The paper, the reviews, the author response and the ensuing discussion were all taken into consideration. All reviewers considered the work marginally above the acceptance threshold. Novelty was a concern for some but other reviewers appreciated it. Lacking comparisons to GCN and others, evaluation of underlying topics, and consideration of topic modeling prior work were also concerns. However, the paper was generally felt to represent good work, and use of a deep model in this context, design of the model, and convincing experiments were appreciated. Overall the paper seems to be of sufficient quality to be presented at NeurIPS.