Paper:
LEARNING TO REPRESENT EDITS
We introduce the problem of learning distributed representations of edits. By combining a "neural editor" with an "edit encoder", our models learn to represent the salient information of an edit and can be used to apply edits to new inputs. We experiment on natural language and source code edit data. Our evaluation yields promising results that suggest that our neural network models learn to capture the structure and semantics of edits. We hope that this interesting task and data source will inspire other researchers to work further on this problem.

Review:
The authors state nicely and clearly the main contributions they see in their work (Intro, last paragraph). Specifically the state the paper: 1) present a new and important machine learning task, 2) present a family of models that capture the structure of edits and compute efficient representations, 3) create a new source code edit dataset, 4) perform a set of experiments on the learned edit representations and present promising empirical evidence that the models succeed in capturing the semantics of edits. 
We decided to organize this review by commenting on the above-stated contributions one at a time:
“A new and important machine learning task”
Regarding “new task”:
PRO: We are unfamiliar with past work which presents this precise task; the task is new. Section 5 makes a good case for the novelty of this work.
CON: None.
Regarding “important task”:
PRO: The authors motivate the task with tantalizing prospective applications-- automatically editing text and code, e.g. for grammar, clarity, and style. Conceptualizing edits as NLP objects of interest that can be concretely represented, clustered, and used for prediction is an advance.
CON: Many text editors, office suites, and coding IDEs already include features which automatically suggest or apply edits for grammar, clarity, and style. The authors do not describe shortcomings in existing tools that might be better addressed using distributed representations of edits. Consequently, the significance of the proposed contribution is unclear.
“A family of models that capture the structure of edits and compute efficient representations”
Regarding “a family of models”:
PRO: The family of models presented by the authors clearly generalizes: such models may be utilized for computational experiments on datasets and edit types beyond those specifically utilized in this evaluation. The authors apply well-utilized neural network architectures that may be trained and applied to large datasets. The architecture of the neural editor permits evaluation of the degree to which the editor successfully predicts the correct edit given a pre-edit input and a known representation of a similar edit.
CON: The authors do not propose any scheme under which edit representations might be utilized for automatically editing text or code when an edit very similar to the desired edit is not already known and its representation available as input. Hence, we find the authors do not sufficiently motivate the input scheme of their neural editor. The input scheme of the neural editor makes trivial the case in which no edit is needed, as the editor would learn during training that the output x+ should be the same as the input x- when the representation of the “zero edit” is given as input. While the authors discuss the importance of “bottlenecking” the edit encoder so that it does not simply learn to encode the desired output x+, they do not concretely demonstrate that the edit encoder has done otherwise in the final experiments. Related to that: If the authors aimed to actually solve automated edits in text/code then it seems crucial their data contained "negative examples" i.e. segments which require no edits. In such an evaluation one would test also when the algorithm introduces unnecessary/erroneous edits. 
Regarding “capture structure of edits”:
PRO: The authors present evidence that edit encoders tightly cluster relatively simple edits which involve adding or removing common tokens. The authors present evidence that relatively simple edits completed automatically by a “fixer” often cluster together, i.e. a known signal is retained in clustering. The authors present evidence that the nearest neighbors of edits in an edit-representation space often are semantically or structurally similar, as judged by human annotators. Section 4.3 includes interesting observations comparing edit patterns better captured by the graph or seq edit encoders. 
CON: The details of the human annotation tasks which generated the numerical results in Tables 1 and 2 are unclear: were unbiased third parties utilized? Were the edits stripped of their source-encoder label when evaluated? Objectively, what separates an “unrelated” from a “similar” edit, and what separates a “similar” from a “same” edit? Did multiple human annotators undertake this task in parallel, and what was their overall concordance (e.g. “intercoder reliability”)? Without concrete answers to these questions, the validity and significance of the DCG/NDCG results reported in Tables 1 and 2 are unclear. It is not clear from the two examples given in Table 1 that the three nearest neighbors embedded by the Seq encoder are “better”, i.e. overall more semantically and/or syntactically similar to the example edit, than those embedded by the Bag of Words model. It is unclear which specific aspects of “edit structure” are better captured by the Seq encoder than the Bag of Words model. The overall structure of Tables 1 and 2 is awkward, with concrete numerical results dominated by a spatially large section containing a small number of examples.
“create a new source code edit dataset”
PRO: The authors create a new source code edit dataset, an important contribution to the study of this new task.
CON: Minor: is the provided dataset large enough to do more than simple experiments? See note below on sample size.
“present promising empirical evidence that the models succeed in capturing the semantics of edits”
PRO: The experiment results show how frequently the end-to-end system successfully predicted the correct edit given a pre-edit input and a known representation of a similar edit. Gold standard accuracies of more than 70%, and averaged transfer learning accuracies of more than 30%, suggest that this system shows promise for capturing the semantics of edits.
CON: Due to concerns expressed above about the model design and evaluation of the edit representations, it remains unclear to what degree the models succeed in capturing the semantics of edits. Table 11 shows dramatic variation in success levels across fixer ID in the transfer learning task, yet the authors do not propose ways their end-to-end system might be adjusted to address areas of weak performance. The authors do not discuss the impact of training set size on their evaluation metrics. The authors do not discuss the degree to which their model training task would scale to larger language datasets such as those needed for the motivating applications.
##############
Based on the authors' response, revisions, and disucssions we have updated the review and the score.