Paper:
Model-based imitation learning methods require full knowledge of the transition kernel for policy evaluation. In this work, we introduce the Expert Induced Markov Decision Process (eMDP) model as a formulation of solving imitation problems using Reinforcement Learning (RL), when only partial knowledge about the transition kernel is available. The idea of eMDP is to replace the unknown transition kernel with a synthetic kernel that: a) simulate the transition of state components for which the transition kernel is known (s r ), and b) extract from demonstrations the state components for which the kernel is unknown (s u ). The next state is then stitched from the two components: s = {s r , s u }. We describe in detail the recipe for building an eMDP and analyze the errors caused by its synthetic kernel. Our experiments include imitation tasks in multiplayer games, where the agent has to imitate one expert in the presence of other experts for whom we cannot provide a transition model. We show that combining a policy gradient algorithm with our model achieves superior performance compared to the simulation-free alternative.

Review:
* Paper summary.
The paper considers an IL problem where partial knowledge about the transition probability of the MDP is available. To use of this knowledge, the paper proposes an expert induced MDP (eMDP) model where the unknown part of transition probability is modeled as-is from demonstrations. Based on eMDP, the paper proposes a reward function based on an integral probability metric between a state distribution of expert demonstrations under the target MDP and a state distribution of the agent under the eMDP. Using this reward function, the paper proposes an IL method that maximizes this reward function by RL. The main theoretical result of the paper is that the error between value function of the target MDP and that of the eMDP can be upper-bounded. Empirical comparisons against behavior cloning on discrete control tasks show that the proposed method performs better. 
* Rating.  
The main contribution of the paper is the eMDP model, which enables utilizing prior knowledge about the target MDP for IL. While this idea is interesting, eMDP is too restrictive and its practical usefulness is unclear. Moreover, there are other issues that should be addressed such as clarity and experiments. I vote for weak rejection. 
* Major comments:
- Limited practicality due to an assumption on the unresponsive transition kernel.
In eMDP, the unresponsive transition kernel is modeled from demonstrations by directive using the observed next states (in demonstrations) as a next state of the agent. This modeling implicitly assumes that the agent cannot influence the unresponsive part of the state space. This is too restrictive, since actions of the agent usually influence other parts of the state space such as opponents and objects. For instance, in pong, actions of the agent indeed influence trajectories of the ball. Due to this restrictive assumption, I think the practicality of eMDP is too limited.
Also, it is unclear what happens when the transition of unresponsive state space is stochastic. In this case, the unresponsive transitions of eMDP would be incorrect since eMDP assumes deterministic transitions as-is from demonstrations. Though I am not sure about this. 
- The equality in Eq. (3) should be an upper-bound. The IPM is defined by the absolute difference between summations (expectations), but the right-hand side of Eq. (3) is summations (expectations) of the absolute difference. These two are not equal, and the right-hand side should be an upper-bound. 
- The paper is difficult to follow. There are many skipping contents in the paper. Especially, in the description of eMDP and its solution, where the paper describes the optimal solution of eMDP (Section 2) before describing the eMDP model (Section 4). Also, it is unclear from my first reading pass what is the actual IL procedure. Including a pseudo-code would help. 
- The state-value function’s error bound ignores a policy. The proof utilizes the state distribution P(s’|s). However, this distribution should depend on a policy. It is unclear to me what is the policy function used in this error bound. Does this error-bound hold for any policy or only for the optimal policy? In the case that it only holds for the optimal policy, this result still does not provide useful guarantees when the optimal policy is not learned, similarly to the result in Proposition 2.1.
- Empirical evaluation lacks strong baseline methods. The paper compares the proposed method against behavior cloning, which is known to perform poorly under limited data. The paper requires stronger baseline methods such as those mentioned in Section 3. Also, it is strange that the vertical axis in Figure 2 represents the reward function of eMDP, which is an artificial quantity in Eq. (5). The results should present the reward function of the target MDP, which is the ground-truth reward of the task.
* Besides the major comments, I have few minor comments and questions:
- Does the reward function in Eq. (5) correspond to the Wasserstein distance for any metric d_s? If it is not, then the value function’s error-bound for the Wasserstein distance is not applicable to this reward function. 
- What is the reward function r(s) in the value function’s error-bound that we can control the Lipschitz constant? We do not know the ground-truth reward r(s,a) so it cannot be controlled. The reward r(s,s’) of eMDP is given by the metric d_s of the state space so again we cannot control it. 
- What is the metric d_s used in the experiments? 
- How do you perform BC without expert actions in the experiments? 
- Confusing notations. E.g., the function r is used for r(s,a) (MDP’s reward), r(s, s’) (eMDP’s reward), and r(s) (reward in the error bound’s proof); these r’s have different meaning and should be denoted differently.
- Typos. E.g., “Lemma 2.1” in Section 5 should be “Proposition 2.1”, “Lemma A.1” should be “Proposition 2.1”. "tildeF". etc.
*** After authors' response.
I read the other reviews and the response. My major concern was the impracticality of eMDP. While I can see that the eMDP model provides advantages over BC, I still think that it is impractical since it assumes the agent cannot influence the unresponsive part. Moreover, extracting next-unresponsive states as-is from demonstrations is problematic with stochastic transitions, since actual next-unresponsive states can be different from next-unresponsive states in demonstrations even when the sames state and actions are provided. Given that the major concern remains, I still vote for weak rejection.