Paper:
While there are convergence guarantees for temporal difference (TD) learning when using linear function approximators, the situation for nonlinear models is far less understood, and divergent examples are known. Here we take a first step towards extending theoretical convergence guarantees to TD learning with nonlinear function approximation. More precisely, we consider the expected learning dynamics of the TD(0) algorithm for value estimation. As the step-size converges to zero, these dynamics are defined by a nonlinear ODE which depends on the geometry of the space of function approximators, the structure of the underlying Markov chain, and their interaction. We find a set of function approximators that includes ReLU networks and has geometry amenable to TD learning regardless of environment, so that the solution performs about as well as linear TD in the worst case. Then, we show how environments that are more reversible induce dynamics that are better for TD learning and prove global convergence to the true value function for well-conditioned function approximators. Finally, we generalize a divergent counterexample to a family of divergent problems to demonstrate how the interaction between approximator and environment can go wrong and to motivate the assumptions needed to prove convergence.

Review:
####
A. Summarize what the paper claims to do/contribute. Be positive and generous.
####
The paper characterises the convergence of Temporal Difference learning for on-policy value estimation with nonlinear function approximators. It looks at a few classes of functions which include Deep ReLU networks, with and without residual connections. It looks at how a few aspects of function approximators affect their convergence properties, and how these are intertwined with a property of the environment.
This topic is important for improving the theoretical understanding of Deep RL. The paper provides a series of mathematical results which will be interesting for the community as they are well-motivated, intuitively explained, and of clear practical relevance.  The paper works within a simplified setup that is however NOT toy. It makes reasonable simplifying assumptions to avoid confounding issues with exploration, off-policyness of data, and stochastic optimization. Within a continuous-time MRP framework they show that:
1. When a particular class of function approximators known as homogenous functions (e.g. Deep ReLU networks) is used, the error on the state value function can be bounded. Tweaking the class of function approximators by making them like residual networks (residual-homogenous) obtains a bound similar to known bounds for linear function approximators.
2. It is known that TD(0) converges with linear function approximators and arbitrary environments. It is also known that TD(0) converges with arbitrary function approximators when the environment is fully reversible. This paper shows that there is in fact a tradeoff between how well the function approximator is conditioned and how reversible the environment is (for particular definitions of well-conditionedness and the "extent" to which an environment is reversible). This nicely links up known theory and is especially relevant for practitioners who would like to apply neural net function approximators in arbitrary environments.
3. They show that using n-step returns instead of TD(0) returns can have a similar effect to the environment being reversible. That's a nice insight. 
4. There is a classic counterexample for TD(0) with a nonlinear function approximator diverging. The paper makes this example more general which more clearly demonstrates how/why convergence fails beyond the single pathological example whose relevance to real neural nets was hard to determine. It makes it clear that a necessary condition for convergent TD learning with function approximators is dodging this more general class of divergent example.
5. The theory is supported by (toy) experiments, whose empirical results suggest the theory can be made more general (e.g. to include more classes of function approximators). 
####
B. Clearly state your decision (accept or reject) with one or two key reasons for this choice.
####
This paper should be accepted because the results are interesting, relevant, novel (as far as the reviewer understands), well-explained, and as far as the reviewer can tell correct (though I have not scrutinized the proofs in the appendix).
The paper is interesting and easy to read (even for someone without background in proving the convergence of RL algorithms).
####
C. Provide supporting arguments for the reasons for the decision.
####
Whether or not (and under what conditions) TD(0) converges is an important object of study for the Deep RL community, which is well-represented at ICLR. The results shown here should be more widely known.
Good intuitions given for the mathematical results in addition to proofs (e.g. why homogeneity prevents divergence).
This work contributes to the understanding of Deep RL and could eventually lead to actionable theory which lets us design more robust RL systems (with insights about the coupling between learning algorithm, function approximator, and environment).
####
D. Provide additional feedback with the aim to improve the paper. Make it clear that these points are here to help, and not necessarily part of your decision assessment.
####
D0. My main critique is that the results are somewhat disparate. How does homogeneity or residual homogeneity relate to the conditioning number of the neural tangent kernel? Can these all be connected up better?
D1. Be more clear in Remark 1 on page 4 that the homogenous property applies to *deep* ReLU networks. Otherwise the reader may assume the proof only applies to single-layer neural networks until they read the more detailed exposition in the appendix. 
D2. Is it an issue for homogeneity if there is a point where the derivative does not exist (e.g. at x=0 for ReLU).
D3. Can the paper make it more clear to a Deep RL audience in the intro or discussion what the holy grail of this research direction would be?
D4. As tanh or multiplicative activations (e.g. those found in LSTM/attention networks) are not homogenous, can the authors speculate about whether or not they would have similar convergence properties to homogeneous activations? What are the obstacles to a similar proof for this class of networks?.