This is a theoretical paper that has received relatively good reviews. However, two of the reviewers only increased their scores from 5 to 6 in order to reduce the divergence and help form a consensus (in the discussions), but neither was really convinced about the quality of the paper. Unfortunately, the highest scoring reviewer was also the least confident. I read the paper myself and I find that it has some merits --- it seems theoretically solid, but I have a slight tendency towards saying that it may be a better fit at ALT/AISTATS/COLT, and it is unclear if the NeurIPS community will benefit from knowing these results. Nevertheless, regardless of the final outcome, the authors are encouraged to improve the readability of their paper through (it is currently somewhat dense for the average reader).