Principled Fast and Meta Knowledge Learners for Continual Reinforcement Learning
Authors: Ke Sun, Hongming Zhang, Jun Jin, Chao Gao, Xi Chen, Wulong Liu, Linglong Kong
Organizations: University of Alberta · National Key Laboratory of Cognition and Decision Intelligence for Complex Systems, Institution of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Edmonton Research Center, Huawei Canada · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab · BetaInfinity
Inspired by the human learning and memory system, particularly the interplay between the hippocampus and cerebral cortex, this study proposes a dual-learner framework comprising a fast learner and a meta learner to address continual Reinforcement Learning~(RL) problems. These two learners are coupled to perform distinct yet complementary roles: the fast learner focuses on knowledge transfer, while the meta learner ensures knowledge integration. In contrast to traditional multi-task RL approaches that share knowledge through average return maximization, our meta learner incrementally integrates new experiences by explicitly minimizing catastrophic forgetting, thereby supporting efficient cumulative knowledge transfer for the fast learner. To facilitate rapid adaptation in new environments, we introduce an adaptive meta warm-up mechanism that selectively harnesses past knowledge. We conduct experiments in various pixel-based and continuous control benchmarks, revealing the superior performance of continual learning for our proposed dual-learner approach relative to baseline methods. The code is released in https://github.com/datake/FAME.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of FAME. In value-based continual RL, the fast learner can be denoted by {Qk}k=1K accordingly instead of {πk}k=1K .
Method
Ave. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Breakout
Spaceinvader
Freeway
Reset
6.51 ± 1.67
3.29 ± 3.09
0.74 ± 0.38
0.00 ± 0.00
1.31 ± 0.23
Finetune
10.62 ± 2.75
4.95 ± 2.92
0.89 ± 0.49
0.13 ± 0.03
1.26 ± 0.32
MultiHead
6.85 ± 1.76
3.26 ± 2.99
0.94 ± 0.42
-0.01 ± 0.00
1.25 ± 0.22
LargeBuffer
10.71 ± 2.84
3.24 ± 2.91
1.16 ± 0.59
0.16 ± 0.02
1.65 ± 0.33
PT-DQN
0.39 ± 0.02
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.07 ± 0.02
1.64 ± 0.02
Table 1: Main results on MinAtar on Average Performance ( Avg. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results (Mean ± SE) are averaged over 10 sequences, each with 3 seeds. ↑ denotes a positive metric (more is better), while ↓ is a negative one (less is better). Reset is the baseline for evaluating FT. Forgetting is normalized by the standard deviation in each task.
Figure 2: (Left) Average performance of the policy across each task across 10 sequences on MinAtar . Results are averaged over 3 seeds. The vertical lines at each point represent the standard errors. (Right) The selection ratio among three warm-up strategies when the arriving environment is previously encountered or novel.
Method
Freeway
SpaceInvader
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Reset
0.16 ± 0.18
0.00
0.10 ± 0.22
0.00
Finetune
0.21 ± 0.17
0.53
0.61 ± 0.41
0.65
ProgressiveNet
0.39 ± 0.25
0.21
0.61 ± 0.03
0.06
PackNet
0.41 ± 0.24
0.18
0.47 ± 0.06
0.17
FAME
0.90 ± 0.12
0.68
0.96 ± 0.02
0.63
Table 2: Main results on Atari games on Average Performance ( Avg. Perf ) and Forward Transfer ( FT ). Results (Mean ± SE) are averaged over 3 seeds. The Forgetting metric is omitted as PackNet and ProgressiveNet store past model parameters and have zero forgetting. Reset is the baseline for FT.
Methods
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Reset
0.093 ± 0.017
0.000 ± 0.000
0.710 ± 0.030
Finetune
0.037 ± 0.011
-0.265 ± 0.028
0.427 ± 0.033
Average
0.013 ± 0.007
-0.530 ± 0.024
0.070 ± 0.022
PackNet
0.491 ± 0.025
-0.194 ± 0.018
0.000 ± 0.000
FAME-KL
0.733 ± 0.026
0.022 ± 0.015
0.073 ± 0.019
FAME-WD
0.767 ± 0.024
-0.003 ± 0.014
0.023 ± 0.015
Table 3: Main results on Meta-World on Average Performance ( Ave. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting averaged over 3 sequences. Results are presented as averages and standard errors across 10 seeds.
