Organizations: SKL-MAIS, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Science and Technology of China
Large language model (LLM) agents excel at complex, multi-step tasks but suffer from catastrophic forgetting during continual learning--acquiring new skills often degrades previously mastered capabilities. Existing post-training paradigms face a fundamental trade-off: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is sample-efficient but prone to severe forgetting, while Reinforcement Learning (RL) preserves prior capabilities but converges slowly without expert guidance. To bridge this gap, we introduce Trigger-based Supervised Reinforcement Learning (TSRL), a framework that integrates the strengths of both paradigms through an adaptive, state-dependent expert supervision mechanism. TSRL employs RL as the optimization backbone, activating SFT selectively on "hard states" where the policy fails. Theoretically, we show that restricting supervision to failure states derives an upper bound on the cumulative parameter updates, thereby reducing forgetting compared to full SFT. Empirically, TSRL achieves consistent gains across three agent benchmarks (ALFWorld, WebShop, and Deep Search) at both 7B and 32B scales. In continual learning scenarios, our method retains up to 9.6 points more capability on prior tasks than SFT->RL baselines, while matching or exceeding target-task performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of different post-training methods for continual agent learning.
Figure 2: Illustrative case using bimodal Gaussian mixtures. TSRL achieves a favorable trade-off between forgetting mitigation and effective utilization of expert data by leveraging trigger-based supervision.
Method
Sample Efficiency
Forgetting Resistance
Pure SFT
✔
✘
Pure RL
✘
✔
SFT → RL
✔
✘
TSRL (ours)
✔
✔
Table 1: Comparison of post-training paradigms. ✔ indicates the property is satisfied, and ✘ indicates it is not. TSRL simultaneously achieves both high sample efficiency and forgetting resistance.
Method
ALFWorld
WebShop (Score)
WebShop (Succ.)
Base: Closed-Source Model
Prompting GPT-4o
48.0
31.8
23.7
Prompting Gemini-2.5-Pro
60.3
42.5
35.9
Base: Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Prompting Qwen2.5
14.8
26.4
7.8
Prompting ReAct
31.2
46.2
19.5
Table 2: Performance comparison on ALFWorld and WebShop benchmarks (averaged over 3 random seeds). For ALFWorld, we report the average success rate (%); for WebShop, we report both the average score and success rate (%). TSRL consistently achieves performance improvements with both GRPO and DAPO backbones. The plus/minus signs (+/-) indicate the performance change compared to the corresponding SFT→RL baseline.
Method
Continual Learning in WebShop
Continual Learning in ALFWorld
ALFWorld
WebShop (Score)
WebShop (Succ.)
ALFWorld
WebShop (Score)
WebShop (Succ.)
Prior-task Model
74.4
22.0
2.8
24.2
77.2
64.3
SFT
69.3
49.1
18.3
64.2
58.9
29.4
GRPO
74.2
86.7
70.0
78.0
79.3
65.0
SFT → GRPO
70.3
85.4
60.2
84.3
64.1
58.7
DAPO
72.1
86.9
69.5
88.2
79.1
62.5
Table 3: Continual learning experiments between WebShop and ALFWorld. This table reports performance on both prior and new tasks when a model trained on one task is fine-tuned on another. Prior-task Model denotes the LLM agent after GRPO training on the prior task.
Method
Deep Search
Math Reasoning
BrowseComp
BrowseComp-ZH
AIME 24
AIME 25
Base: Closed-Source Model
Prompting GPT-4o
0.7
6.9
9.3
13.1
Prompting Claude-3.5-Sonnet
0.8
5.9
16.0
7.4
Base: Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct
Prompting Qwen2.5
0.6
6.5
18.4
11.5
Table 4: Performance with Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct on Deep Search (target training task) and Math Reasoning (measuring retention of base model capabilities).
Figure 3: Dynamics of the success/failure ratio within each training batch across optimization steps.
Figure 4: Performance comparison across different trigger threshold δ on ALFWorld and WebShop.
Method
ALFWorld
WebShop (Score)
WebShop (Succ.)
Constant Weight
fixed 1.0
63.5
72.9
52.8
fixed 0.1
69.8
75.1
57.2
Annealing With Different Annealing Steps
25 steps
76.4
78.8
61.2
50 steps
78.2
79.3
60.6
Table 5: Ablation studies on the annealing mechanism.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Primary Goal
How Supervision Enters
Forgetting Control
UFT ( Liu et al., 2025 )
Single-task post-training
Dense unified SFT+RL objective
No explicit continual-learning control
LUFFY ( Yan et al., 2025 )
Reasoning beyond prior capability
Off-policy traces mixed with on-policy RL
Partial, but not continual-specific
Iterative-SFT ( Chen et al., 2025 )
Improve with on-policy data
Alternating collection and updates
Milder drift, no explicit trigger
TSRL
Continual agent training
Sparse state-dependent trigger + annealing
Explicitly designed to reduce forgetting
Appendix
Table A1: Positioning TSRL among representative hybrid SFT-RL methods.
