The reviewers overall found the method here interesting, but there were a few concerns: 1. Most importantly, the description in the paper seems to overclaim the breadth of the results. For example given the relatively limited scope of the experiments it seems strange to call this "Unsupervised Text Generation", at the best it's probably "Unsupervised Paraphrasing", "Unsupervised Style Transfer", or stretching "Unsupervised Conditional Text Generation". I would encourage the authors to scope the claims appropriately. 2. Significant additional complexity compared to other methods. The method is relatively complicated, and this may limit its applicability to some extent. However, despite these concerns I do think that the paper is of sufficient quality to be published at NeurIPS and thus recommend it for acceptance.