Paper:
We present a deep recurrent neural network architecture to solve a class of stochastic optimal control problems described by fully nonlinear Hamilton Jacobi Bellman partial differential equations. Such PDEs arise when one considers stochastic dynamics characterized by uncertainties that are additive, state dependent and control multiplicative. Stochastic models with the aforementioned characteristics have been used in computational neuroscience, biology, finance and aerospace systems and provide a more accurate representation of actuation than models with only additive uncertainty. Previous literature has established the inadequacy of the linear HJB theory and instead relies on a non-linear Feynman-Kac lemma resulting in a second order Forward-Backward Stochastic Differential Equations representation. However, the proposed solutions that use this representation suffer from compounding errors and computational complexity resulting in lack of scalability. In this paper, we propose a deep learning based algorithm that leverages the second order Forward-Backward SDE representation and LSTM based recurrent neural networks to not only solve such Stochastic Optimal Control problems but also overcome the problems faced by traditional approaches and shows promising scalability.
The resulting control algorithm is tested on nonlinear systems from robotics and biomechanics in simulation to demonstrate feasibility and out-performance against previous methods.

Review:
######### Rebuttal Response:
Thanks for the clarifications and especially for updating the formatting. The current state does not convince me to rate the paper as weak accept but I increased my rating to weak reject. 
"Pereira et. al. has shown that a recurrent network architecture using LSTM outperforms the fully connected networks at every time step proposed by Han et. al. in task completion, space and time complexity. Therefore, in this paper we choose to use an LSTM-based network architecture."
-> Yes it might be true that a recurrent function approximator does in practice perform better than a feed-forward function approximator. However, in theory a feed-forward network should be sufficient as the value function does not depend on the previous states. Therefore, the question is, why does the LSTM perform better? Does the recurrent nature of the LSTM make the predictions smoother compared to a feed-forward network?  Can any other regularizing scheme be introduced s.t. the feed-forward networks performs equally well?
######### Review:
Summary: 
The paper builds on the work of Pereira et. al. and uses forward backward stochastic differential equations to learn the Hessian of the Value function Vxx and \partial _t V_x + 1/2 tr(\partial_{xx} V_x CC^T). In contrast to the prior work, this paper introduces multiplicative noise for the control and uses second order optimization. The performance is evaluated on different control tasks, e.g., linear system, cartpole, quadcopter & human arm actuated by tendons. 
Conclusion: 
All in all, I like the proposed research of combining theoretical approaches and deep learning to perform trajectory optimization and I would like to see much more of this research like this within the ICLR community. Furthermore, I think that the paper has a contribution and that the paper was improved compared to the initial Neurips submission (i.e., adding ILQG as baseline). However, the writeup and formatting is still very much sub-standard and must be improved to make this paper worth publishing. The current write-up is not accessible for the ICLR community and the understandability must be significantly improved (Details are provided below). Therefore, I currently rate this paper as a clear rejection but I am happy to improve the score to 7-8 if the write up is improved during the rebuttal. 
Theoretical Structure: 
I like the introduction, which covers the topic but might be a bit too long. Maybe you want to shorten the introduction and add an additional related work section at the end. The stochastic control introduction is nice and has the correct level of abstraction for the reader. However, the paper introduces many complex concepts which are not essential for understanding the paper (e.g., filtered probability space etc.). One might want to trade off understandability vs. mathematical rigor especially, if the paper does not rely on these concepts. Furthermore, you might want to make eq 1 more explicit as the multiplicative action noise is not visible from eq 1. Section 3 'A FBSDE Solution to the HJB PDE' is the most problematic section of this paper, which is not understandable for the common ICLR reader. Eq. 6, which just appears without any derivation, is not understandable and the reader has no intuition how to derive this eq. Furthermore, Eq 6 (page. 4) uses notations which is only clearly introduced later within the paper or even the appendix (e.g., Y being the propagated value function, Z being the propagated gradient of the value function is only mentioned in the appendix, i.e., page 12. \Gamma is only introduced in page 5. Yes, Eq. 7 defines these variables but the style of definition is not standard and one does not expect the variables to be defined in this style.). Could the authors please provide an intuitive derivation of these equation and use clearer notation (Why would one want to abstract V, V_x, V_x, \mathcal|{H}(V_x) in the first place as these are intuitive for the ICLR community and sufficiently short?) Especially, as this section highlights the difference to the prior works of Pereira et. al., this section should be very clear. Section 4 is clear but should include the loss function as the loss is not trivial and essential for the optimization. Currently, the loss description is buried in the appendix. All in all, the theoretical explanation and the bloated notation should be simplified and every equation should be embedded into an intuitive derivation. Currently these explanations are not understandable without reading the appendix and prior work.  
