Paper:
An Empirical Bayes Approach to Optimizing Machine Learning Algorithms
There is rapidly growing interest in using Bayesian optimization to tune model and inference hyperparameters for machine learning algorithms that take a long time to run. For example, Spearmint is a popular software package for selecting the optimal number of layers and learning rate in neural networks. But given that there is uncertainty about which hyperparameters give the best predictive performance, and given that fitting a model for each choice of hyperparameters is costly, it is arguably wasteful to "throw away" all but the best result, as per Bayesian optimization. A related issue is the danger of overfitting the validation data when optimizing many hyperparameters. In this paper, we consider an alternative approach that uses more samples from the hyperparameter selection procedure to average over the uncertainty in model hyperparameters. The resulting approach, empirical Bayes for hyperparameter averaging (EB-Hyp) predicts held-out data better than Bayesian optimization in two experiments on latent Dirichlet allocation and deep latent Gaussian models. EB-Hyp suggests a simpler approach to evaluating and deploying machine learning algorithms that does not require a separate validation data set and hyperparameter selection procedure.

Review:
# Update after author feedback
I maintain my assessment of the paper. I strongly urge the authors to improve the paper on the basis of the reviewers' input; this could turn out to become a very nice paper.
Specially important IMHO
- retrain on validation+train (will come as an obvious counter-argument)
- clarify the use of $\lambda$; R2 and R3 got confused
- variance in experiments table 2+3 (again, would be an easy target for critique once published)
# Summary of paper
Bayesian optimisation (BO) discards all but the best performance evaluations over hyperparameter sets; this exposes to overfitting the validation set, and seems wasteful. The proposed method "averages" over choices hyperparameters $\eta$ in a Bayesian way, by treating them as samples of a posterior and integrating over them. 
This requires introducing an extra layer of hyper-hyperparameters (introducing $\lambda$, subjected to empirical Bayes optimisation). 
An algorithmic choice is required to define an "acquisition strategy" in BO terms, ie a model for $r^{(s)}$, as well as a model for hyperprior $p(\eta | \lambda)$.
The proposed method does not require a separate validation set.
# Evaluation
The paper is very clearly written, without any language issues. It represents the literature and the context of the methods well. The problem statement and resolution process is clear, as is the description of the adopted solutions and approximations. The authors take care in preventing misunderstandings in several places. 
The discussion of convergence is welcome. 
The experiments are non-trivial and help the argumentation, with the caveat of the significance of results mentioned above.
The method is novel, it applies the idea of EB and hierarchical Bayes to the BO method. I believe the approach is a good, interesting idea.
# Discussion
Discussion lines 44-47 and 252 sqq: it may sound like the case presented here was cherry-picked to exhibit a "bad luck" situation in which the leftmost (in fig 1) hyperparameter set which is selected by BO also exhibits bad test error; and in a sense, it is indeed "bad luck", since only a minority of hyperparameter choices plotted in fig 1 seem to exhibit this issue. However, dealing with this situation by averaging over $\eta$'s seems to be the central argument in favour of the proposed EB-Hyp method. I buy the argument, but I also recognise that the evidence presented by fig 1 is weak.
The following advantage does not seem to be discussed in the paper: since a separate validation set is not needed, the training set can be made larger. Does this explain the observed performance increase? An analytical experiment could help answer this. Does the comparison between BO with/without validation in tables 2 and 3 help?
In algo 1, I am not clear about the dependence on $\hat{\lambda}$. I am assuming it is used in the line "return approximation to ..." (I suggest you write $p(X^*|X_\textrm{train}, \hat{\lambda})$ to clarify the dependence.)
I assume that in line "find optimal...", we actually use, per lines 200-208, $\hat{\lambda} = \arg \max \frac{1}{T} \sum_s p(\eta ^{(s)} | \lambda) f^{(s)}_X $. This is worth clarifying. 
But then, I'm confused what $p(\eta)$ in line "calculate hyperparameter posterior..." and eq 5 is? Is this an input to the algorithm?
EB-Hyp seems to carry the inconvenient that we must consider, as the "metric of interest" in BO terms, the predictive likelihood $f^{(s)}_X$, while BO can use other metrics to carry out its optimisation. This restriction should be discussed.
## Experiments
How many steps/ evaluations of $A$ do we use in either experiment? We are using the same number for all configurations, I suppose? How does the performance increase with the number of steps? Does EB-Hyp overtake only after several steps, or is its performance above other methods from the start? 
I find it hard to assign significance to the improvements presented in table 2 and 3, for lack of a sense of performance variance. The improvements are treated as statistically significant, but eg are they immune against different random data splits ? As it stands, I am not convinced that the performance improvement is real.
# Suggestions for improvement, typos
## Major
Fig 2 is incomplete: it is missing a contour colour scale. In the caption, what is a "negative relationship"? Please clarify. What is the point of fig 2 ? I can't see where it is discussed?
## Minor
fig 1a caption: valiation
fig 1: make scales equal in a vs b
algo 1: increment counter $s$. Number lines.
line 228: into into
line 239: hyerparameters