Distributed training and increasing the gradient update frequency are practical strategies to accelerate learning and improve performance, but both exacerbate a central challenge: policy lag, which is the mismatch between the behavior policy generating data and the learning policy being updated. Policy lag can hinder the scaling of on-policy learning algorithms to larger problems. In this paper, we identify the sources of policy lag caused by distributed learning and high update frequency. We use the findings to propose total Variation-based Advantage aligned Constrained policy Optimization (\methodacronym) as a practical approach to mitigate policy lag. We empirically validate our method and show that it offers better robustness to policy lag in classic RL tasks and a modern RL for LLM math reasoning task.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (left) Simulated Asynchronous RL setup. After the end of each training phase we store the weights of the new policy in the policy buffer. Subsequently, we sample random policies from the buffer and assign them to the actors. We then generated the trajectories in a synchronous fashion. The setup aims to simulate an asynchronous RL training setup to control the backward policy lag. (right) The typical asynchronous RL training setup. The actors generate the trajectories and train the policy simultaneously. The actor would receive the new policy whenever it is ready. Therefore, the new dataset would contain trajectories from older policies.
Figure 2: Algorithmic Choices in VACO . (Top) VACO vs. PPO Clipping : To maintain a fixed Total Variation (TV) divergence, VACO(shown as ’TV Filtering’) selectively removes gradients that would increase the TV divergence. In contrast, PPO naively clips gradients if their policy ratio exceeds a predefined threshold. (Bottom) IMPALA vs. Advantage Realignment : While IMPALA estimates advantage values for the most recent policy using an asynchronously generated dataset, VACO’s ’Advantage Realignment’ first aligns the dataset to the initial policy of the optimization process, then iteratively optimizes based on this aligned dataset. This approach significantly reduces the computational load compared to IMPALA’s on-the-fly realignment.
Figure 3: With more backward policy lag (higher degree of asynchronicity) VACO achieves better performance on the aggregate metrics across various MuJoCo tasks. Higher Median, IQM, and Mean values and lower Optimality Gap imply better performance. The scores are computed over 100M steps across 10 independent random seeds and the shades represent 95% confidence intervals of the metrics.
Figure 4: IQM values of the comparison algorithms in the simulated asynchronous setups during the training process. The scores are computed over 100M steps across 10 independent random seeds and the shades represent the 95% confidence interval. (bottom right) IQM values of the Area under the curve of the normalized return plots. Higher values imply better sample efficiency during the training process.
Figure 5: VACO improves over PPO-clipping for training LLMs to reason on GSM8k. (Top) Forward policy lag can improve training efficiency at the cost of eval performance. VACO maintains higher performance as lag increases. (Bottom) PPO-clip is always clipping, proportional to the forward lag. VACO filters more rarely, enabling learning from highly policy-lagged samples, but still maintains stability by filtering a larger part of the batch when activated.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Clip Ratio/TV Threshold
0.2
Learning Rate
3e-4
Learning Rate Annealing
True
Num Envs
500
Num Steps
1000
Discount Factor
0.99
Appendix
Table 1: Important Hyperparameters of PPO, SPO, IMPALA, and VACO
Hyperparameter
Value
PPO-Clip Lower Ratio
0.2
PPO-Clip Higher Ratio
0.272
TV Threshold
0.05
Learning Rate
1e-6
Num Prompts Per Minibatch
32
Num Completions Per Prompt
8
Appendix
Table 2: Hyperparameters of GRPO, PPO-Clip and VACO for GSM8k
Figure 6: Return plot of the comparison algorithms in five environments across five degrees of asynchronicity. The plot represent the average return of the policy over 10 random seeds and the shades showcase the standard deviation of the returns.
Figure 7: IQM values of VACO with various values of δ for TV divergence threshold in the simulated asynchronous setups during the training process. The scores are computed over 100M steps across 10 independent random seeds and the shades represent the 95% confidence interval. (bottom right) IQM values of the Area under the curve of the normalized return plots. Higher values imply better sample efficiency during the training process.
Figure 8: Ablation analysis on the performance of VACO with various value of the TV divergence threshold δ . Higher Median, IQM, and Mean values and lower Optimality Gap imply better performance. The scores are computed over 100M steps across 10 independent random seeds and the shades represent 95% confidence intervals of the metrics.
Figure 9: IQM values of VACO with various values of ρ for advantage realignment in the simulated asynchronous setups during the training process. The scores are computed over 100M steps across 10 independent random seeds and the shades represent the 95% confidence interval. (bottom right) IQM values of the Area under the curve of the normalized return plots. Higher values imply better sample efficiency during the training process.