Figure 3: (Left) Performance profile of the fast learner across tasks, where the y-axis shows the proportion of tasks that achieve a success rate greater than or equal to the x-axis value. (Right) Average performance by evaluating the average success rates in past tasks across 10 seeds.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Ave. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Breakout
Spaceinvader
Freeway
FAME ( λ =0.1)
12.79 ± 0.42
19.52 ± 0.50
1.71 ± 0.17
0.13 ± 0.03
0.77 ± 0.08
FAME ( λ =1.0)
14.54 ± 0.58
18.72 ± 0.52
1.69 ± 0.17
0.16 ± 0.03
0.72 ± 0.13
FAME ( λ =5.0)
13.90 ± 0.55
19.38 ± 0.62
1.62 ± 0.16
0.14 ± 0.03
0.64 ± 0.07
FAME ( λ =10.0)
13.88 ± 0.55
19.52 ± 0.57
1.63 ± 0.16
0.14 ± 0.03
0.67 ± 0.08
Appendix
Table 4: Ablation Study of Regularization Hyperparameter λ on MinAtar on Average Performance ( Avg. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results are averaged over 10 sequences, each with 3 seeds.
Method
Ave. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Breakout
Spaceinvader
Freeway
FAME ( L=1×104 )
13.34 ± 0.52
19.17 ± 0.68
1.64 ± 0.16
0.13 ± 0.03
0.74 ± 0.08
FAME ( L=5×104 )
14.54 ± 0.58
18.72 ± 0.52
1.69 ± 0.17
0.16 ± 0.03
0.72 ± 0.13
FAME ( L=20×104 )
13.28 ± 0.50
19.87 ± 0.66
1.65 ± 0.16
0.17 ± 0.03
0.72 ± 0.08
FAME ( L=50×104 )
11.83 ± 0.71
20.00 ± 0.96
1.87 ± 0.20
0.17 ± 0.03
0.78 ± 0.09
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation Study of Warm-Up Step L on MinAtar on Average Performance ( Avg. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results are averaged over 10 sequences, each with 3 seeds.
Method
Ave. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Breakout
Spaceinvader
Freeway
FAME ( N =4000)
11.95 ± 0.47
14.69 ± 0.55
1.54 ± 0.17
0.14 ± 0.03
0.93 ± 0.08
FAME ( N =8000)
12.49 ± 0.37
17.99 ± 0.58
1.67 ± 0.17
0.15 ± 0.03
0.86 ± 0.08
FAME ( N =12000)
14.54 ± 0.58
18.72 ± 0.52
1.69 ± 0.17
0.16 ± 0.03
0.72 ± 0.13
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation Study of Weight Estimation Step N on MinAtar on Average Performance ( Avg. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results are averaged over 10 sequences, each with 3 seeds.
Method
Ave. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Breakout
Spaceinvader
Freeway
FAME ( n =300)
13.02 ± 0.49
19.19 ± 0.65
1.42 ± 0.11
0.12 ± 0.03
0.69 ± 0.07
FAME ( n =600)
14.54 ± 0.58
18.72 ± 0.52
1.69 ± 0.17
0.16 ± 0.03
0.72 ± 0.13
FAME ( n =1200)
13.46 ± 0.63
19.39 ± 0.42
1.83 ± 0.20
0.16 ± 0.03
0.79 ± 0.08
FAME ( n =5000)
13.09 ± 0.41
19.32 ± 0.52
1.84 ± 0.18
0.14 ± 0.03
0.76 ± 0.07
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation Study of Policy Evaluation Step n on MinAtar on Average Performance ( Avg. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results are averaged over 10 sequences, each with 3 seeds.
Figure 4: Learning curves of the fast learner in FAME on MinAtar Environments across 10 sequences of tasks.
Figure 5: Learning curves of the fast learner in FAME on the SpaceIvader environment averaged over 3 seeds.
Figure 6: Learning curves of the fast learner in FAME on the Freeway environment averaged over 3 seeds.
Methods
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Reset
0.090 ± 0.029
0.000 ± 0.000
0.800 ± 0.040
Finetune
0.070 ± 0.026
-0.294 ± 0.039
0.480 ± 0.050
Average
0.020 ± 0.014
-0.584 ± 0.035
0.100 ± 0.030
PackNet
0.703 ± 0.041
-0.111 ± 0.028
0.000 ± 0.000
FAME-WD
0.87 ± 0.034
0.004 ± 0.022
0.010 ± 0.017
FAME-KL
0.86 ± 0.035
0.042 ± 0.019
0.050 ± 0.026
Appendix
Table 8: Results on Meta-World on Average Performance ( Ave. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting for each sequence of tasks . Results are presented as averages and standard errors across 10 seeds. Each table, from top to bottom, represents each sequence of tasks, respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the second best are underlined. ↑ denotes a positive metric (more is better), while ↓ is a negative one (less is better). Reset is the baseline for evaluating FT.
