Paper:
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018 DEMYSTIFYING MMD GANS
We investigate the training and performance of generative adversarial networks using the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) as critic, termed MMD GANs. As our main theoretical contribution, we clarify the situation with bias in GAN loss functions raised by recent work: we show that gradient estimators used in the optimization process for both MMD GANs and Wasserstein GANs are unbiased, but learning a discriminator based on samples leads to biased gradients for the generator parameters. We also discuss the issue of kernel choice for the MMD critic, and characterize the kernel corresponding to the energy distance used for the Cramér GAN critic. Being an integral probability metric, the MMD benefits from training strategies recently developed for Wasserstein GANs. In experiments, the MMD GAN is able to employ a smaller critic network than the Wasserstein GAN, resulting in a simpler and faster-training algorithm with matching performance. We also propose an improved measure of GAN convergence, the Kernel Inception Distance, and show how to use it to dynamically adapt learning rates during GAN training.

Review:
The quality and clarity of this work are very good. The introduction of the kernel inception metric is well-motivated and novel, to my knowledge. With the mention of a bit more related work (although this is already quite good), I believe that this could be a significant resource for understanding MMD GANs and how they fit into the larger model zoo.
Pros
 - best description of MMD GANs that I have encountered
 - good contextualization of related work and descriptions of relationships, at least among the works surveyed
 - reasonable proposed metric (KID) and comparison with other scores
 - proof of unbiased gradient estimates is a solid contribution
Cons
 - although the review of related work is very good, it does focus on ~3 recent papers. As a review, it would be nice to see mention (even just in a list with citations) of how other models in the zoo fit in
 - connection between IPMs and MMD gets a bit lost; a figure (e.g.  flow chart) would help
 - wavers a bit between proposing/proving novel things vs. reviewing and lacks some overall structure/storyline
 - Figure 1 is a bit confusing; why is KID tested without replacement, and FID with? Why 100 vs 10 samples? The comparison is good to have, but it's hard to draw any insight with these differences in the subfigures. The figure caption should also explain what we are supposed to get out of looking at this figure.
Specific comments:
 - I suggest bolding terms where they are defined; this makes it easy for people to scan/find (e.g. Jensen-Shannon divergence, Integral Probability Metrics, witness functions, Wasserstein distance, etc.) 
 - Although they are common knowledge in the field, because this is a review it could be helpful to provide references or brief explanations of e.g. JSD, KL, Wasserstein distance, RKHS, etc.
 - a flow chart (of GANs, IPMs, MMD, etc., mentioning a few more models than are discussed in depth here, would be *very* helpful.
 - page 2, middle paragraph, you mention "...constraints to ensure the kernel distribution embeddings remained injective"; it would be helpful to add a sentence here to explain why that's a good thing.