Paper:
GENERATIVE CODE MODELING WITH GRAPHS
Generative models for source code are an interesting structured prediction problem, requiring to reason about both hard syntactic and semantic constraints as well as about natural, likely programs. We present a novel model for this problem that uses a graph to represent the intermediate state of the generated output. Our model generates code by interleaving grammar-driven expansion steps with graph augmentation and neural message passing steps. An experimental evaluation shows that our new model can generate semantically meaningful expressions, outperforming a range of strong baselines.

Review:
The paper proposes a code completion task that given the rest of a program, predicts the content of an expression. This task has similarity to code completion tasks in the code editor of an IDE. The paper proposes an interesting problem, but the paper would benefit if writing and evaluation are significantly improved.
The work builds on prior research by Allamanis et al. 2018b that performs such completions of single variables by picking from the variables in the scopes. The difference here is that portions of parse trees are predicted as opposed to a single variables, where the algorithm from the prior research is used to predict single variables.
Writing-wise the paper is hard to read on the technical part with many unclear details and this portion needs a good amount of extra explanations. The Epsilon set includes triples which are not described and need understanding equation (2). The first element of this triple is an edge label <edge>($a$, $v$) where $a$ is an AST and $v$ is a node. Thus, edges of the graph end up between entire ASTs and nodes? While I can see how could this make sense, there is certainly lack of explanation going on here. Overall, this part is hard to parse and time-consuming to understand except at high level. Furthermore, the text has many functions without signatures and they seem to be used before they are defined (e.g. getRepresentation).
Technically, the approach also seems very similar to N3NN by Parisotto et al, ICLR 2017. There should be more elaboration on what is new here. Otherwise, the novelty of the paper really is just combining this work with Allamanis et al. 2018b.
In terms of evaluation, the task seems to be on a different set of expressions than the one explained in the exposition. How many expressions where there in the evaluation programs and how many were chosen to evaluate on and based on what criteria. It seems from the exposition that expressions with field accessed and function calls are not possible to be generated, but then some completions show method calls. How much of the full task is actually solved? In particular, several of the cited prior works solve specific problems like constants that are ignored here.
The evaluation is mostly an ablation studies of the proposed approach by removing edges from the final idea. 
Besides this, the paper also introduces a new dataset for showcasing the technique and does not report sizes and running times, essentially not answering basic questions like what is the trade-off between the different techniques. Comparison to actual prior works on similar tasks is also lacking (some TODO is left in the paper), but there is the claim that existing neural techniques such as seq2seq perform "substantially worse". I guess the authors have extra experiments not included for lack of space or that the evaluation was not ready at submission time.