Paper:
A PAC-Bayesian Analysis of Randomized Learning with Application to Stochastic Gradient Descent
We study the generalization error of randomized learning algorithms-focusing on stochastic gradient descent (SGD)-using a novel combination of PAC-Bayes and algorithmic stability. Importantly, our generalization bounds hold for all posterior distributions on an algorithm's random hyperparameters, including distributions that depend on the training data. This inspires an adaptive sampling algorithm for SGD that optimizes the posterior at runtime. We analyze this algorithm in the context of our generalization bounds and evaluate it on a benchmark dataset. Our experiments demonstrate that adaptive sampling can reduce empirical risk faster than uniform sampling while also improving out-of-sample accuracy.

Review:
The paper opens the way to a new use of PAC-Bayesian theory, by combining PAC-Bayes with algorithmic stability to study stochastic optimization algorithms. The obtained probabilistic bounds are then used to inspire adaptive sampling strategies, studied empirically in a deep learning scenario. 
The  paper is well written, and the proofs are non-trivial. It contains several clever ideas, namely the use of algorithmic stability to bound the complexity term inside PAC-Bayesian bounds. It's also fruitful to express the prior and posterior distributions over the sequences of indexes used by a stochastic gradient descent algorithm. Up to my knowledge, this is very different than any other previous PAC-Bayes theorems, and I think it can inspire others in the future.
The experiments using a (moderately) deep network, trained by both SGD and AdaGrad, are convincing enough; they show that the proposed adaptive sampling strategy can benefit to existing optimization methods simply by selecting the samples during training time.
Small comments:
- Line 178: In order to sell their result, the authors claim that "high-probability bounds are usually favored" over bounds in expectation. I don't think the community is unanimous about this, and I would like the authors to convince me that I should prefer high-probability bounds.
- Section 5 and Algorithm 1: I suggest to explicitly express the utility function f as a function of a model h.
Typos:
- Line 110: van -> can 
- Supplemental, Line 183: he -> the
** UPDATE **
I encourage the authors to carefully consider the reviewer's comments while preparing the final version of their paper. Concerning the claim that high-probability bound imply expectation bound, I think it's right, but it deserves to be explained properly to convince the readers.