Continual Learning Bench: Evaluating Frontier AI Systems in Real-World Stateful Environments

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 Distillation-based methods accumulate knowledge stably but struggle to update outdated facts.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.

Language agents spend substantial inference time solving individual tasks, yet the experience acquired in one episode is often underutilized in future episodes. Continual learning expects an agent to accumulate reusable experience across a stream of tasks, improve over time, and avoid interference from irrelevant experiences. Unfortunately, existing benchmarks struggle to evaluate continual learning in language agents rigorously. Most efforts focus on retrieval and reasoning over long-context conversations or documents, while recent lifelong-adaptation benchmarks often rely on naive task streams with limited analysis of cross-task relationships, making it difficult to understand what an agent learns and reuses over time. This paper presents an evaluation framework AgentCL for continual learning in agents, centered on controlled task streams and metrics for transfer gains. AgentCL constructs compositional streams where earlier sub-solutions, evidence, or workflows are intentionally reusable in later tasks, and contrasts them with naive streams where such reusability is not guaranteed. We use the benchmark to evaluate non-parametric memory designs for continual learning. To diagnose how memory design choices affect continual learning, we develop MemProbe, a probing method that stores interactions, insights, and skills, while filtering unreliable experiences during consolidation. Empirical analysis across coding, deep research, and language understanding/reasoning tasks shows that naive streams offer limited ability to distinguish memory designs, whereas controlled streams more clearly distinguish their plasticity. Meanwhile, naive and held-out settings often yield limited gains and can expose memory-induced degradation. These results highlight the need for stronger memory designs that balance plasticity and stable reuse.

Continual adaptation is essential for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) deployed across evolving domains, but the state-of-the-art MR-LoRA method highly relies on the assumption that a MLLM-based router is necessary to process complex multimodal inputs. This paper revisits this claim on the MLLM-CL benchmark and argues for two claims. \textbf{First}, routing does not require an MLLM: a simple training-free, replay-free ptotypical routing method (\textsc{RePRo}), uses frozen pretrained features and task prototypes to match the MLLM-based router of MR-LoRA at far lower computational cost. \textbf{Second}, shared experts do not improve continual learning for MLLMs, despite their theoretical appeal. We show that these findings arise from two structural limitations of MLLM-CL: (1) its tasks are \textbf{highly separable} in representation space, and (2) its fixed task order makes conclusions \textbf{sensitive to a single curriculum} rather than robust across diverse continual-learning trajectories. As a result, the benchmark primarily rewards learning in isolation rather than genuine continual transfer. This motivates a new design for future benchmarks of continual MLLM learning, with overlapping task manifolds, multiple task orders, fine-grained domain shifts, and evaluation protocols that reward forward transfer as well as retention.