This paper initially received scores of 6,5,7, and 7. After the rebuttal R4 revised up from a 5 to a 6. The consensus from the reviewers was that while the technical novelty of the paper is not extremely high the results are important as neural architecture search for dense correspondence problems is under explored. Reviewers commented on the strong empirical performance for the same model across multiple datasets which is an important selling point for the paper. The authors are strongly encouraged to update the final paper to clarify the questions raised in the rebuttal - specifically the responses to R2's questions and the additional comparisons to AANet.