Distributed reinforcement learning policies face network delays, jitter, and packet loss when deployed across edge devices and cloud servers. Standard RL training assumes zero-latency interaction, causing severe performance degradation under realistic network conditions. We introduce CALF (Communication-Aware Learning Framework), which trains policies under realistic network models during simulation. Systematic experiments demonstrate that network-aware training substantially reduces deployment performance gaps compared to network-agnostic baselines. Distributed policy deployments across heterogeneous hardware validate that explicitly modelling communication constraints during training enables robust real-world execution. These findings establish network conditions as a major axis of sim-to-real transfer for Wi-Fi-like distributed deployments, complementing physics and visual domain randomisation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Real-world distributed systems employ hybrid communication strategies to maintain operation under varying network conditions. Unmanned aerial vehicles, for instance, choose between multiple communication channels (satellite, radio frequency, optical tether) based on signal quality and operational constraints, defaulting to autonomous operation when no reliable connection exists. This illustrates the challenge CALF addresses: policies must function across heterogeneous network conditions rather than assuming perfect connectivity. We focus on LAN-like scenarios (Wi-Fi, Ethernet); WAN/adversarial scenarios motivate the need for configurable impairments but are not evaluated here.
Goal
Capability
Enables
Network Realism
Synthetic + trace-based network models
Controlled ablations (RQ2), realistic training
Deployment Parity
Same code across simulation/hardware
Fair comparison of network effects (RQ1)
Reproducibility
Deterministic seeds, versioning
Scientific rigour, exact replication
Heterogeneity
Edge devices to cloud servers
Realistic distributed settings (RQ3)
Table 1: CALF design goals and their role in answering research questions.
Figure 2: CALF’s three progressive deployment modes enable incremental validation from pure simulation to distributed deployment. Mode 1 (Local Sim) provides a zero-latency baseline for rapid development with environment and policy co-located. Mode 2 (Sim + Simulated Network) introduces NetworkShim services that inject realistic latency, jitter, and packet loss for network-aware training. Mode 3 (Edge Sim) validates distributed deployment on real hardware (Raspberry Pi for environment, Desktop for policy) communicating over real Wi-Fi/Ethernet networks. This progressive approach ensures that network-aware policies trained in Mode 2 transfer successfully to distributed edge deployment in Mode 3, addressing the network axis of the sim-to-real gap.
Regime
Mode
Impairments
Purpose
Baseline
Mode 1 (local)
None
Traditional RL (no awareness)
Delay-Only
Mode 2
50ms fixed latency
Constant-delay awareness
Full Net-Aware
Mode 2
Latency + jitter + loss
Full stochastic model
Table 2: Training regimes for network-aware evaluation.
Task
Representation
Rationale
CartPole
Frame stack k=d+1
Infer velocities under delay
MiniGrid
LSTM
Variable delay + partial observability
Ablation
+ Action history
Track in-flight actions
Table 3: State representation strategies for handling observation delays.
Training Regime
Sim-Clean
Sim+Net
Real-Eth
Wi-Fi-N
Wi-Fi-D
Baseline
495 ± 7
310 ± 48
288 ± 62
173 ± 71
92 ± 54
Delay-Only
482 ± 11
468 ± 16
425 ± 32
348 ± 49
218 ± 58
Full Net-Aware
476 ± 9
472 ± 13
458 ± 22
442 ± 27
378 ± 41
Table 4: CartPole: Mean Episode Return ( ± std) over 10 seeds. Each cell reports mean performance across seeds, with each seed evaluated over 50 episodes per deployment mode.
Figure 3: CartPole: Performance comparison across deployment modes for each training regime. Full network-aware training maintains robust performance under real network conditions, while baseline training exhibits severe degradation. Delay-only training provides partial robustness, demonstrating the necessity of modelling jitter and packet loss in addition to latency. Error bars represent ± 1 std across 10 seeds.
