Paper:
Human-computer conversation systems have attracted much attention in Natural Language Processing. Conversation systems can be roughly divided into two categories: retrieval-based and generation-based systems. Retrieval systems search a user-issued utterance (namely a query) in a large conversational repository and return a reply that best matches the query. Generative approaches synthesize new replies. Both ways have certain advantages but suffer from their own disadvantages. We propose a novel ensemble of retrieval-based and generation-based conversation system. The retrieved candidates, in addition to the original query, are fed to a reply generator via a neural network, so that the model is aware of more information. The generated reply together with the retrieved ones then participates in a re-ranking process to find the final reply to output. Experimental results show that such an ensemble system outperforms each single module by a large margin.

Review:
Summary:
The paper proposes a new dialog model combining both retrieval-based and generation-based modules. Answers are produced in three phases: a retrieval-based model extracts candidate answers; a generator model, conditioned on retrieved answers, produces an additional candidate; a reranker outputs the best among all candidates.
The approach is interesting: the proposed ensemble can improve on both the retrieval module and the generation module, since it does not restrict modeling power (e.g. the generator is not forced to be consistent with the candidates). I am not aware of similar approaches for this task. One work that comes to mind regarding the blend of retrieval and generation is Memory Networks (e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.03126.pdf and references): given a query, a set of relevant memories is extracted from a KB using an inverted index and the memories are fed into the generator. However, the extracted items in the current work are candidate answers which are used both to feed the generator and to participate in reranking.
The experimental section focuses on the task of building conversational systems. The performance measures used are 1) a human evaluation score with three volunteers and 2) BLUE scores. While these methods are not very satisfying, effective evaluation of such systems is a known difficulty. 
The results show that the ensemble outperforms the individual modules, indicating that: the multi-seq2seq models have learned to use the new inputs as needed and that the ranker is correlated with the evaluation metrics.
However, the results themselves do not look impressive to me: the subjective evaluation is close to the "borderline" score; in the examples provided, one is good, the other is borderline/bad, and the baseline always provides something very short. Does the LSTM work particularly poor on this dataset? Given that this is a novel dataset, I don't know what the state-of-the-art should be. Could you provide more insight? Have you considered adding a benchmark dataset (e.g. a QA dataset)?
Specific questions:
1. The paper motivates conditioning on the candidates in two ways. First, that the candidates bring additional information which the decoder can use (e.g. read from the candidates locations, actions, etc.). Second, that the probability of universal replies must decrease due to the additional condition. I think the second argument depends on how the conditioning is performed: if the candidates are simply appended to the input, the model can learn to ignore them.
2. The copy mechanism is a nice touch, encouraging the decoder to use the provided queries. Why not copy from the query too, e.g. with some answers reusing part of the query <"Where are you going?", "I'm going to the park">?
3. How often does the model select the generated answer vs. the extracted answers? In both examples provided the selected answer is the one merging the candidate answers.
Minor issues:
- Section 3.2: using and the state
- Section 3.2: more than one replies
- last sentence on page 3: what are the "following principles"?