# Q-Shaped Options for Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12135 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.12135/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Deep RL algorithms and representations, one of 15 directions in Deep reinforcement learning methods.
- Builds on 20 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- Deep reinforcement learning methods / [Deep RL algorithms and representations](https://mlsanity.com/deeprl/deep-rl-algorithms-and-representations/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.08415/) (2016)
- [Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.02971/) (2015)
- [Addressing Function Approximation Error in Actor-Critic Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.09477/) (2018)
- [Offline Reinforcement Learning: Tutorial, Review, and Perspectives on Open Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.01643/) (2020)
- [Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardware](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13705/) (2023)
- [Offline Reinforcement Learning with Implicit Q-Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.06169/) (2021)
- [Hindsight Experience Replay](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.01495/) (2017)
- [A Minimalist Approach to Offline Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.06860/) (2021)
- [Advantage-Weighted Regression: Simple and Scalable Off-Policy Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.00177/) (2019)
- [The Option-Critic Architecture](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.05140/) (2016)
- [Learning Invariant Representations for Reinforcement Learning without Reconstruction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.10742/) (2020)
- [Information-Theoretic Considerations in Batch Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.00360/) (2019)
- [OGBench: Benchmarking Offline Goal-Conditioned RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20092/) (2024)
- [OPAL: Offline Primitive Discovery for Accelerating Offline Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.13611/) (2020)
- [HIQL: Offline Goal-Conditioned RL with Latent States as Actions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.11949/) (2023)
- [EMaQ: Expected-Max Q-Learning Operator for Simple Yet Effective Offline and Online RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.11091/) (2020)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Action Chunking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07969/) (2025)
- [Is Value Learning Really the Main Bottleneck in Offline RL?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09329/) (2024)
- [Near Optimal Behavior via Approximate State Abstraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.04113/) (2017)
- [Horizon Reduction Makes RL Scalable](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04168/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Learning to tackle long-horizon, goal-conditioned tasks requires an agent to reason over extended timescales and act across a broad range of states. In principle, Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning (HRL) addresses both challenges through the interaction between action (temporal) and state (spatial) abstraction. First, using an action abstraction to represent temporally extended behaviour as options reduces the effective decision horizon. Second, enabling different state abstractions at each level of the decision process permits greater data aggregation for learning. However, realising these two benefits of a hierarchical policy depends on learning an appropriate action abstraction. Current HRL algorithms fail in one of two ways. Some discard distinctions between options needed for optimal control, undermining hierarchy altogether. Others retain unnecessary distinctions, preserving horizon reduction, but forfeiting coarser state abstraction. In this work, we characterise three desiderata for an action abstraction. We introduce Q-Shaped Options (QSO) to address all three. QSO builds on an architecture with distinct state-value functions, Q functions and policies at each level of the hierarchy. It learns the action abstraction between consecutive levels as a shared encoder shaped by their respective Q functions. The low-level Q function uses the option as a goal, encouraging the abstraction to retain distinctions necessary for optimal control. The high-level Q function uses it as an action, encouraging unnecessary distinctions to be discarded. Across offline goal-conditioned locomotion and manipulation environments, QSO learns semantically meaningful option spaces and outperforms baselines, achieving non-zero performance in tasks where all other evaluated algorithms fail.