Methods
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Reset
0.093 ± 0.017
0.000 ± 0.000
0.710 ± 0.030
Finetune
0.037 ± 0.011
-0.265 ± 0.028
0.427 ± 0.033
Average
0.013 ± 0.007
-0.530 ± 0.024
0.070 ± 0.022
PackNet
0.491 ± 0.025
-0.194 ± 0.018
0.000 ± 0.000
FAME-WD
0.767 ± 0.024
-0.003 ± 0.014
0.023 ± 0.015
FAME-KL
0.733 ± 0.026
0.022 ± 0.015
0.073 ± 0.019
Appendix
Table 9: Results on Meta-World averaged over the three sequences on Average Performance ( Ave. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results are presented as averages and standard errors across 10 seeds. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the second best are underlined. ↑ denotes a positive metric (more is better), while ↓ is a negative one (less is better). Reset is the baseline for evaluating FT.
Figure 7: (Left) Performance profile of the fast learner across tasks, where the y-axis shows the proportion of tasks that achieve a success rate greater than or equal to the x-axis value. (Right) Average performance over time by evaluating the average success rates in the past tasks. Each Row represents the result for one sequence of tasks. The last row shows the average performance of the three sequences.
Figure 8: Learning curves of the fast learner on the Meta-World benchmark. The x-axis shows the total number of environment interactions, and the y-axis indicates the success rate. Each Row represents the result for one sequence of tasks. The last row shows the average performance of the three sequences.
Methods
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Reset
0.090 ± 0.029
0.000 ± 0.000
0.800 ± 0.040
Finetune
0.070 ± 0.026
-0.294 ± 0.039
0.480 ± 0.050
Average
0.020 ± 0.014
-0.584 ± 0.035
0.100 ± 0.030
PackNet
0.703 ± 0.041
-0.111 ± 0.028
0.000 ± 0.000
ProgressiveNet
0.760 ± 0.038
-0.063 ± 0.031
0.000 ± 0.000
CompoNet
0.803 ± 0.036
-0.007 ± 0.022
0.000 ± 0.000
Appendix
Table 10: Results on Meta-World on Average Performance ( Ave. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting for each sequence of tasks with more baselines . Results are presented as averages and standard errors across 10 seeds. Each table, from top to bottom, represents each sequence of tasks, respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the second best are underlined. ↑ denotes a positive metric (more is better), while ↓ is a negative one (less is better). Reset is the baseline for evaluating FT.
Methods
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Reset
0.093 ± 0.017
0.000 ± 0.000
0.710 ± 0.030
Finetune
0.037 ± 0.011
-0.265 ± 0.028
0.427 ± 0.033
Average
0.013 ± 0.007
-0.530 ± 0.024
0.070 ± 0.022
PackNet
0.491 ± 0.025
-0.194 ± 0.018
0.000 ± 0.000
ProgressiveNet
0.619 ± 0.025
-0.111 ± 0.016
0.000 ± 0.000
CompoNet
0.612 ± 0.025
-0.089 ± 0.016
0.000 ± 0.000
Appendix
Table 11: Results on Meta-World averaged over the three sequences with more baselines on Average Performance ( Ave. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results are presented as averages and standard errors across 10 seeds. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the second best are underlined. ↑ denotes a positive metric (more is better), while ↓ is a negative one (less is better). Reset is the baseline for evaluating FT.
Figure 9: (Left) Performance profile of the fast learner across tasks with more baselines , where the y-axis shows the proportion of tasks that achieve a success rate greater than or equal to the x-axis value. (Right) Average performance over time by evaluating the average success rates in the past tasks. Each Row represents the result for one sequence of tasks. The last row shows the average performance of the three sequences.
Figure 10: Learning curves of the fast learner on the Meta-World benchmark with more baselines . The x-axis shows the total number of environment interactions, and the y-axis indicates the success rate. Each Row represents the result for one sequence of tasks. The last row shows the average performance of the three sequences.
Methods
Avg. Perf ↑
FT ↑
Forgetting ↓
Reset
0.020 ± 0.014
0.000 ± 0.000
0.370 ± 0.049
Finetune
0.020 ± 0.014
-0.123 ± 0.028
0.240 ± 0.047
Average
0.010 ± 0.01
-0.288 ± 0.039
0.010 ± 0.017
PackNet
0.292 ± 0.071
-0.086 ± 0.019
0.000 ± 0.000
ProgressiveNet
0.325 ± 0.074
-0.034 ± 0.016
0.000 ± 0.000
CompoNet
0.208 ± 0.063
-0.129 ± 0.029
0.000 ± 0.000
Appendix
Table 12: Results on the sequence of tasks in CW10 ( Wolczyk et al., 2021 ) on Average Performance ( Ave. Perf ), Forward Transfer ( FT ), and Forgetting. Results are presented as averages and standard errors across 10 seeds. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the second best are underlined. ↑ denotes a positive metric (more is better), while ↓ is a negative one (less is better). Reset is the baseline for evaluating FT.