Figure 10: Ablation analysis on the performance of VACO with various value of ρ for advantage realignment. Higher Median, IQM, and Mean values and lower Optimality Gap imply better performance. The scores are computed over 100M steps across 10 independent random seeds and the shades represent 95% confidence intervals of the metrics.
Figure 11: The average Total Variation Divergence between the final policy of the training phase and the behavior policy distribution for VACO and PPO in the simulated asynchronous RL training setup. We can see that VACO with the constraint of 1/2E[∣π/β−1∣]≤δ/2 where δ=0.2 , consistently maintains the same level of TV divergence across all environments and degrees of asynchronicity. The plot represent the average estimate of the TV value over 10 random seeds and the shades showcase the standard deviation.
Figure 12: The performance of VACO with and without the advantage realignment process. We can see that on average, return realignment offers better robustness to off-policy data. The scores are computed over 100M steps across 10 independent random seeds and the shades represent the 95% confidence interval.
Asynchronous execution is essential for scaling reinforcement learning (RL) to modern large model workloads, including large language models and AI agents, but it can fundamentally alter RL optimization behavior. While prior work on asynchronous RL focuses on training throughput and distributional correction, we show that naively applying asynchrony to policy-gradient updates can induce qualitatively different training dynamics and lead to severe training instability. Through systematic empirical and theoretical analysis, we identify a key signature of this instability: asynchronous training exhibits persistently high cosine similarity between consecutive policy gradients, in contrast to the near-orthogonal updates observed under synchronized training. This stale-aligned gradient effect amplifies correlated updates and increases the risk of overshooting and divergence. Motivated by this observation, we propose GRADIENT ALIGNMENT CONTROL(GAC), a simple dynamics-aware stabilization method that regulates asynchronous RL progress along stale-aligned directions via gradient projection. We establish convergence guarantees under bounded staleness and demonstrate empirically that GAC recovers stable, on-policy training dynamics and matches synchronized baselines even at high staleness.
Haofeng Xu, Junwei Su, Yukun Tian +3
School of Computing and Data Science, The University of Hong Kong · Alibaba Group · Southeast University
Asynchronous reinforcement learning has become increasingly central to scaling LLM post-training, delivering major throughput gains by decoupling rollout generation from policy updates. However, widely used policy-gradient objectives such as REINFORCE and GRPO suffer under high asynchrony: stale rollouts produce heavy-tailed importance weights, so a small number of trajectories dominate updates and the policy-gradient estimator becomes markedly higher variance. Through systematic analysis on math, reasoning, and tool-use benchmarks, we find that this increasing variance is reliably predicted by collapsing effective sample size (ESS), which prior stabilization methods largely fail to address. Motivated by this diagnosis, we introduce Variance Controlled Policy Optimization (VCPO), a method that (i) dynamically scales the learning rate with ESS to dampen unreliable updates and (ii) applies a closed-form minimum-variance baseline for off-policy settings, without a critic model and adding minimal overhead. Empirically, across math and general reasoning benchmarks, this enables robustly stable asynchronous training compared to previous stabilization and algorithmic methods, even in highly off-policy regimes (128 steps off-policy). In a long-horizon, tool-use task, VCPO matches synchronous performance while delivering a 2.5× speedup in training time. Code is available at: https://github.com/mit-han-lab/vcpo
Reinforcement learning (RL) approaches for Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently use on-policy algorithms, such as PPO or GRPO. However, policy lag from distributed training architectures and differences between the training and inference policies break this assumption, making the data off-policy by design. To rectify this, prior work has focused on making this off-policy data appear more on-policy, either via importance sampling (IS), or by more closely aligning the training and inference policies by explicitly modifying the inference engine. In this work, we embrace off-policyness and propose a novel off-policy RL algorithm that does not require these modifications: Optimal Advantage-based Policy Optimization with Lagged Inference policy (OAPL). We show that OAPL outperforms GRPO with importance sampling on competition math benchmarks, and can match the performance of a publicly available coding model, DeepCoder, on LiveCodeBench, while using 3x fewer generations during training. We further empirically demonstrate that models trained via OAPL have improved test time scaling under the Pass@k metric. OAPL allows for efficient, effective post-training even with lags of more than 400 gradient steps between the training and inference policies, 100x more off-policy than prior approaches.
Daniel Ritter, Owen Oertell, Bradley Guo +3
Cornell University · Databricks · Harvard University