CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.LG2026-07-08

When Does Continual Learning Require Learning

Anne Harrington, Nayan Saxena, Michael Murphy, Anastasia Borovykh, Zeyu Yun, Sridhar Kamath, Ara Eindra Kyi, Trevor Darrell, Jitendra Malik, Yutong Bai

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 Distillation-based methods accumulate knowledge stably but struggle to update outdated facts.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

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivstat.MLcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-06

To Retain or to Adapt? Generalizing Continual Learning

Giulia Lanzillotta, Mandana Samiei, Doina Precup, Razvan Pascanu, Claire Vernade

The Continual Learning (CL) literature has long been driven by the goal of mitigating catastrophic forgetting. This objective rests on a pervasive, often unstated assumption: that a lifelong learner should approximate the Joint-Task Learning (JTL) solution and retain all previous…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LGcs.AI2026-07-01

Challenges of Explainability in Continual Learning for Time Series Forecasting

Quentin Besnard, Emmanuel Doumard, Nicolas Labroche, Nicolas Ragot, Nicolas Ringuet

Deep learning models have shown strong potential for time series forecasting, yet their deployment in real-world environmental monitoring remains challenging due to non-stationary dynamics and limited explainability. In this work, we investigate explainability as a central tool f…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LGcs.AIcs.NE2026-07-10

Interference and Retention in Continual Learning

Julius Störk

Continual learning commonly relies on post-hoc mechanisms such as replay, elastic regularization, or distillation. This work argues that forgetting should instead be modeled directly as interference between tasks. In the frozen-feature regime, forgetting from learning a new task…

View free PDFSource page
arxivquant-phcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-17

Rethinking Quantum Continual Learning with Quantum Fisher Information

Yu-Chao Hsu, Yu-Cheng Lin, Tai-Yue Li, Nan-Yow Chen, En-Jui Kuo

Quantum continual learning aims to train quantum models on sequential tasks without losing previously learned knowledge. However, variational quantum classifiers (VQCs) are prone to catastrophic forgetting under nonstationary task distributions. We propose quantum elastic weight…

View free PDFSource page