat new
      2. They seem to agree that the research found by this paper also will lead to further interesting questions that can be researched in the fturue
   2. Disagrees
      1. Even though the paper was given outstanding paper award, not all of the reviewers’ scores of the paper were extremely high
2. In what ways did they point out the merits of the work?
   1. A lot of them pointed out how the findings of the research paper can be used in real world context, showing how the paper or the reviewers are able to easily understand the bigger importance of the research papers
   2. The reviewers also point out that the proofs are sound and correct
3. What were the main issues raised in the review?
   1. Some reviewers raised the concern that they are not sure whether the randomness of a certain step is completely relevant for improving their hypertuning parameters
4. What suggestions for improvement did they give the author? Do these suggestions seem reasonable?

Improving Neural Story Generation by

Targeted Common Sense Grounding

1. On what points did the reviewers agree? On what points did they disagree?
   1. Agrees
      1. The reviewers all agreed that the paper presents a good solution to an interesting problem
2. In what ways did they point out the merits of the work?
   1. The reviewers point out the cleverness of the authors’ work and how it combines state of the art techniques to achieve good results
3. What were the main issues raised in the review?
   1. Overall there were very few issues raised in the review, the only concern one reviewer raised was that the results of one specific test were not clearly shown to demonstrate the effectiveness of the work
4. What suggestions for improvement did they give the author? Do these suggestions seem reasonable?