Export Reviews, Discussions, Author Feedback and Meta-Reviews

First provide a summary of the paper, and then address the following criteria: Quality, clarity, originality and significance. The proposed approach, while straightforward, quite elegantly handles the problem at hand. What prevents this paper from being a clear cut acceptance is the lack of adequate experimental validation. Typos line 47: draw -> drawn A more thorough discussion of noise in the exploration step of Algorithm 1 (step 8) would be appreciated. This issue is also not discussed in the experiments section (how much noise was used?). I also had a few issues with some of the claimed advantages in the paper. Specifically: (1) The claim that PDDP has an advantage over PILCO since it does not have to solve non-convex optimization problems seems suspect given the non-convexity of the optimization problem solved in the hyper-parameter tuning step.