Paper:
Triple Generative Adversarial Nets
Generative Adversarial Nets (GANs) have shown promise in image generation and semi-supervised learning (SSL). However, existing GANs in SSL have two problems: (1) the generator and the discriminator (i.e. the classifier) may not be optimal at the same time; and (2) the generator cannot control the semantics of the generated samples. The problems essentially arise from the two-player formulation, where a single discriminator shares incompatible roles of identifying fake samples and predicting labels and it only estimates the data without considering the labels. To address the problems, we present triple generative adversarial net (Triple-GAN), which consists of three players-a generator, a discriminator and a classifier. The generator and the classifier characterize the conditional distributions between images and labels, and the discriminator solely focuses on identifying fake image-label pairs. We design compatible utilities to ensure that the distributions characterized by the classifier and the generator both converge to the data distribution. Our results on various datasets demonstrate that Triple-GAN as a unified model can simultaneously (1) achieve the state-of-the-art classification results among deep generative models, and (2) disentangle the classes and styles of the input and transfer smoothly in the data space via interpolation in the latent space class-conditionally.

Review:
Summary:
The paper presents a GAN-like architecture called Triple-GAN that, given partially labeled data, is designed to achieve simultaneously the following two goals: (1) Get a good generator that generates realistically-looking samples conditioned on class labels; (2) Get a good classifier, with smallest possible prediction error. The paper shows that other similar GAN-based approaches always implicitly privileged either (1) or (2), and or needed much more labeled data to train the classifier. By separating the discrimination task between true and fake data from the classification task, the paper outperforms the state-of-the-art, both in (1) and (2). In particular, the classifier achieves high accuracy with only very few labeled dataset, while the generator produces state-of-the-art images, even when conditioned on y labels.
Quality & Clarity:
The paper indeed identifies plausible reasons of failure/inefficiency of the other similar GAN-type methods (such as Improved-GAN).  The underlying idea behind Triple-GAN is very elegant and comes with both nice theoretical justifications and impressive experimental results.
However the overall clarity of exposition, the text-flow and the syntax can still be much improved. Concerning syntax: too many typos and too many grammatically incorrect sentences. Concerning the exposition: there are too many vague or even unclear sentences/paragraphs (see below); even the statements of some Corollaries are vague (Corollary 3.2.1 & 3.3.1). Some proofs are dismissed as evident or refer to results without precise citation. There are some long and unnecessary repetitions (f.ex. l.58-73 and l.120-129 which are essentially the same), while other points that would need more explanations are only mentioned with a few unclear sentences (l.215-220). This is in striking contrast with the content's quality of this paper. So before publication, there will be  some serious work to do on the overall presentation, exposition, and syntax!
Detailed comments:
l.13-14: the expression 'concentrating to a data distribution', which is used in several places in this paper, does not exist. Please use f.ex. something like 'converges to'. 
l. 37-38: formulation of points (1) and (2) is too vague and not understandable at the first read. Please reformulate.
l. 46-49: good point, but formulation is cumbersome. Reformulate it more neatly. You could f.ex. use a 'on the one hand ... on the other ...' type of construction.
l. 52-56: Unclear. ('the marginal distribution of data' , 'the generator cannot leverage the missing labels inferred by the discriminator': what do you mean?). Please reformulate.
l.58-73: too many unnecessary overlap with l.120-129. (And text is clearer in l.120-129, I find...). Please mind repetitions. One only needs repetitions if one messed up the explanation in the first place...
l. 140&157: please format your equations more nicely.
l .171: proof of Lemma 3.1: last sentence needs an explanation or a reference.
l.174: Corollary 3.2.1: I find it clearer to say p(x) = p_g(x) = p_d(x) and p(y) = p_g(y) = p_d(y).
l.185: Corollary 3.3.1: What is a 'regularization on the distances btw ...' ? Define it. Without this definition, I can't say whether the proof is obvious or not. And in any way, please say one or two sentences why the statement is true, instead of dismissing it as obvious.
l.215-220: I don't see what the REINFORCE alrogrithm, which is used in reinforcement learning, has to do with your algorithm. And the whole paragraph is quite obscure to me...Please reformulate. (Maybe it needs to be a bit longer?). 
Esperiments:
- please state clearly when you are comparing to numbers reported in other papers, and when you really re-run the algorithms yourself.
l.228: '10 000 samples' should be '10 000 test samples'
l.232: '(Results are averaged over 10 runs)' : don't put it in parenthesis: it's important! Also, remind this in the caption of Table 1.
l.254-263: how many labeled data do you use for each of the experiments reported here? Please specify!
Also, you did not mention that triple-GAN simply also has more parameters than an improved GAN, so it already has an advantage. Please mention it somewhere.
table 1: what are the numbers in parenthesis? 1 std? Calculated using the 10 runs? 
l.271: 'the baseline repeats to generate strange samples' : reformulate.
Generally: there are quite a few articles ('the') and other small words missing in the text. A careful proof reading will be necessary before publication.
Answer to rebuttal:
We thank the reviewers for their answers and hope that they will incorporate all necessary clarifications asked by the reviewers. And please be precise: in your rebuttal, you speak of a distance over joint probability distributions, and then cite the KL-divergence as an example. But mathematically speaking, the KL-divergence is not a distance! So please, be precise in your mathematical statements!