Paper:
ON COMPUTATION AND GENERALIZATION OF GENER- ATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORKS UNDER SPECTRUM CONTROL
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), though powerful, is hard to train. Several recent works (Brock et al., 2016; suggest that controlling the spectra of weight matrices in the discriminator can significantly improve the training of GANs. Motivated by their discovery, we propose a new framework for training GANs, which allows more flexible spectrum control (e.g., making the weight matrices of the discriminator have slow singular value decays). Specifically, we propose a new reparameterization approach for the weight matrices of the discriminator in GANs, which allows us to directly manipulate the spectra of the weight matrices through various regularizers and constraints, without intensively computing singular value decompositions. Theoretically, we further show that the spectrum control improves the generalization ability of GANs. Our experiments on CIFAR-10, STL-10, and ImgaeNet datasets confirm that compared to other methods, our proposed method is capable of generating images with competitive quality by utilizing spectral normalization and encouraging the slow singular value decay.

Review:
This paper proposes to parameterize the weight matrices of neural nets using the SVD, with approximate orthogonality enforced on the singular vectors using Orthogonal Regularization (as opposed to e.g. the Cayley transform or optimizing on the Stiefel manifold), allowing for direct, efficient control over the spectra. The method is applied to GAN discriminators to stabilize training as a natural extension of Spectral Normalization. This method incurs a slight memory and compute cost and achieves a minor performance improvement over Spectral Normalization on two benchmark image generation tasks.
I'm a bit back and forth on this paper. On the one hand, I think the ideas this paper proposes are very interesting and could provide a strong basis off which future work can be built--the extension of spectral normalization to further study and manipulation of the spectra is natural and very promising. However, the results obtained are not particularly strong, and as they stand do not, in my opinion, justify the increased compute and memory cost of the proposed methods. The paper's presentation also wavers between being strong (there were some sections I read and immediately understood) and impenetrable (there were other sections which I had to read 5-10 times just to try and grip what was going on).
Ultimately, my vote is for acceptance. I think that we should not throw out a work with interesting and potentially useful ideas just because it does not set a new SOTA, especially when the current trend with GANs seems to suggest that top performance comes at a compute cost that all but a few groups do not have access to. With another editing pass to improve language and presentation this would be a strong, relevant paper worthy of the attention of the ICLR community.
My notes:
-The key idea of parameterizing matrices as the SVD by construction, but using a regularizer to properly constrain U and V (instead of the expensive Cayley transform, or trying to pin the matrices to the Stifel manifold) is very intriguing, and I think there is a lot of potential here.
-This paper suffers from a high degree of mathiness, substituting dense notation in places where verbal explanation would be more appropriate. There are several spots where explaining the intuition behind a given idea (particularly when proposing the various spectrum regularizers) would be far more effective than the huge amount of notation. In the author's defense, the notation is generally used as effectively as it could be. My issue is that it often is just insufficient, and communication would be better served with more illustrative figures and/or language.
-I found the way the paper references Figure 1 confusing. The decays are substantially different for each layer--are these *all* supposed to be examples of slow decay? Layer 6 appears to have 90% of its singular values below 0.5, while layer 0 has more than 50%. If this is slow decay, what does an undesirable fast decay look like? Isn't the fast decay as shown in figure 2 almost exactly what we see for Layer 6 in figure 1? What is the significance of the sharp drop that occurs after some set number of singular values? The figure itself is easy to understand, but the way the authors repeatedly refer to it as an example of smooth singular decays is confusing.
-what is D-optimal design? This is not something commonly known in the ML literature. The authors should explain what exactly that D-optimal regularizer does, and elucidate its backward dynamics (in an appendix if space does not permit it in the main body). Does it encourage all singular values to have similar values? Does it push them all towards 1? I found the brief explanation ("encourages a slow singular value decay") to be too brief--consider adding  a plot of the D-optimal spectrum to Figure 1, so that the reader can easily see how it would compare to the observed spectra. Ideally, the authors would show an example of the target spectra for each of the proposed regularizers in Figure 1. This might also help elucidate what the authors consider a desirable singular value decay, and mollify some of the issues I take with the way the paper references figure 1.
-The explanation of the Divergence Regularizer is similarly confusing and suffers from mathiness, a fact which I believe is further exacerbated by its somewhat odd motivation. Why, if the end result is a reference curve toward which the spectra will be regularized, do the authors propose (1) a random variable which is a transformation of a gaussian (2) to take the PDF of that random variable (3) discretize the PDF  (4) take the KL between a uniform discrete distribution and the discretized PMF and (5) ignore the normalization term? If the authors were actually working with random variables and proposing a divergence this might make sense, but the items under consideration are singular values which are non-stochastic parameters of a model, so treating them this way seems very odd. Based on figure 2 it looks like the resulting reference curves are fine, but the explanation of how to arrive there is quite convoluted--I would honestly have been more satisfied if the authors had simply designed a function (a polynomial logarithmic function perhaps) with a hyperparameter or two to control the curvature.
-"Our experimental results show that both combinations achieve an impressive results on CIFAR10 and STL-10 datasets"
Please do not use subjective adjectives like "impressive." A 6.5% improvement is okay, but not very impressive, and when you use subjective language you run the risk of readers and reviewers subjectively disagreeing with you, as is the case with this reviewer. Please also fix the typo in this sentence, it should at least be "...achieve [impressive] results" or "achieve an [impressive] improvement on..." 
Section 3:
-What is generalization supposed to mean in this context? It's unclear to me why this is at all relevant--is this supposed to be indicating the bounds for which the Discriminator will correctly distinguish real vs generated images? Or is there some other definition of generalization which is relevant? Does it actually matter for what we care about (training implicit generative models)? 
-What exactly is the use of this generalization bound? What does it tell us? What are the actual situations in which it holds? Is it possible that it will ever be relevant to training GANs or to developing new methods for training GANs?
Experiments:
-I appreciate that results are taken over 10 different random seeds.
-If the choice of gamma is unimportant then why is it different for one experiment? I found footnote 4 confusing and contradictory.  
-For figure 3, I do not think that the margin is "significant"--it constitutes a relative 6.5% improvement, which I do not believe really justifies the increased complexity and compute cost of the method.
-I appreciate Table 1 and Figure 4 for elucidating (a) how orthogonal the U and V matrices end up and (b) the observed decay of the spectra.
Appendix:
-Please change table 7 to be more readable, with captions underneath each figure rather than listed at the top and forcing readers to count the rows and match them to the caption. What is the difference between SN-GAN and Spectral Norm in this table? Or is that a typo, and it should be spectral-constraint?
-I Would like to see a discussion of table 7 / interpretation of why the spectra look that way (and why they evolve that way over training) for each regularizer.  
Minor:
-Typos and grammatical mistakes throughout.
-As per the CIFAR-10/100 website (https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~kriz/cifar.html) the Torralba citation is not the proper one for the CIFAR datasets, despite several recent papers which have used it.
-Intro, last paragraph, "Generation bound" should be generalization bound?
-Page 4, paragraph 2, last sentence, problem is misspelled.