Paper:
HIERARCHICAL REINFORCEMENT LEARNING VIA ADVANTAGE-WEIGHTED INFORMATION MAXIMIZATION
Real-world tasks are often highly structured. Hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) has attracted research interest as an approach for leveraging the hierarchical structure of a given task in reinforcement learning (RL). However, identifying the hierarchical policy structure that enhances the performance of RL is not a trivial task. In this paper, we propose an HRL method that learns a latent variable of a hierarchical policy using mutual information maximization. Our approach can be interpreted as a way to learn a discrete and latent representation of the state-action space. To learn option policies that correspond to modes of the advantage function, we introduce advantage-weighted importance sampling. In our HRL method, the gating policy learns to select option policies based on an option-value function, and these option policies are optimized based on the deterministic policy gradient method. This framework is derived by leveraging the analogy between a monolithic policy in standard RL and a hierarchical policy in HRL by using a deterministic option policy. Experimental results indicate that our HRL approach can learn a diversity of options and that it can enhance the performance of RL in continuous control tasks.

Review:
Revision: The authors addressed most of my concerns and clearly put in effort to improve the paper. The paper explains the central idea better, is more precise in terminology in general, and the additional ablation gives more insight into the relative importance of the advantage weighting. I still think that the results are a bit limited in scope but the idea is interesting and seems to work for the tasks in the paper. I adjusted my score to reflect this.
Summary:
The paper proposes an HRL system in which the mutual information of the latent (option) variable and the state-action pairs is approximately maximized. To approximate the mutual information term, samples are reweighted based on their estimated advantage. TD3 is used to optimize the modules of the system. The system is evaluated on continuous control task from OpenAI gym and rllab.
For the most part, the paper is well-written and it provides a good overview of related work and relevant terminology. The experiments seem sound even though the results are not that impressive. The extra analysis of the option space and temporal distribution is interesting. 
Some parts of the theoretical justification for the method are not entirely clear to me and would benefit from some clarification. Most importantly, it is not clear to me why the policy in Equation 7 is considered to be optimal. Given some value or advantage function, the optimal policy would be the one that picks the action that maximizes it. The authors refer to earlier work in which similar equations are used, but in those papers this is typically in the context of some entropy maximizing penalty or KL constraint. A temperature parameter would also influence the exploration-exploitation trade-off in this ‘optimal’ policy. I understand that the rough intuition is to take actions with higher advantage more often while still being stochastic and exploring but the motivation could be more precise given that most of the subsequent arguments are built on top of it. However, this is not the policy that is used to generate behavior. In short, the paper is clear enough about how the method is constructed but it is not very clear to me *why* the mutual information should be optimized with respect to this 'optimal' policy instead of the actual policy one is generating trajectories from.
HRL is an interesting area of research with the potential to learn complicated behaviors. However, it is currently not clear how to evaluate the importance/usefulness of hierarchical RL systems directly and the tasks in the paper are still solvable by standard systems. That said, the occasional increase in sample efficiency over plain TD3 looks promising. It is somewhat disappointing that the number of beneficial option is generally so low. To get more insight in the methods it would have been nice to see a more systematic ablation of related methods with different mutual information pairings (action or state only) and without the advantage weighting. Could it be that the number of options has to remain limited because there is no parameter sharing between them? It would be interesting to see results on more challenging control problems where the hypothesized multi-modal advantage structure is more likely to be present.
All in all I think that this is an interesting paper but the foundations of the theoretical motivation need a bit more clarification. In addition, experiments on more challenging problems and a more systematic comparison with similar models would make this a much stronger paper.
Minor issues/typos:
- Contributions 2 and 3 have a lot of overlap.
- The ‘o’ in Equation 2 should not be bold font. 
- Appendix A. Shouldn’t there be summations over ‘o’ in the entropy definitions?