weakness is in the evaluation. The datasets used are very simple (whether artificial or real). Furthermore, there is no particularly convincing direct demonstration on real data (e.g. MNIST digits) that the network is actually robust to gain variation. Figure 3 shows that performance is worse without IP, but this is not quite the same thing. In addition, while GSM is discussed and stated as "mathematically distinct" (l.232), etc., it is not clear why GSM cannot be used on the same data and results compared to the PPG model's results. Minor comments (no need for authors to respond): - The link between IP and the terms/equations could be explained more explicitly and prominently - Pls include labels for subfigures in Figs 3 and 4, and not just state in the captions. - Have some of the subfigures in Figs 1 and 2 been swapped by mistake?
- The link between IP and the terms/equations could be explained more explicitly and prominently - Pls include labels for subfigures in Figs 3 and 4, and not just state in the captions.