Continual Reinforcement Learning Overview

• Continual Reinforcement Learning is a paradigm where agents sequentially adapt to non-stationary tasks while retaining previously acquired skills.
• It addresses the stability–plasticity dilemma by employing techniques like policy distillation, selective replay, and adaptive architectural expansion.
• CRL methods enable forward transfer and long-term retention in dynamic applications such as robotics and adaptive control systems.

Continual Reinforcement Learning (CRL) is a paradigm in which an agent is expected to learn and adapt sequentially from a stream of non-stationary experiences or tasks, without catastrophic forgetting of previously acquired skills. Unlike traditional reinforcement learning (RL), where an agent optimizes a policy for a single, fixed environment, CRL addresses scenarios where the agent must continually update its knowledge and skills as the environment, tasks, or goals change over time. The principal aim is to achieve both rapid adaptation (plasticity) and long-term retention (stability), enabling agents to accumulate, transfer, and reuse knowledge efficiently across a diverse and evolving set of tasks.

1. Foundational Principles and Formalizations

CRL generalizes RL by relaxing stationarity assumptions. In the general formalization, every component of the Markov Decision Process (MDP)—state space, action space, reward function, transition function, and observation model—may evolve with time (Khetarpal et al., 2020). The agent’s objective shifts from achieving optimality in a fixed environment to maximizing cumulative or average reward across a sequence or continuum of tasks while maintaining performance on earlier tasks.

A rigorous mathematical language for continual learning defines an agent as a function

$\pi : H \rightarrow \Delta(\mathcal{A}),$

where $H$ is the space of histories and $\Delta(\mathcal{A})$ is the space of action distributions. A continual learning agent, under this formulation, is one that never “settles” on a static policy (i.e., never reaches a fixed base behavior), instead carrying out an indefinite search over its agent basis as the environment evolves (Abel et al., 2023).

Typical continual RL scenarios include:

• Task-incremental: Discrete task boundaries are known, and adaptation is required as tasks shift.
• Task-agnostic or non-stationary: No explicit task boundaries; the agent detects and adapts to distributional changes.

2. Core Challenges

Catastrophic Forgetting and Stability–Plasticity Dilemma

The central technical challenge in CRL is catastrophic forgetting, where gradient updates for new tasks can overwrite parameters crucial for old tasks, resulting in the loss of previously acquired skills (Pan et al., 27 Jun 2025, Zuffer et al., 27 Jun 2025). This challenge is compounded by the stability–plasticity dilemma: achieving sufficient plasticity for adaptation to new tasks, while preserving stability to retain old knowledge.

Scalability: Memory, Compute, and Resource Efficiency

Effective CRL must be memory- and compute-efficient. Storing separate policies or large experience buffers for every task is not scalable to real-world applications with many (or even unbounded) tasks (Pan et al., 27 Jun 2025).

Forward and Backward Transfer

CRL agents are expected to achieve forward transfer (using acquired knowledge to accelerate acquisition of new skills), as well as, ideally, backward transfer (improving older policies when learning new ones), though the latter remains a significant open challenge (Wołczyk et al., 2021, Wołczyk et al., 2022).

Nonstationarity and Task Boundary Detection

Nonstationarity may be explicit (task boundaries known, e.g., task-incremental setting) or implicit (continuous drift in environment or goals, e.g., task-agnostic or piecewise nonstationary). In the more difficult task-agnostic regime, the agent must autonomously detect significant distribution changes (e.g., via change-point detection or context inference mechanisms) (Bagus et al., 2022, Zuffer et al., 27 Jun 2025).

3. Methodological Taxonomy

A comprehensive taxonomy categorizes CRL methods by their strategy for knowledge storage and transfer (Pan et al., 27 Jun 2025, Khetarpal et al., 2020):

Method Family	Core Principle	Major Techniques
Policy-Focused	Store/transfer policy or value function	Decomposition, policy merging, distillation, masking
Experience-Focused	Replay or generate past experiences	Selective or generative replay (VAE, GAN, Diffusion)
Dynamic-Focused	Capture changing environment dynamics	Direct (multiple models), indirect (latent variables)
Reward-Focused	Modify/shape reward for transfer	Potential-based or intrinsic reward augmentations

• Policy-focused methods: Store previous policy parameters [“policy reuse”], decompose policy into shared and task-specific modules, or merge via distillation and masking. For instance, distilling multiple teacher policies into a single student network mitigates forgetting and aids transfer (Traoré et al., 2019).
• Experience-focused methods: Modify traditional experience replay with multi-timescale buffers (Kaplanis et al., 2020) or employ generative replay models (e.g., diffusion models (Chen et al., 16 Nov 2024)) to synthesize experience from previous tasks, obviating raw data storage and improving memory efficiency.
• Dynamic-focused methods: Adapt to evolving dynamics via maintaining mixtures of transition models (Pan et al., 27 Jun 2025), learning task-specific or context latent variables, or directly modeling the nonstationarity in the environment.
• Reward-focused methods: Shape or augment the reward to facilitate learning across task changes, e.g., adding intrinsic motivation or potential-based shaping to handle sparse rewards.