Training Regime
Sim-Clean
Sim+Net
Real-Eth
Wi-Fi-N
Wi-Fi-D
Baseline
94 ± 4
76 ± 9
73 ± 11
61 ± 13
44 ± 16
Delay-Only
91 ± 5
87 ± 6
84 ± 7
77 ± 9
64 ± 11
Full Net-Aware
89 ± 4
87 ± 5
85 ± 6
81 ± 7
74 ± 9
Table 5: MiniGrid: Success Rate (% ± std) over 10 seeds. Each cell reports percentage of episodes successfully reaching the goal, with each seed evaluated over 50 episodes per deployment mode.
Training Regime
Real-Wi-Fi-Degraded
Baseline (none)
92 ± 54
Latency-Only (50 ms)
275 ± 52
Stochastic Add. Delay ( σ =40 ms)
315 ± 47
Loss-Only (10%)
308 ± 49
Combined (full model)
378 ± 41
Table 6: CartPole Ablation: Mean Episode Return in Real-Wi-Fi-Degraded. Ten seeds per training condition, each evaluated over 50 episodes.
Deployment Configuration
Episode Return
E2E Latency (p50/p95)
Flat (Desktop)
448 ± 28
38 ms / 62 ms
Flat (Pi)
472 ± 21
6 ms / 11 ms
Hierarchical (Distributed)
465 ± 24
22 ms / 45 ms
Table 7: CartPole Policy Graph: Performance comparison for distributed deployment. All configurations evaluated over Real-Wi-Fi-Normal network.
Deployment Configuration
Success Rate (%)
Flat (Desktop)
77 ± 9
Flat (Pi)
82 ± 7
Hierarchical (Distributed)
79 ± 8
Table 8: MiniGrid Policy Graph: Success rate comparison. All configurations evaluated over Real-Wi-Fi-Normal network.
Configuration
Latency p50 (ms)
Latency p95 (ms)
Local (Pi only)
5.2
9.8
Ethernet (Pi ↔ Desktop)
8.7
14.3
Wi-Fi-Normal
34.5
68.2
Real-Wi-Fi-Degraded
82.1
152.7
Table 9: End-to-End Latency: Median and 95th percentile latency measured over 1000 environment steps during CartPole policy graph deployment. “Local” indicates co-located environment and policy; “Remote” indicates networked communication.
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.
Homayoun Honari, Roger Creus Castanyer, Michael Przystupa +3
Mila – Quebec AI Institute, Canada · Université de Montréal, Canada · University of Alberta, Canada
Distributed training across a wide area network (WAN) is challenging, as continuous parameter exchange by islands of compute is constrained by limited bandwidth, high latency, and uneven topology. We propose making the network an active participant in training. On the systems side, such networks should leverage (i) multicast technology to replicate outbound traffic and (ii) in-line FPGAs to aggregate inbound traffic, to ease egress and ingress bottlenecks. These technologies are used for training across workers within a data center, but this paper extends them to the WAN. On the algorithms side, we develop an optimization framework that produces rich synchronization schedules (namely, rotating cliques of islands) around the underlying network topology and these technologies, to maximize information exchange. Finally, we illustrate this on a nine-city topology modeled on the DoubleZero network, a live programmable WAN equipped with both technologies, and show how the optimal schedules shift with the network's capabilities. Together, these can narrow the gap to the gold standard of colocated training.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has received increasing attention and adoption in real-world use cases. Most of these systems follow a train-then-fix paradigm, where trained agents do not learn while interacting with the world until performance degrades and retraining becomes necessary. In this position paper, we argue that deploying an agent that is incapable of optimality, but receives an evaluative reward signal, is inherently a continual RL problem. We identify four sources of non-stationarity after deployment that necessitate never-ending learning, and highlight why the best deployed agents never stop adapting. We analyze successful examples of continual RL in the real world, and present the community with the advantages and measures to move away from the current train-then-fix paradigm.
Parnian Behdin, Kevin Roice, Golnaz Mesbahi
Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii), Edmonton, Canada.