Simple Actors and Deep Critics for Scalable Reinforcement Learning
Authors: Guhyeon Kang, Jaehwi Lee, Minhae Kwon
Organizations: Sungkyunkwan University Republic of Korea · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Republic of Korea · Soongsil University Republic of Korea
Recent progress in offline reinforcement learning (RL) has been driven by expressive generative actors such as diffusion and flow-matching policies, which capture multimodal behavior in offline datasets. However, these actors require multiple denoising or integration steps per action and thus incur substantial overhead at every decision in deployment. In this work, we revisit where capacity should be invested in an offline actor--critic method. Since the critic is used only during training and is discarded at deployment while the actor runs at every decision step, allocating capacity to the critic rather than the actor is more favorable for inference-time efficiency. However, scaling MLP critics in offline RL is known to introduce several distinct instabilities that have, in practice, kept critics shallow. We identify three distinct failure modes that arise when critics are deepened in offline RL---optimization, bootstrap-noise amplification, and value-range drift---and address each with a corresponding ingredient: a residual MLP backbone, n-step bootstrap targets, and a categorical cross-entropy loss. Combining these ingredients with a lightweight deterministic actor, we propose LAC (Light Actor, deep Critic). On OGBench, LAC matches the strongest diffusion- and flow-matching baselines while achieving up to 4x lower inference latency, comparable to one-step distilled policies without distillation. Its critic recipe also transfers across actor parametrizations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Performance vs. inference latency on humanoidmaze-medium . Iterative generative actors ( IDQL , IFQL , FBRAC , FAWAC ) require multiple denoising or flow-integration steps per action. 2 2 footnotemark: 2 LAC (star) acts in a single forward pass, reaching higher success rate at lower latency.
Gaussian / Det.
Diffusion
Flow
Ours
Environment
BC
TD3+BC
IQL
ReBRAC
IDQL
SRPO
CAC
FAWAC
FBRAC
IFQL
FQL
LAC-S
LAC-L
ant-large
11 ± 1
82 ± 6
53 ± 3
81 ± 5
21 ± 5
11 ± 4
33 ± 4
6 ± 1
60 ± 6
28 ± 5
79 ± 3
92 ± 5
96 ± 1
ant-giant
0 ± 0
3 ± 4
4 ± 1
26 ± 8
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
4 ± 4
3 ± 2
9 ± 6
35 ± 23
79 ± 13
hum-medium
2 ± 1
12 ± 9
33 ± 2
22 ± 8
1 ± 0
1 ± 1
53 ± 8
19 ± 1
38 ± 5
60 ± 14
58 ± 5
79 ± 10
76 ± 38
hum-large
1 ± 0
8 ± 7
2 ± 1
2 ± 1
1 ± 0
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
2 ± 0
11 ± 2
4 ± 2
50 ± 18
69 ± 15
scene
5 ± 1
0 ± 0
28 ± 1
41 ± 3
46 ± 3
20 ± 1
40 ± 7
30 ± 3
45 ± 5
30 ± 3
56 ± 2
29 ± 37
41 ± 39
Table 1. Success rates on 7 OGBench environments ( 5 task variants averaged). The best result in each row is shown in bold , and the second-best is underlined .
Figure 2. Critic depth scaling on hum-large . LAC scales stably with depth while baselines plateau or fail to learn.
Figure 3. Success rate over critic depth ×n -step horizon on hum-large , with residual backbone and categorical loss fixed. All horizons fail at shallow depth; beyond depth 16 , only n=1 degrades with further depth, while n≥2 remains stable and n=4 is consistently strongest.
Figure 4. Training curves on hum-large with a 32 -layer residual critic and n=4 , varying only the critic loss. The MSE-regression critic collapses mid-training; the categorical critic of LAC remains stable. Shaded: ±1 std over 4 seeds.
