To be frank, this paper falls squarely on the acceptance boundary. The decision to accept it is based on the convincing author rebuttal, in particular the authors' willingness to improve the paper based on the reviewer suggestions, as witnessed by the restructuring plan presented in the author rebuttal. While it would have been better to re-review the revised paper, there is neither process nor capacity for this at NeurIPS. Yet given the fact that the results are interesting, I think the conference will benefit from allowing the authors to execute their revision proposal.