Paper:
One of the most successful techniques in generative models has been decomposing a complicated generation task into a series of simpler generation tasks. For example, generating an image at a low resolution and then learning to refine that into a high resolution image often improves results substantially. Here we explore a novel strategy for decomposing generation for complicated objects in which we first generate latent variables which describe a subset of the observed variables, and then map from these latent variables to the observed space. We show that this allows us to achieve decoupled training of complicated generative models and present both theoretical and experimental results supporting the benefit of such an approach.

Review:
This paper proposed a method called Locally Disentangled Factors for hierarchical latent variable generative model, which can be seen as a hierarchical variant of Adversarially Learned Inference (Dumoulin el atl. 2017). The idea seems to be a valid variant, however, the quality of the paper is not good. The introduction and related works sections read well, but the rest of the paper has not been written well. More specifically, the content in section 3 and experiment section is messy. Also the experiments have not been conducted thoroughly, and the results and the interpretation of the results are not complete.
Introduction:
Although in introduction the author discussed a lot of works on hierarchical latent variable model and some motivating examples, after reading it the reviewer has absolutely no idea what the paper is about (except hierarchical latent variable model), what is the motivation, what is the general idea, what is the contribution of the paper. Only after carefully reading the detailed implementation in section 3.1 and section 5, did I realize that what the authors are actually doing is to use N variables to model N different parts of the observation, and one higher level variable to model the N variables. The paper should really more precisly state what the idea is throughout the paper, instead of causing confusion and ambiguity.
Section 3:
1. The concepts of "disentanglment" and "local connectivity" are really unnecessary and confusing. First, the whole paper and experiments has nothing to do with "local connectivity". Even though you might have the intention to propose the idea, you didn't show any support for the idea. Second, what you actually did is to use top level variable to generate N latent variables. That could hardly called "disentanglement". The mean field factorization in (Kingma & Welling 2013) is on the inference side (Q not P), and as found out in literature, it could not achieve disentanglement.
2. In section 3.2, I understand that you want to say the hierarchical model may require less data sample. But, here you are really off-topic. It would be much better if you can relate to the proposed method, and state how it may require less data.
3. Section 3.1 is more important, and is really major part of your method. Therefore, it need more extensive discussion and emphasis.
Experiment:
This section is really bad.
1. Since in the introduction and related works, there are already so many hierarchical latent variable model listed, the baseline methods should really not just vanilla GAN, but hierarchical latent variable models, such as the Hierachical VAE, Variational Ladder Autoencoder in (Zhao et al. 2017), ALI (not hierarchical, but should be a baseline) in (Dumoulin et al. 2017), etc.
2. Since currently there is still no standard way to evaluate the quality of image generation, by giving only inception score, we can really not judge whether it is good or not. You need to give more metrics, or generation examples, recontruction examples, and so on. And equally importantly, compare and discuss about the results. Not just leave it there.
3. For section 5.2, similar problems as above exist. Baseline methods might be insufficient. The paper only shows several examples, and the reviewer cannot draw any conclusion about it. Nor does the paper discuss any of the results.
4. Section 5.3, second to the last line, typo: "This is shown in 7". Also this result is not available. 
5. More importantly, some experiments should be conducted to explicitly show the validity of the proposed hierarchical latent model idea. Show that it exists and works by some experiment explicitly.
Another suggestion the review would like to make is that, instead of proposing the general framework in section 2, it would be better to propose the hierarchical model in the context of section 3.1. That is, instead of saying z_0 -> z_1 ->... ->x, what the paper and experiment is really about is z_0 -> z_{1,1}, z_{1,2} ... z_{1,N} -> x_{1}, x_{2},...,x_{N}, where z_{1,1...N} are distinct variables. How section 2 is related to the learning of this might be concatenating these N distinct variables into one (if that's what you mean). Talking about the joint distribution and inference process in this way might more align with your idea. Also, the paper actually only deals with 2 level. It seems to me that it's meaningless to generalize to n levels in section 2, since you do not have any support of it.
In conclusion, the reviewer thinks that this work is incomplete and does not worth publishing with its current quality.
==============================================================
The reviewer read the response from the authors. However, I do not think the authors resolved the issues I mentioned. And I am still not convinced by the quality of the paper. I would say the idea is not bad, but the paper is still not well-prepared. So I do not change my decision.