Paper:
Biological evolution has distilled the experiences of many learners into the general learning algorithms of humans. Our novel meta reinforcement learning algorithm MetaGenRL is inspired by this process. MetaGenRL distills the experiences of many complex agents to meta-learn a low-complexity neural objective function that affects how future individuals will learn. Unlike recent meta-RL algorithms, MetaGenRL can generalize to new environments that are entirely different from those used for meta-training. In some cases, it even outperforms humanengineered RL algorithms. MetaGenRL uses off-policy second-order gradients during meta-training that greatly increase its sample efficiency.

Review:
Summary:
This paper presents a novel meta reinforcement learning algorithm capable of meta-generalizing to unseen tasks. They make use of a learned objective function used in combination with DDPG style update. Results are presented on different combinations of meta-training and meta-testing on lunar, half cheetah, and hopper environments with a focus on meta-generalization to vastly different environments.
Motivation:
The work is well motivated and is tackling an important problem. There are a number of design decisions presented and only some are validated experimentally. Given the complexity of many existing meta-rl methods this seems fine but could obviously be improved upon either with more empirical work or with some guiding theory.
Experiments:
Overall the experiments are not convincing to me. Given that this is the majority of your paper is empirically based this is my main criticism. More detailed comments follow.
Figure 2a concerns me that just meta-training on lunar performs worse than ddpg (what your algorithm is based on). This suggests that this added complexity is not aiding in capacity and or hurting training. Can you comment on this? This result also casts doubt onto figure 2b, which, in isolation seems like an extremely promising example of meta-generalization. This makes me fear there is something indirect and not interesting occurring (e.g. the learned loss modifies with the DDPG algorithm which happens to increase noise in generated samples which improve performance only on some environments and hurts in others for example.)
Table 1 should include hand designed algorithms imo. Given how weak EPG is (as you stated for number of frames) and how RL^2 will never generalize across these different tasks it's hard to get a sense of the numbers. Your appendix does include a figure like this which shows ddpg performs quite well. Additionally, I don't understand why meta-training on lunar and transferring to hopper does better than meta-training on hopper (table 1, middle column). Can you comment on this?
While figure 3 is cool, I would appreciate if it put the meta-test performance on the same graph as meta-train performance. From eyeballing the curves it looks like it decreases at 100k iterations then finally increases again at 200k. This is strange. This also seems fraught from an empirical comparison point of view. How do you select when to test these algorithms? Ideally you would have a meta-validation set of tasks then only meta-test on the selected task but I see no mention of this.
Key details such as meta-training are also not discussed in depth nor ablated. From the details and curriculum scheme presented in the appendix this seems like quite a feat. Further study of these factors could be useful.
Hyperparameters of your baseline do not appear to be tuned (taken from appendix) where as for your method has a number of choices. How are you tuning these choices? Once again a meta-validation set would be the principled thing to tune against.
Finally, the experimental setup presented here is quite complicated. There are a ton of factors at play -- exploration, meta-generalization, meta-training, inner-training, instability of ddpg, so on. These all complicate the resulting picture. Having some simplified / more controlled setup to demonstrate these pieces would be greatly appreciated.
Other Suggestions:
Section 3 generalization: I think you mean meta-generalization.
Please include what error bars are for all plots.
 
Rating:
I am borderline leaning towards reject on this paper. I enjoyed reading this work and found the ideas interesting but the empirical comparisons are confusing and not convincing. I hope the authors continue to work to improve this!