Experiments:
The experiments apply 2FBSDE to 4 different control tasks (Linear system, quadcopter, cartpole & human arm) and compare the performance to the prior work of FBSDE and iLQG. The number of baselines and systems is sufficient. However, the paper should provide more evaluations:
(1) Plot the histogram of the obtained cost distributions. 
(2) Plot a single state- and action trajectory (and the action distribution). Using these plots, the level of noise and smoothness and hence the applicability to physical systems can be evaluated. 
(3) Plot the noise free trajectories and show that these mean trajectories reach the desired solution.
(4) Specify the exact cost function for every experiment
Further Comments to the individual experiments: 
Cartpole:
The Cartpole iLQG seems to perform much better (swing-up the pendulum faster, don't deviate so much from x=0, much more coherent velocity compared to 2FBSDE, FBSDE). Could the authors please discuss these aspects in more detail and present experiments with longer time-horizons to check whether the proposed method can stabilize the cart at [0, 0, 0, 0]. The current plots don't reach this target state. Your plots also hint that the cartpole does not need to pre-swing the pendulum, which is most likely due to the very low action cost. This selection of action cost significantly simplifies the problem. Could the authors please include a cartpole with higher action cost and show that 2FBSDE can learn to pre-swing the pendulum. 
The quadcopter:
Could the authors please specify the exact quadcopter dynamics. What kind of abstraction did you model? What are the control inputs? Furthermore, the citation for the dynamics is wrong and puts the supervisor of the master thesis as first author. Furthermore, can the authors please provide longer plots to highlight, which method can stabilize the system.
Human Arm:
For the human arm neither iLQG or 2FBSDE reach the desired target location. Can you explain why no trajectory optimization does reach the desired position. 
Formatting:
Please rework the formatting such that the inline math does not cause the formatting issues of different line spacings (e.g., sec. 2.1, sec. 5) and irregular whitespaces (e.g., last line of paragraph 2.1 Preliminaries). Please remove the color coding of text for the experiments and make sure that the legends are sufficiently large and include all lines. Currently the legends are missing the target state. You can also extend the figure captions to highlight the conclusion of the plots. Please rework the figures such that the figures do not cause so much whitespace (e.g., Figure 3, 4 & 5). When reconfiguring the plots, you gain space, which can be used for further explanation of the theory. Furthermore, you might want add dotted lines to the confidence intervals as the confidence intervals are important but the differences are not clearly visible from the plots. Also, the labelling in figure 3 seems wrong, the axis labeled cart velocity should be pendulum angle and the pendulum angle axis should be cart velocity. All in all, the formatting can be significantly improved, which is especially bad as this paper is most likely a resubmission from Neurips.  
Minor Comments / Questions:
- 'where l :Rnx×Rnu→R+ is the running cost and C1,23 \phi :Rnx→R+ is the terminal state cost.' Is l and \phi of class C^{1,2} or only one of them? The notation is confusing and should be simplified.
- Can you comment on how important this multiplicative noise in physical system? ¬¬¬
- Why are you using a LSTM instead of a simple feed-forward neural network as the ff-nn should be sufficient to model V(x) as the value function is not recurrent. Have you tried using a simple ff-nn?