This paper had a wide spread of reviews and generated significant discussion amongst the reviewers. In the end, the majority of the reviewers agreed that while the main contribution was slightly lacking in novelty (in the sense that it was mostly a retargeting of a known technique to a new setting), it was still a valuable contribution. However, there was not a total consensus, due to R1 having significant concerns about how the paper was written. That said, the majority of reviewers think the paper is strong enough to be accepted, so I recommend that it is, with the caveat that the authors pay close attention to the revision suggestion of R1 to improve the communication of ideas.