Paper:
Importance sampling is a common approach to off-policy learning in reinforcement learning. While it is consistent and unbiased, it can result in high variance updates to the parameters for the value function. Weighted importance sampling (WIS) has been explored to reduce variance for off-policy policy evaluation, but only for linear value function approximation. In this work, we explore a resampling strategy to reduce variance, rather than a reweighting strategy. We propose Importance Resampling (IR) for off-policy learning, that resamples experience from the replay buffer and applies a standard on-policy update. The approach avoids using importance sampling ratios directly in the update, instead correcting the distribution over transitions before the update. We characterize the bias and consistency of the our estimator, particularly compared to WIS. We then demonstrate in several toy domains that IR has improved sample efficiency and parameter sensitivity, as compared to several baseline WIS estimators and to IS. We conclude with a demonstration showing IR improves over IS for learning a value function from images in a racing car simulator.

Review:
This paper introduces the concept of Sampling Importance Resampling (SIR) and give a simple method to adjust the off-policyness in the TD update rule of (general) value function learning, as an alternative of importance sampling. The authors argue that this resampling technique has several advantages over IS, especially on the stability with respect to step-size if we are doing optimization based the reweighted/resampled samples. In experiment section they show the sensitivity to learning rate of IR TD learning is closer to the on-policy TD learning, comparing with using IS or WIS.
Main comments: 
The proposed IR technique is simple and definitely interesting in RL settings. The advantage about sensitivity of step-size choice in optimization algorithm looks appealing to me, since that is a very common practical issue with IS weighted objective. However I feel both the theoretical analysis and empirical results will be more convinced to me if a more complete analysis is presented. Especially considering that the importance resampling itself is well known in another field, in my point of view, the main contribution/duty of this paper would be introducing it to RL, comparing the pros/cons with popular OPPE methods in RL, and characterize what is the best suitable scenario for this method. I think the paper could potentially do a better job. See detailed comments:
1. The assumption of Thm 3.2 in main body looks a little bit unnatural to me. Why can we assume that the variance is bounded instead of prove what is the upper bound of variance in terms of MDP parameters? I believe there exists an upper bound so that result would be correct, but I’m just saying that this should be part of the proof to make the theorem to be complete.
2. If my understanding to section 3.3 is correct, the variance of IR here is variance of IR just for one minibatch. Then this variance analysis also seems a little bit weird to me. Since IR/IR-BC is computed online (actually in minibatch), I think a more fair comparison with IS/WIS might be giving them the same number of computations over samples. E.g. I would like to see the result of averaged IR/IR-BC estimator (over n/k minibatch’s) in either slicing window (changed every time) or fully offline buffer, where n is the number of samples used in IS/WIS and k the size of minibatch. I think it would be more informative than just viewing WIS as an (upper bound) benchmark since it uses more samples than.
3. From a higher level, this paper considers the problem of learning policy-value function with off-policy data. I think in addition to TD learning with IS adjustment, fitted Q iteration might be a natural baseline to compare with. It is also pretty widely-used and simple. Unlink TD, FQI does not need off-policy adjustment since it learns values for each action. I think that can be a fair and necessary baseline to compare to, at least in experiment section.
4. A relatively minor issue: I’m glad to see the author shows how sensitive each method is to the change of learning rate. I think it would be better to show some results to directly support the argument in introduction -- “the magnitude of the updates will vary less”, and maybe some more visualizable results on how stable the optimization is using IS and IR. I really think that is the most appealing point of IR to me.
Minor comments:
5. The authors suggest that the second part of Var(IR), stated in the fifth line from the bottom in page 5, is some variability not related to IS ratio but just about the update value it self. I think that seems not the case since the k samples (\delta_ij’s, j=1 to k) actually (heavily) depend on IS raios, unless I missed something here. E.g. in two extreme case where IS weights are all ones or IS weights are all zero except for one (s,a) in the buffer, the variance is very different and that is because of IS ratio but not the variance of updates themselves. 
6. Similar with (5), in two variance expressions on the top of page 6, it would be better to point out that the distribution of k samples are actually different in two equations. One of them is sampled uniformly from buffer and the other is proportional to IS ratios.
7. I think it is a little bit confused to readers when sometimes both off-policy learning and off-policy policy evaluation are used to describe the same setting. I would personally prefer use off-policy (policy) learning only in the “control” setting: learning the optimal policy or the optimal value function, and use the term off-policy policy evaluation referring to estimating a given policy’s value function. Though I understand that sometimes we may say “learning a policy value function for a given policy”, I think it might be better to clarify the setting and later use the same term in the whole paper.
Overall, I think there are certainly some interesting points about the IR idea in this paper. However the issues above weakens my confidence about the clarity and completeness of the analysis (in both theory and experiment) in this paper.