Reviewers were initially quite favorable with respect to this paper and your response lifted some remaining doubts (especially from Reviewer #1). I am happy to recommend acceptance, congratulations! I would recommend that you take the reviewer comments into account to prepare a camera-ready version. In particular, it seems to be important to incorporate some of the discussion in bullets 1 and 2 in your response (regarding Mult-VAE and the high-level summary or pseudocode).

Author feedback: I thank the authors for the feedback. The feedback was of high quality and satisfied my concerns. I suggest that, perhaps a compressed version, of "Explaining limitations of our work" from the author feedback, which I enjoyed reading, will be added to the final version of the paper. The paper "Sampling Networks and Aggregate Simulation for Online POMDP Planning" proposes a new solution to computing policies for large POMDP problems that is based on factorizing the belief distribution using a mean field approximation during planning and execution and extending aggregate simulation to POMDPs. In short, the proposed POMDP planner projects factorized beliefs forward in time forming at the same time a computational graph and then computes gradients backwards in time over the graph to improve the policy.

All reviewers appreciate a practical approach to tackle POMDP in large state and observation space with factorized belief and aggregated simulation. Reviewers had some concern regarding the limitation of the work by the factorization assumption, but these concerns are addressed in author feedback. Reviewers are particularly happy about the quality of the rebuttal and encourage authors to incorporate the discussion of limitation of the algorithm in final draft.

UPDATE: I have read the authors response and increased my score. Specifically, the authors fixed my understanding of Property 1 and properly framed the relaxation of the problem in Section 5. Please include similar clarifications in the final work. There was also a lot of discussion among the reviewers about how the paper relates to the Robust MDP literature, which needs to be covered better in the current work. Papers such as "Reinforcement Learning in Robust Markov Decision Processes" and "Online Learning in Markov Decision Processes with Adversarially Chosen Transition Probability Distributions" were brought up by others and seem applicable in the current setting and could be empirical competitors to RATS. I very much like the constraints used to study planning in non-stationary environments in this paper and the min-max inspired RATS algorithm seems like an appropriate game theoretic approach.

The reviewers felt that this paper was well-executed, even though the proposed approach is a rather straightforward application of techniques from the robust MDP literature (specifically, minmax planning with appropriately defined uncertainty sets derived from a Lipschitzness assumption). For the final version, the authors should improve the discussion of related literature on robust MDPs (e.g., "Reinforcement Learning in Robust Markov Decision Processes" by Lim et al., NIPS 2013 references therein) and on MDPs with non-stationary transitions (e.g., "Online Learning in Markov Decision Processes with Adversarially Chosen Transition Probability Distributions" by Abbasi-Yadkori et al., NIPS 2013 references therein).

This paper aims at learning a collection of transition matrices of ergodic Markov chains, where at each round the algorithm can select one of the chains and observe which state it fell in. The problem consists in designing a strategy such as the learning will occur uniformly over all chains at the best possible rate. The paper is of theoretical nature, the background on chains is properly introduced, the algorithm is clearly described and thoroughly analyzed. The paper in its current form is a stronger submission than its previous version. It is more focused, the assumptions are clearer, it is more detailed, and an overall better read.

All reviewers felt that this is a well-executed paper with good writing and solid results, therefore clearly worthy of acceptance. The only general complaint was that the setting may have been somewhat poorly motivated, and the authors should consider providing an illustrative motivating example in the final version of the paper.

One contribution is a new approach for training neural networks with binary activations. The second contribution is PAC-Bayesian generalization bounds for binary activated neural networks that, when used as the training objective, come very close to test accuracy (i.e. The gap between the training and test performance is also much smaller. I think this is very promising for training more robust networks. The method actually recovers variational Bayesian learning when the coefficient C is fixed, but in contrast to it, this coefficient is learned in a principled way.

There are various models proposed on how knowledge is generated in the human brain including the semantic networks model. Although this model has been widely studied and even computational models are presented, but, due to various limits and inefficiencies in the generation of different types of knowledge, its application is limited to semantic knowledge because of has been formed according to semantic memory and declarative knowledge and has many limits in explaining various procedural and conditional knowledge. Given the importance of providing an appropriate model for knowledge generation, especially in the areas of improving human cognitive functions or building intelligent machines, improving existing models in knowledge generation or providing more comprehensive models is of great importance. In the current study, based on the free energy principle of the brain, is the researchers proposed a model for generating three types of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. While explaining different types of knowledge, this model is capable to compute and generate concepts from stimuli based on probabilistic mathematics and the action-perception process (active inference). The proposed model is unsupervised learning that can update itself using a combination of different stimuli as a generative model can generate new concepts of unsupervised received stimuli. In this model, the active inference process is used in the generation of procedural and conditional knowledge and the perception process is used to generate declarative knowledge.

Considering the significance of proteins, computational protein science has always been a critical scientific field, dedicated to revealing knowledge and developing applications within the protein sequence-structure-function paradigm. In the last few decades, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made significant impacts in computational protein science, leading to notable successes in specific protein modeling tasks. However, those previous AI models still meet limitations, such as the difficulty in comprehending the semantics of protein sequences, and the inability to generalize across a wide range of protein modeling tasks. Recently, LLMs have emerged as a milestone in AI due to their unprecedented language processing & generalization capability. They can promote comprehensive progress in fields rather than solving individual tasks. As a result, researchers have actively introduced LLM techniques in computational protein science, developing protein Language Models (pLMs) that skillfully grasp the foundational knowledge of proteins and can be effectively generalized to solve a diversity of sequence-structure-function reasoning problems. While witnessing prosperous developments, it's necessary to present a systematic overview of computational protein science empowered by LLM techniques. First, we summarize existing pLMs into categories based on their mastered protein knowledge, i.e., underlying sequence patterns, explicit structural and functional information, and external scientific languages. Second, we introduce the utilization and adaptation of pLMs, highlighting their remarkable achievements in promoting protein structure prediction, protein function prediction, and protein design studies. Then, we describe the practical application of pLMs in antibody design, enzyme design, and drug discovery. Finally, we specifically discuss the promising future directions in this fast-growing field.