Paper:
Fully Decentralized Policies for Multi-Agent Systems: An Information Theoretic Approach
Learning cooperative policies for multi-agent systems is often challenged by partial observability and a lack of coordination. In some settings, the structure of a problem allows a distributed solution with limited communication. Here, we consider a scenario where no communication is available, and instead we learn local policies for all agents that collectively mimic the solution to a centralized multi-agent static optimization problem. Our main contribution is an information theoretic framework based on rate distortion theory which facilitates analysis of how well the resulting fully decentralized policies are able to reconstruct the optimal solution. Moreover, this framework provides a natural extension that addresses which nodes an agent should communicate with to improve the performance of its individual policy.

Review:
This paper considers reinforcement learning in decentralized, partially observable environments. It presents an "information theoretic framework based on rate distortion theory which facilitates analysis of how well fully decentralized policies are able to reconstruct the optimal
solution" and presents an extension "that addresses which nodes an agent should communicate with to improve the performance of its individual policy." The paper presents some proof of concept results on an optimal power flow domain.
On the positive side, the idea of applying rate distortion to this problem is interesting and as far as I can tell novel. I rather like it and think it is a promising idea.
A major problem, however, is that even though the paper is motivated from the perspective of sequential problems, the formalization is (1) is a static problem. (The authors should describe in how far this corresponds to a DCOP problem). In fact, I believe that the approach is only approximating the right objective for such 1-shot problems: the objective is to approximate the optimal *centralized* policy p(u* | x). However, such a centralized policy will not take into account the affect of its actions on the distribution of information over the agents in the future, and as such much be sub-optimal from in a *decentralized* regime. Concretely: the optimal joint policy for a Dec-POMDP might sacrifice exploiting some information if it can help maintaining predictability and therefore the future ability to successfully coordinate.
Another weakness of the proposed approach is in fact this dependence on the optimal centralized policy. Even though computing the solution for a centralized problem is easier from a complexity point of view (e.g., MDPs are in P), this in practices is meaningless since---save very special cases---the state and action spaces of these distributed problems are exponential in the number of agents. As such, it is typically not clear how to obtain this centralized policy.
  		
The paper gives a highly inadequate characterization of the related work. 
For instance just the statement "In practice however, POMDPs are rarely employed due to computational limitations [Nair et al., 2005]." is wrong in so many ways:
-the authors mentions 'POMDP' but they cite a paper that introduces the 'networked distributed POMDP (ND-POMDP)' which is not a POMDP at all (but rather a special case of decentralized POMDP (Dec-POMDPs)).
-the ND-POMDP makes very strong assumptions on the interactions of the agents ('transition and observation dependence'): essentially the agents cannot influence each other. Clearly this is not the use case that the paper aims at (e.g., in power flow the actions of the agents do affect each other), so really the paper should talk about (perhaps factored) Dec-POMDPs.
-Finally, this statement seems a way to try and dismiss "using a Dec-POMDP" on this ground. However, this is all just syntax: as long as the goal is to solve a decentralized decision making problem which is not a very special sub-class** one can refuse to call it a Dec-POMDP, but the complexity will not go away.
**e.g., see: Goldman, C.V. and Zilberstein, S., 2004. Decentralized control of cooperative systems: Categorization and complexity analysis.
Also the claim "this method is the first of its kind to provide a data-driven way to learn local cooperative policies for multi-agent systems" strikes me as rather outrageous. I am not quite certain what "its kind" means exactly, but there are methods for RL in Dec-POMDPs that are completely decentralized, e.g.:
Peshkin L, Kim KE, Meuleau N, Kaelbling LP. Learning to cooperate via policy search. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence 2000 Jun 30 (pp. 489-496). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
An overview of Dec-POMDP RL methods is given in:
Oliehoek, F.A. and Amato, C., 2016. A concise introduction to decentralized POMDPs. Springer International Publishing.
All in all, I think there is an interesting idea in this submission that could be shaped into good paper. However, there are a number of serious concerns that I think preclude publication at this point.