Implicit Assumptions About Tasks in Continual Learning

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 Distillation-based methods accumulate knowledge stably but struggle to update outdated facts.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

A central challenge in continual learning is to acquire new knowledge without forgetting what the model has already learned. This challenge appears in language model training when training data comes from various domain-, user-, or task-specific distributions that are encountered unevenly over time. In such settings, successive minibatches are temporally clustered by distribution instead of being sampled i.i.d. from the overall data mixture. Training on temporally clustered data induces a stability-plasticity tradeoff. Adapting the model to the active distribution can improve the model on the active distribution but may lead to a performance degradation on data it previously trained on. We find that this tradeoff intensifies with longer exposure to the same distribution. We therefore ask if the parameter displacement produced by such a sequence (the task vector) should be fully retained or applied partially. We compare applying the full displacement ($λ=1$) with partial integration, which scales the task vector by $λ$ before applying it to the continuing model and scales the optimizer state by the same coefficient. Across continual pretraining, pretraining from random initialization, supervised post-training, and reinforcement post-training, we find that intermediate values of $λ$ often improve average continuing-model performance relative to full integration, particularly after longer same-distribution sequences. In continual-pretraining experiments with both controlled streams and naturally defined adaptation sequences, task-vector scaling outperforms full integration at the matched learning rate, showing that its benefits are not reproduced by learning-rate scaling alone.

Streaming Continual Learning (CL) typically converts a continuous stream into a sequence of discrete tasks through temporal partitioning. We argue that this temporal taskification step is not a neutral preprocessing choice, but a structural component of evaluation: different valid splits of the same stream can induce different CL regimes and therefore different benchmark conclusions. To study this effect, we introduce a taskification-level framework based on plasticity and stability profiles, a profile distance between taskifications, and Boundary-Profile Sensitivity (BPS), which diagnoses how strongly small boundary perturbations alter the induced regime before any CL model is trained. We evaluate continual finetuning, Experience Replay, Elastic Weight Consolidation, and Learning without Forgetting on network traffic forecasting with CESNET-Timeseries24, keeping the stream, model, and training budget fixed while varying only the temporal taskification. Across 9-, 30-, and 44-day splits, we observe substantial changes in forecasting error, forgetting, and backward transfer, showing that taskification alone can materially affect CL evaluation. We further find that shorter taskifications induce noisier distribution-level patterns, larger structural distances, and higher BPS, indicating greater sensitivity to boundary perturbations. These results show that benchmark conclusions in streaming CL depend not only on the learner and the data stream, but also on how that stream is taskified, motivating temporal taskification as a first-class evaluation variable.