Figure 5. Actor scaling on hum-large (top) and puzzle-4x4 (bottom) with the deep critic fixed. Performance saturates at modest actor sizes; LAC-S and LAC-L bracket the plateau.
Configuration
H-large
A-giant
P-4x4
Avg
LAC ( n -step + categorical)
79±6
86±3
55±6
73
−n -step (use 1 -step TD)
42±3
38±15
18±2
33
− Categorical (use MSE)
7±12
72±12
32±15
37
− Both ( 1 -step TD + MSE)
15±5
1±1
12±3
9
Table 2. Component ablation on the task1 variant of each environment. Each row uses a 32 -layer residual critic with different combinations of n -step bootstrap and categorical loss.
Figure 6. Spatial value landscape on hum-large . For each spatial location (x,y) , we average the predicted Q -value over actions sampled at that location. The shallow 4 -layer critic (left) yields a blurred landscape, whereas the 32 -layer LAC critic (right) produces a sharper gradient aligned with the distance to the goal (star).
Method
Actor (inference)
Latency (ms)
Speedup
IQL
Gaussian, 1 step
0.30
1.25×
ReBRAC
Deterministic, 1 step
0.27
1.13×
IDQL
Diffusion, 10 steps
0.95
3.96×
SRPO
Diffusion, 1 step
0.28
1.17×
CAC
Distilled Diffusion, 1 step
0.31
1.29×
FBRAC
Flow, 10 steps
0.55
2.29×
Table 3. Per-action inference latency on a single NVIDIA RTX 3090, batch size 1 . Speedup is relative to LAC-S.
Method
Baseline
+ LAC critic
Gain
TD3+BC (Deterministic)
10
46
+36
FAWAC (flow-matching)
6
30
+24
FQL (Distilled Flow)
19
57
+38
IDQL (Diffusion)
1
31
+30
CAC (Distilled Diffusion)
38
97
+59
Table 4. Replacing the critic of various offline RL methods with the LAC critic, while keeping their actor parametrization and policy-extraction objective intact. Success rates ( % ) on the task1 variant of hum-medium .
Hyperparameter
Value
Critic (ResMLP with categorical head)
Embedding dimension
256
Number of residual blocks
8
Sub-layers per block
4
Total dense layers
32
Activation
ReLU ( Nair and Hinton, 2010 )
Table 5. LAC hyperparameters used across all OGBench environments.
Gaussian / Det.
Diffusion
Flow
Ours
Env
Task
BC
TD3+BC
IQL
ReBRAC
IDQL
SRPO
CAC
FAWAC
FBRAC
IFQL
FQL
L-S
L-L
ant-l
1
0 ± 0
86 ± 2
48 ± 9
91 ± 10
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
42 ± 7
1 ± 1
70 ± 20
24 ± 17
80 ± 8
92 ± 4
96 ± 0
2
6 ± 3
77 ± 3
42 ± 6
88 ± 4
14 ± 8
4 ± 4
1 ± 1
0 ± 1
35 ± 12
8 ± 3
57 ± 10
83 ± 3
94 ± 2
3
29 ± 5
92 ± 0
72 ± 7
51 ± 18
26 ± 8
3 ± 2
49 ± 10
12 ± 4
83 ± 15
52 ± 17
93 ± 3
97 ± 2
98 ± 2
4
8 ± 3
79 ± 3
51 ± 9
84 ± 7
62 ± 25
45 ± 19
17 ± 6
10 ± 3
37 ± 18
18 ± 8
80 ± 4
91 ± 3
95 ± 0
5
10 ± 3
78 ± 3
54 ± 22
90 ± 2
2 ± 2
1 ± 1
55 ± 6
9 ± 5
76 ± 8
38 ± 18
83 ± 4
95 ± 1
97 ± 1
Table 6. Full OGBench success rates ( % ) on all 35 tasks. The best result in each row is shown in bold , and the second-best is underlined .
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7. The 7 OGBench environments used in our experiments.