Additional hybrid frameworks utilize hierarchical structures, e.g., combining high-level goal reasoning via LLMs with low-level reinforcement learning for fine-grained control (Pan et al., 25 Jan 2024).

4. Benchmarks, Evaluation Protocols, and Metrics

Benchmarking in CRL uses task sequences with shared or varying dynamics (e.g., Meta-World, Continual World, MiniGrid, robotics suites) (Wołczyk et al., 2021, Lucchesi et al., 2022). Key metrics include:

• Average performance ($A_N$): Mean performance (e.g., success rate or return) across all tasks learned so far.
• Forgetting ($FG_i$): Drop on task $i$ defined as $FG_i = \max [p_{i,i} - p_{N,i}, 0]$, where $p_{i,i}$ is task $i$'s performance at learning, and $p_{N,i}$ after all tasks.
• Forward transfer: Improvement in learning speed or final performance on new tasks due to previous knowledge.
• Backward transfer: Any improvement on prior tasks when new tasks are learned.
• Resource and safety metrics: Wall-clock time, memory usage, and, in safety-critical settings, constraint violations (Coursey et al., 21 Feb 2025).

Evaluation protocols stress long horizons and, in some cases, require dynamic task boundaries or incorporate continuous streams of change (Mohamed et al., 23 May 2025, Wołczyk et al., 2021).

5. Mechanisms for Preventing Forgetting and Facilitating Transfer

Key mechanisms include:

• Parameter isolation and regularization: Freezing network modules, using synaptic consolidation (EWC), or masking critical weights to protect old knowledge (Khetarpal et al., 2020, Wołczyk et al., 2021).
• Experience and generative replay: Storing or generating data via VAEs, GANs, or diffusion models (DISTR) for on-policy or behavior cloning training, which mitigates catastrophic forgetting without excessive storage overhead (Chen et al., 16 Nov 2024).
• Policy distillation: Aggregating expert/teacher policies through KL divergence-based losses to form a single student policy capable of multi-task competence (Traoré et al., 2019).
• Adaptive architecture search: RL-guided (LSTM controller) dynamic expansion of neural architectures allows fit-for-purpose growth without parameter blowup (Xu et al., 2018).
• Hierarchical and multi-granularity strategies: Fusion of high-level planning (via LLMs) and low-level RL, with retrieval and reuse of past sub-policy libraries (Pan et al., 25 Jan 2024).
• Context inference via recurrence or meta-learning: Fast adaptation to task shifts without explicit task indicators, e.g., 3RL uses RNN-encoded history for context-aware decision-making (Caccia et al., 2022).

6. Algorithmic and Theoretical Developments

Recent research has formalized continual learning as a computationally constrained RL problem—where the agent, subject to memory or compute limits, optimally manages what to remember or forget (Kumar et al., 2023). Information-theoretic analyses quantify forgetting and implasticity errors, specifying the trade-off between stability and plasticity.

The transition from vanishing-regret learning (which prioritizes convergence) to perpetual adaptation (imperative in CRL) underlines the necessity for continual exploration, non-vanishing learning rates, and “memory-efficient” state compression.

Loss of plasticity—decline in a network’s ability to adapt further even when loss signals are high—has also been characterized using measures like activation footprints and weight update norms. Novel activation functions, e.g., Concatenated ReLUs (CReLUs), help preserve an effective gradient pathway and maintain plasticity across long task sequences (Abbas et al., 2023).

7. Applications, Limitations, and Future Directions

CRL is particularly salient for real-world settings where environments are dynamic and episodic evaluation is unrealistic, such as robotics, adaptive building control, logistics, education, and healthcare (Naug et al., 2020, Khetarpal et al., 2020, Zuffer et al., 27 Jun 2025). In applications requiring safety, additional mechanisms (e.g., reward shaping for constraint adherence) are crucial to avoid prioritizing reward over constraint satisfaction (Coursey et al., 21 Feb 2025).

Limitations highlighted include:

• Incomplete solutions for scalable backward transfer (Wołczyk et al., 2021, Pan et al., 27 Jun 2025).
• Dependence on explicit task boundaries rather than realistic, undelineated task streams.
• Resource inefficiencies in large-scale or long-horizon settings.
• Open challenges in task-agnostic continual RL, interpretability, and automatic hyperparameter adaptation for unbounded environments (Mohamed et al., 23 May 2025).

Promising directions include: development of task-free CRL protocols, robust evaluation suites supporting continuous nonstationarity, integration of large-scale pre-trained models (PTMs) for efficient adaptation, advancement of interpretable knowledge representations, and incorporation of neuro-cognitive and control-theoretic insights (e.g., selective replay, local learning rules, dynamic plasticity management) (Pan et al., 27 Jun 2025, Zuffer et al., 27 Jun 2025).

---

Continual reinforcement learning formalizes and addresses the problem of perpetual, adaptive learning in nonstationary domains, shaping the next generation of AI agents capable of robust, lifelong learning under real-world constraints. The field synthesizes advances in architecture, memory, meta-learning, and generative modeling, driven by an evolving set of benchmarks and methodologies oriented toward scalable, sample-efficient, and interpretable solutions.