Venue: ML_Reproducibility_Challenge 2020

Reviews:

final_score: rating: 9: Top 15% of accepted papers, strong accept
review_content: The authors developed code for the original paper from scratch and communicated with the original authors for detail. They provide a in-depth, easily readable, well organized report and analysis. They include extensive HPO. They give valuable recommendations for future work. 

Unfortunately, code will only be submitted only after the review process.
review_title: In-depth and balanced reproducibility study of great value. 

final_score: rating: 7: Good paper, accept
review_content: *Problem statement: 
The paper clearly states the reproducing details, together with the detailed results and difficulties.

*Presentation:
The paper is well-organized and well-written. 

*Communication with original authors
The authors had some communication with the original authors.

*Code:
The code is well-organized and can be reproduced. I have tested the code on my side and all components work well. 

*Recommendations for reproducibility
The authors provided useful comments for reproducing the original paper. I have read the code and found those comments are consistent with the provided codes. 

*A few concerns
**The tense is not consistent in the whole paper. In some sections, the author used past tense while the present tense is used in some other sections. 
** It will be even better if the authors can provide a simple illustration on the two major algorithms, like Fig.3 and Fig.4 in the original paper. The figures and simple explanations would help readers to follow your report.
review_title: A detailed report with intensive experiments

Meta-review: Selected for ReScience-C Journal Publication. 
Decision: Accept