Figure 11: Results on the CW10 ( Wolczyk et al., 2021 ) sequence of tasks. (Left) Performance profile of the fast learner across tasks, where the y-axis shows the proportion of tasks that achieve a success rate greater than or equal to the x-axis value. (Right) Average performance over time by evaluating the average success rates in the past tasks.
Figure 12: Learning curves of the fast learner on the CW10 ( Wolczyk et al., 2021 ) sequence of tasks. The x-axis shows the total number of environment interactions, and the y-axis indicates the success rate. Each Row represents the result for one sequence of tasks. The last row shows the average performance of the three sequences.
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.
As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable, the next question is how can we enable models to continually learn? Today, the field largely frames this as a problem of context management and mitigating forgetting. We argue this framing is incomplete: continual learning is fundamentally about increasing model competence as the world changes. We disentangle this change along two axes -- space, where the model encounters new domains, and time, where the underlying data drifts under a fixed task. This framing lets us study continual learning under realistic conditions: new domains arrive over time, facts drift past their training cutoff, and agentic interactions accumulate state across episodes. To evaluate methods under this setting, we recast widely used LLM benchmarks as sequential problems and introduce a single mechanism-agnostic protocol that compares prompt-based methods (GEPA, ACE), supervised learning (SFT, SDFT), reinforcement learning (GRPO, SDPO), and context compression (Cartridges, In-place TTT). Prompt-based methods fit each new stage quickly but degrade on future tasks. Distillation-based methods accumulate knowledge stably but struggle to update outdated facts. Context compression improves efficiency without substantially improving the ability to learn new tasks. Online reinforcement learning adapts most effectively to knowledge updates but remains sensitive to noisy reward signals. Overall, our results suggest that continual learning is not a single capability: different patterns of environmental change require fundamentally different update behaviors, determining when adaptation must be learned inside model weights and when it can be achieved through external scaffolding. We hope that understanding where each method succeeds and fails will guide the design of stronger continual learning systems.
Anne Harrington, Nayan Saxena, Michael Murphy +7
1UC Berkeley · 2Independent · 3Capital Fund Management
As agents powered by foundation models move into open-ended environments, continual learning from experience becomes essential. For agents built on models with fixed parameters, this learning requires reusing prior task experience in context to improve performance and efficiency on future tasks. Existing memory and experience-learning systems typically focus on either retained facts or procedures, and lack a mechanism for establishing the reliability of claims extracted from the ongoing task stream. Indeed, we find that approximately 12--33% of entries produced by representative systems harm future task performance when reused. To address these limitations, we propose RIKA (Reliable Knowledge Acquisition), which combines hierarchical extraction of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge with Evidence-based Knowledge Admission, which uses source evidence and subsequent experience to govern which claims enter the task agent's context, without additional validation tasks. Across six task streams from Continual Learning Bench and four model backbones, RIKA achieves the highest aggregate score on every backbone.
Yixu Huang, Jiaqi W. Ma
University of California, Davis · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Continual reinforcement learning challenges agents to acquire new skills while retaining previously learned ones with the goal of improving performance in both past and future tasks. Most existing approaches rely on model-free methods with replay buffers to mitigate catastrophic forgetting; however, these solutions often face significant scalability challenges due to large memory demands. Drawing inspiration from neuroscience, where the brain replays experiences to a predictive World Model rather than directly to the policy, we present ARROW (Augmented Replay for RObust World models), a model-based continual RL algorithm that extends DreamerV3 with a memory-efficient, distribution-matching replay buffer. Unlike standard fixed-size FIFO buffers, ARROW maintains two complementary buffers: a short-term buffer for recent experiences and a long-term buffer that preserves task diversity through intelligent sampling. We evaluate ARROW on two challenging continual RL settings: Tasks without shared structure (Atari), and tasks with shared structure, where knowledge transfer is possible (Procgen CoinRun variants). Compared to model-free and model-based baselines with replay buffers of the same-size, ARROW demonstrates substantially less forgetting on tasks without shared structure, while maintaining comparable forward transfer. Our findings highlight the potential of model-based RL and bio-inspired approaches for continual reinforcement learning, warranting further research.
Abdulaziz Alyahya, Abdallah Al Siyabi, Markus R. Ernst +3
Department of Information Systems, College of Computer and Information Sciences, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) · Department of Data Science & AI, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney