Two reviewers support accept, and two reviewers indicate reject. I've looked at the paper, reviews and rebuttal, and recommend an accept decision based on the significance, theoretical grounding and novelty of the contribution. It is refreshing to see a new approach to a problem relevant to the NeurIPS community. However, please revise the paper to provide better explanation of terminology and intuition as to why the method works; the reviewers' additional feedback and post-rebuttal comments should also be carefully considered in the revisions.