mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Stabilizing the Q-Gradient Field for Policy Smoothness in Actor-Critic Methods

arXiv 2601.22970 ↗First posted 30 Jan 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Policies learned via continuous actor-critic methods often exhibit erratic, high-frequency oscillations, making them unsuitable for physical deployment. Current approaches attempt to enforce smoothness by directly regularizing the policy's output. We argue that this approach treats the symptom rather than the cause. In this work, we theoretically establish that policy non-smoothness is fundamentally governed by the differential geometry of the critic. By applying implicit differentiation to the actor-critic objective, we prove that the sensitivity of the optimal policy is bounded by the ratio of the Q-function's mixed-partial derivative (noise sensitivity) to its action-space curvature (signal distinctness). To empirically validate this theoretical insight, we introduce PAVE (Policy-Aware Value-field Equalization), a critic-centric regularization framework that treats the critic as a scalar field and stabilizes its induced action-gradient field. PAVE rectifies the learning signal by minimizing the Q-gradient volatility while preserving local curvature. Experimental results demonstrate that PAVE achieves smoothness comparable to policy-side smoothness regularization methods, while maintaining competitive task performance, without modifying the actor.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.

Builds on

18 of 28 references.

References · 18

  1. 2018Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actorcited by 4,635
  2. 2019Generative Modeling by Estimating Gradients of the Data Distributioncited by 4,067
  3. 2015Continuous control with deep reinforcement learningcited by 3,279
  4. 2018Addressing Function Approximation Error in Actor-Critic Methodscited by 2,302
  5. 2023Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardwarecited by 1,490
  6. 2017Sigmoid-Weighted Linear Units for Neural Network Function Approximation in Reinforcement Learningcited by 935
  7. 2015End-to-End Training of Deep Visuomotor Policiescited by 847
  8. 2019Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robotscited by 402
  9. 2017Stabilizing Training of Generative Adversarial Networks through Regularizationcited by 118
  10. 2016Robust Large Margin Deep Neural Networkscited by 117
  11. 2021Spectral Normalisation for Deep Reinforcement Learning: an Optimisation Perspectivecited by 64
  12. 2020Regularizing Action Policies for Smooth Control with Reinforcement Learningcited by 47
6 more
  1. 2022L2C2: Locally Lipschitz Continuous Constraint towards Stable and Smooth Reinforcement Learningcited by 22
  2. 2019The problem with DDPG: understanding failures in deterministic environments with sparse rewardscited by 20
  3. 2021Addressing Action Oscillations through Learning Policy Inertiacited by 8
  4. 2024Gradient-based Regularization for Action Smoothness in Robotic Control with Reinforcement Learningcited by 5
  5. 2024Benchmarking Smoothness and Reducing High-Frequency Oscillations in Continuous Control Policiescited by 5
  6. 2026Enhancing Control Policy Smoothness by Aligning Actions with Predictions from Preceding Statescited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.