Paper:
A key challenge of existing program synthesizers is ensuring that the synthesized program generalizes well. This can be difficult to achieve as the specification provided by the end user is often limited, containing as few as one or two inputoutput examples. In this paper we address this challenge via an iterative approach that finds ambiguities in the provided specification and learns to resolve these by generating additional input-output examples. The main insight is to reduce the problem of selecting which program generalizes well to the simpler task of deciding which output is correct. As a result, to train our probabilistic models, we can take advantage of the large amounts of data in the form of program outputs, which are often much easier to obtain than the corresponding ground-truth programs.

Review:
[Summary]
This paper aims to improve the generalization of program synthesis, ensuring that the synthesized programs not only work on observed input/output (I/O) examples but also generalize well to assessment examples (i.e. model the real intent of the end-user). To this end, the paper proposes a framework that iteratively alternates between producing programs with an existing program synthesizer and augmenting examples to disambiguate possible programs with a neural oracle that learns to select correct outputs. Several architectures and the design of input of the neural oracle have been investigated. The experiments on Andriod layout program synthesis with an InferUI synthesizer show that the proposed framework can improve the generalization of synthesized programs. However, I find it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness without sufficient qualitative results and the intermediate outputs (e.g. a distinguishing input and candidate outputs) of the proposed framework (see details below).
Significance: are the results significant? 4/5
Novelty: are the problems or approaches novel? 4/5
Evaluation: are claims well-supported by theoretical analysis or experimental results? 3/5
Clarity: is the paper well-organized and clearly written? 4/5
[Strengths]
*motivation*
- The motivation for improving the generalization of program synthesis by augmenting examples is convincing.
*novelty*
- The idea of utilizing a neural network to select correct outputs to augment examples for disambiguating the possible programs is intuitive and convincing. This paper presents an effective way to implement this idea.
*technical contribution*
- The paper investigates a set of network architectures and ways to specify the network input for learning the neural oracle. The RNN+CNN model that leverages both rendered views and features seems effective.
*clarity*
- The overall writing is clear. The authors utilize figures well to illustrate the ideas. Figure 1 clearly shows the proposed framework.
*experimental results*
- The presentations of the results are clear. The results demonstrate that the proposed framework can improve generalization accuracy.
*reproducibility*
- Given the clear description in the main paper and the details provided in the appendix, I believe reproducing the results is possible if the dataset is available. 
[Weaknesses]
*related work*
The descriptions of the related work are not comprehensive. Some neural program synthesis works explore a variety of mechanisms to encode examples and fuse their features, which are not mentioned in the paper. [Devlin et al. in ICML 2017] investigates different attention mechanisms to sequentially encode a set of I/O examples and performs pooling to merge them. [Sun et al. in ICML 2018] proposes a doubly encoding method to capture more details of examples and merge the features using a relation network. I believe it would be interesting to see if these methods could further improve the performance of the neural oracle.
*experiment setup*
- The experiments are not sufficient. While the claims look promising, the proposed method is only evaluated in only one dataset, which is not sufficiently convincing. I suggest the authors to also experiment the FlashFillTest dataset where string transformation programs are synthesized. 
- A more comprehensive description of the dataset is lacking. 
*experiment results*
- I find it hard to judge the effectiveness of the proposed framework without seeing sufficient qualitative results. I suggest the authors randomly sample some synthesized programs (both success and failure) and present them in the paper.
- I believe it is important to present some examples of the given I/O pairs, initially synthesized programs (p_1), found distinguishing input (x*), candidate outputs (y), the prediction of the neural oracle (i.e. selected outputs), the augmented examples (I \cup {(x*, y*)}), and finally the next synthesized program. Without this, it is very difficult to understand the performance of the proposed framework and what could go wrong. 
*ablation study: the neural oracle*
Only the final performance (i.e. the program synthesis performance) is shown in the paper. I believe it would be helpful if the performance of the neural oracle was also presented. As the whole framework depends on how accurate the neural oracle can select the correct output, it is important to evaluate this. One way to show this is to simply show the performance of all the neural oracles (with different architectures) trained on D_S (the positive samples and the incorrect samples) or even D_{S+}.
Devlin et al. "RobustFill: Neural Program Learning under Noisy I/O" in ICML 2017
Sun et al. "Neural Program Synthesis from Diverse Demonstration Videos" in ICML 2018