Venue: ICLR 2019 Workshop LLD

Reviews:

final_score: rating: 1: Strong rejection
review_content: The paper proposes to combine siamese and capsule networks. It is overall too technical and hard to follow. Notations are very unclear because they are never described once and for all with the network architecture. Quantitative results are good. This ideas and the computational work is probably interesting but the writing requires a lot more effort to be understandable by an audience beyond the specialists of capsule and siamese networks.

1. Introduction
Ok.
'local features in receptive field' => tautology
Typo: hinton1985shap

2. Capsule Network
'the brain is hypothesized to solve an inverse graphics problem' => No reference. The brain doesn't solve inverse graphics problem. Scientists use maths to model what the brain is doing.

'length of the vector' => can be confused with the vector dimension. Use 'norm'.
Notations and technical explanations of capsule networks are not clear for someone that is not familiar with the framework. A figure would be helpful to understand the architecture.

The paragraph 'Extensions of capsule networks' is a succession of technical description of previous extensions of capsule networks. Again notations are not clear. The description is hard to follow without prior knowledge on this topic.

3. Siamese networks
Again a list of technical description of previous works. This is only understandable and interesting for a specialist.

4. Siamese Capsule Networks
This idea is to combine siamese and capsule networks. Again this is hard to follow because there is not figure to help the reader understanding what is new and how this combination is performed.

5. Results
Quantitative results are good. Figure 1 is too sized properly. Figure 2 has no x,y axis...

review_title: Too technical and hard to follow, often written as a list.

Meta-review: Desk Reject. The paper exceeds the 4 page limit.
Decision: Reject