Paper:
Even though recent works have brought some insight into the performance improvement of techniques used in state-of-the-art deep-learning models, more work is needed to understand the generalization properties of over-parameterized deep neural networks. We shed light on this matter by linking the loss function to the output's sensitivity to its input. We find a rather strong empirical relation between the output sensitivity and the variance in the bias-variance decomposition of the loss function, which hints on using sensitivity as a metric for comparing generalization performance of networks, without requiring labeled data. We find that sensitivity is decreased by applying popular methods which improve the generalization performance of the model, such as (1) using a deep network rather than a wide one, (2) adding convolutional layers to baseline classifiers instead of adding fully connected layers, (3) using batch normalization, dropout and max-pooling, and (4) applying parameter initialization techniques.

Review:
This paper examines generalization performance of various neural network architectures in terms of a sensitivity metric that approximates how the error responds to perturbations of the input. A crude argument is presented for how the proposed sensitivity metric captures the variance term in the standard bias-variance decomposition of the loss. A number of experimental results are presented that show strong correlation between the sensitivity metric and the empirical test loss.
Understanding the distinguishing characteristics of networks that generalize well versus networks that generalize poorly is a central challenge in modern deep learning research, so the topic and analyses presented in this paper are salient and will be of interest to most of the community. The experimental results are intriguing and the presentation is clear and easy to read. While some may object to the egregious simplifications utilized in "deriving" the sensitivity metric, I believe this kind of analysis should be welcomed if it produces new insights and helps explain otherwise opaque empirical phenomena. All told, if taken in isolation from prior work, I think the insights and empirical results presented in this paper are quite interesting and certainly sufficient for acceptance to ICLR.
However, there is significant overlap with prior work that severely detracts from the novelty of the results presented here, and I think the community is already familiar with the paper's main conclusions. From the empirical viewpoint, [1] performs a very similar (and actually quite a bit more thorough) analysis, and reaches very similar conclusions. The authors do cite [1], but unless I missed something, their main argument for uniqueness is basically "in experiments, we prefer S to the Jacobian, because in order to compute S it is enough to look at the network as a black box that given an input, generates an output, without requiring further knowledge of the model." While this may be useful from the practical standpoint for some non-differentiable models, I'm not convinced that this distinction is really significant in terms of building insights or new understanding. 
One additional way this paper is distinct from [1] is that it includes a theoretical "derivation" for the sensitivity metric. While I found the argument interesting, from the theoretical perspective, [2] gives much more rigorous and insightful arguments that help explain the observed phenomena. 
Overall, I'm just not convinced this paper is novel enough to merit publication. But perhaps I've overlooked something, in which case I hope the author's response can highlight their unique contributions relative to prior work.
[1] Novak, Roman, et al. "Sensitivity and generalization in neural networks: an empirical study." arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08760 (2018).
[2] Arora, Sanjeev, et al. "Stronger Generalization Bounds for Deep Nets via a Compression Approach." International Conference on Machine Learning. 2018.