Paper:
Thinking Fast and Slow with Deep Learning and Tree Search
Sequential decision making problems, such as structured prediction, robotic control, and game playing, require a combination of planning policies and generalisation of those plans. In this paper, we present Expert Iteration (EXIT), a novel reinforcement learning algorithm which decomposes the problem into separate planning and generalisation tasks. Planning new policies is performed by tree search, while a deep neural network generalises those plans. Subsequently, tree search is improved by using the neural network policy to guide search, increasing the strength of new plans. In contrast, standard deep Reinforcement Learning algorithms rely on a neural network not only to generalise plans, but to discover them too. We show that EXIT outperforms REINFORCE for training a neural network to play the board game Hex, and our final tree search agent, trained tabula rasa, defeats MOHEX 1.0, the most recent Olympiad Champion player to be publicly released.

Review:
SUMMARY:
The paper proposes an algorithm that combines imitation learning with tree search, which results in an apprentice learning from an ever-improving expert.
A DQN is trained to learn a policy derived from an MCTS agent, with the DQN providing generalisation to unseen states. It is also then used as feedback to improve the expert, which can then be used to retrain the DQN, and so on.
The paper makes two contributions: (1) a new target for imitation learning, which is empirically shown to outperform a previously-suggested target and which results in the apprentice learning a policy of equal strength to the expert. (2) using the apprentice to improve the expert after each imitation learning step is shown to result in strong play against a policy gradient algorithm for the game Hex. 
COMMENTS:
I found the paper generally well-written, clear and easy to follow, barring Section 6. The idea of combining reactive-style approaches with explicit planning techniques is an interesting one, and makes sense intuitively (I particularly liked the link to the different systems of human thinking), although the downside here is that we then require a model of the environment, which negates the benefits of using model-free approaches (like DQN) in the first place. 
A few questions that I had about the paper:
1. On line 69, some of the drawbacks of RL in general are stated. What guarantees, though, are there that these issues don't apply to ExIt as well?
2. On line 212, why is it advantageous or desirable for the positions in the training set to be similar to those in the test set?
3. I found section 6 lacking in detail, especially for a purely empirical paper. In particular, was the version of ExIt presented here the online version? On lines 122-125, some reasons are provided as to why an online variant may be superior, but there is no experiment validating this. I would therefore expect to see maybe an online version, and a version where the data is discarded after each iteration in the results graph, which could then show that ExIt is better than policy gradients, as well as the advantage (or not) of the online version. 
4. I do not follow the results in section 6.2. What were the "reference agents" mentioned in the caption? Which network is being referred to on line 267?  How many games were played? What were the standard errors on those results? What is "NN evaluations"?
Some remarks on the actual writing:
1. For an arbitrary policy, the definition of the advantage function appears incorrect on line 50. It should be defined as A^\pi(s, a) = Q^\pi(s,a ) - V^\pi(s), where V\pi(s) = Q^\pi(s,\pi(s)) which is not necessarily equal to the max of one-step lookahead as is currently written.
2. In the pseudocode on line 80, there is a function called "Targets". Since it is only made clear two pages later what "Targets" actually refers to, it may be better to briefly mention its meaning here.
3. The exploration constant c_b in the UCB1 formula on line 162 is not explained. Also, was this set to zero because RAVE was used?
4. On line 232, should it not read "When a node is TRAVERSED"? The word "expanded" gives the impression that it is in the expansion phase of MCTS where a child is randomly added to the tree, as opposed to the tree phase where UCB1 selects the next child. 
There were also a few minor typographical errors:
1. There are missing full stops on lines 101 and 171
2. The footnote on line 167 should appear after the full stop
3. The semicolon on line 187 should be a comma
4. Line 254: "by network trained" => "by a network trained"
5. In the footnote on line 176, "ADAM" has been capitalised, but in the supplementary material it is referred to as "adam"
6. The reference on line 340 has the first names of the authors listed, instead of their surnames.