Method
ALFWorld (Prior)
WebShop (Prior)
ScienceWorld (Continual)
Prior-task Model
74.2
70.0
8.5
SFT
69.0
65.4
25.2
GRPO
71.7
68.9
29.3
SFT → GRPO
68.6
65.7
31.8
DAPO
71.3
68.9
29.5
SFT → DAPO
68.5
65.4
31.4
Appendix
Table A2: Three-stage continual learning experiment: ALFWorld → WebShop → ScienceWorld. Prior-task Model denotes the model after the first two stages, before adaptation to ScienceWorld.
Method
ALFWorld → WebShop
WebShop → ALFWorld
ALFWorld (Prior)
WebShop (Continual)
ALFWorld (Continual)
WebShop (Prior)
Prior-task Model
74.4
2.8
24.2
64.3
SFT
69.3
18.3
64.2
29.4
GRPO
74.2
70.0
78.0
65.0
SFT → GRPO
70.3
60.2
84.3
58.7
Iterative-SFT Chen et al. (2025)
74.8
69.8
82.5
64.9
Appendix
Table A3: Comparisons with additional hybrid baselines and fixed-weight joint training. We report success rates for both continual-learning directions.
Method
ALFWorld → WebShop
WebShop → ALFWorld
ALFWorld (Prior)
WebShop (Continual)
ALFWorld (Continual)
WebShop (Prior)
Prior-task Model
84.5
15.3
23.7
54.9
SFT
77.3
62.5
66.4
25.8
GRPO
83.8
74.2
77.6
49.7
SFT → GRPO
77.5
79.0
82.5
44.3
TSRL GRPO
84.2 (+6.7)
78.8 (-0.2)
83.0 (+0.5)
49.9 (+5.6)
Appendix
Table A4: Continual learning results with Qwen3-4B. We report success rates for both continual-learning directions using the GRPO backbone.
While Large Language Model (LLM) agents excel at general tasks, they inherently struggle with continual adaptation due to the frozen weights after deployment. Conventional reinforcement learning (RL) offers a solution but incurs prohibitive computational costs and the risk of catastrophic forgetting. We introduce Just-In-Time Reinforcement Learning (JitRL), a training-free framework that enables test-time policy optimization without any gradient updates. JitRL maintains a dynamic, non-parametric memory of experiences and retrieves relevant trajectories to estimate action advantages on-the-fly. These estimates are then used to directly modulate the LLM's output logits. We theoretically prove that this additive update rule is the exact closed-form solution to the KL-constrained policy optimization objective. Extensive experiments on WebArena and Jericho demonstrate that JitRL establishes a new state-of-the-art among training-free methods. Crucially, JitRL outperforms the performance of computationally expensive fine-tuning methods (e.g., WebRL) while reducing monetary costs by over 30 times, offering a scalable path for continual learning agents. The code is available at https://github.com/liushiliushi/JitRL.
Large language models (LLMs) often suffer from catastrophic forgetting in continual learning: after learning new tasks sequentially, they perform worse on earlier tasks. Existing methods mitigate catastrophic forgetting by data replay, parameter freezing, or regularization. However, these methods lack understanding of LLM mechanisms and cannot distinguish which parameters store important knowledge from previous tasks and which parameters can be updated for new tasks. To address this, we propose the attribution-guided continual fine-tuning framework that leverages Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) to estimate parameter importance based on the internal computational process of LLMs. During continual learning, parameters critical to previous tasks are constrained to receive smaller updates, while less relevant parameters remain available for learning new tasks. Extensive experiments show that, compared with baseline methods, our approach reduces catastrophic forgetting while preserving adaptability to new tasks, highlighting the value of mechanistic attribution for continual fine-tuning of LLMs.
Yazheng Liu, Yuxuan Wan, Rui Xu +3
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China · The Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China
Continual learning in Large Language Models (LLMs) is hindered by the plasticity-stability dilemma, where acquiring new capabilities often leads to catastrophic forgetting of previous knowledge. Existing methods typically treat parameters uniformly, failing to distinguish between specific task knowledge and shared capabilities. We introduce Mixture of Sparse Experts for Task Agnostic Continual Learning (SETA), a framework that resolves the plasticity-stability conflict through adaptive sparse subspace decomposition into task-specific expert modules. Unlike standard updates, where tasks compete for the same parameters, SETA separates knowledge into unique experts, designed to isolate task-specific patterns, and shared experts, responsible for capturing common features. This structure is maintained through adaptive elastic anchoring and a routing-aware regularization that jointly protect shared knowledge at both the weight and routing levels and enable a unified gating network to automatically retrieve the correct expert combination during inference. Extensive experiments across diverse domain-specific benchmarks demonstrate that SETA achieves competitive or superior overall performance relative to state-of-the-art continual learning baselines, with particularly strong retention of early-task knowledge and improved backward transfer on LLaMA-2 7B and Qwen3-4B.
Fatema Siddika, Md Anwar Hossen, Tanwi Mallick +1
Iowa State University, Ames, USA · Argonne National Laboratory, USA