Model-free deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms have been demonstrated on a range of challenging decision making and control tasks. However, these methods typically suffer from two major challenges: very high sample complexity and brittle convergence properties, which necessitate meticulous hyperparameter tuning. Both of these challenges severely limit the applicability of such methods to complex, real-world domains. In this paper, we propose soft actor-critic, an offpolicy actor-critic deep RL algorithm based on the maximum entropy reinforcement learning framework. In this framework, the actor aims to maximize expected reward while also maximizing entropy-that is, succeed at the task while acting as randomly as possible. Prior deep RL methods based on this framework have been formulated as either off-policy Q-learning, or on-policy policy gradient methods. By combining off-policy updates with a stable stochastic actor-critic formulation, our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on a range of continuous control benchmark tasks, outperforming prior on-policy and off-policy methods. Furthermore, we demonstrate that, in contrast to other off-policy algorithms, our approach is very stable, achieving very similar performance across different random seeds.
This paper proposes a soft actor-critic method aiming at lowering sample complexity and achieving a new convergence guarantee. However, the current paper has some correctness issues, is missing some related work and lacks a clear statement of innovation. 
The first issue is that augmenting reward by adding an entropy term to the original RL objective is not clearly innovative. The connections, and improvements upon, other approaches need to be made more clear. In particular, the connection to the work by Haarnoja is unclear. There is this statement: “Although the soft Q-learning algorithm proposed by Haarnoja et al. (2017) has a value function and actor network, it is not a true actor-critic algorithm: the Q- function is estimating the optimal Q-function, and the actor does not directly affect the Q-function except through the data distribution. Hence, Haarnoja et al. (2017) motivates the actor network as an approximate sampler, rather than the actor in an actor-critic algorithm. Crucially, the convergence of this method hinges on how well this sampler approximates the true posterior. In contrast, we prove that our method converges to the optimal policy from a given policy class, regardless of the policy parameterization.” The last sentence suggests that the key difference is that any policy parameterization can be used, making the previous sentences less clear. Is the key extension on the proof, and so on the use of the projection with the KL-divergence?
Further, there is a missing connection to the paper “Guided policy search”, Levine and Koltun. Though it is a different framework, it clearly mentioned it uses the augmented reward to learn the sub-optimal policies (for differential dynamic program). The DDPG paper mentioned that DDPG can be also used within the GPS framework. That work is different, but a discussion should nonetheless be included about connections. 
 
If the key novelty in this work is an extension on the theory, to allow any policy parameterization, and empirical results demonstrating improved performance over Haarnoja et al., there appear to be correctness issues in both, as laid out below.
The key novelty in the theory seems to be to use a projection onto the space of policies, using a KL divergence. There are, however, currently too many unclear or misspecified steps to verify correctness.
1. The definition of pinew in Equation (6) is for one specific state s_t; shouldn’t this be across all states? If it is for one state, then E_{pinew} makes sense, since pi is only specified as a conditional distribution (not a joint distribution); if it is supposed to be expected value across all states, then what is E_{pinew}? Is it with the stationary distribution of pinew?
2. The proof for Lemma 1 is hard to follow, because Z is not defined. I mostly was able to guess, based on Haarnoja et al., but the step between (18) and (19) where E_{pinew} [Zpiold] -  E_{piold} [Zpiold] is dropped is unclear to me. Zpiold does not depend on actions, so if the expectation is only w.r.t. to the action, then it cancels. This goes back to point 1, where it wouldn’t make much sense for the KL to only depend on actions. In fact, if pinew has to be computed separately for each state, then we are really back to tabular policies.  
3. “There is no need in principle to include a separate function approximator for the state value, since it is related to the Q-function and policy according to Qθ (st , at ) − log πφ (at |st )” This is not true, since you rely on the fact that you have separate network parameters to get an unbiased gradient estimate in (10). 
The experimental results also appear to have some correctness issues. 
1. For the claim that the algorithm does better, this is also difficult to gauge because the graphs are unclear. In particular, it is not explained why the lines end early. How were multiple gradients incorporated into the update? Did you wait 4 (or 16) steps until computing a gradient update? This might explain why the lines end early, but then invalidates how the lines are drawn. Rather, the lines should be extended, where each point is plotted each 4 (or 16) steps. Doing this would remove the effect that the lines with 4 or 16 seem to learn faster (but really are just plotted on a different x-axis). 
2. There is a lack of experimental details. This includes missing details about neural network architectures used by each algorithm, parameter tuning details, how multiple gradients are used, etc. This omission makes the experiments not reproducible.
3. Although DDPG is claimed to be very sensitive to parameter changes, and the proposed algorithm is more stable, there is no parameter sensitivity results showed. 
Minor comments:
1. Graph font is much too small.
2. Typo in (10), should be V(s_{t+1})
3. Because the proof of Lemma 1 is so straightforward (just redefining reward), it would be better to actually spell it out, give a definition of entropy, etc.