Capability/Efficiency
Open Benchmarks Grants

Continual Learning Bench

A benchmark evaluating whether AI systems genuinely improve from prior experience. Unlike static benchmarks that treat every task as independent, Continual Learning Bench measures performance across sequential, stateful task sequences, rewarding systems that accumulate and apply knowledge over time.

Built with
Snorkel AI logo lockup mono white outline pngImageImage
Overview

Most benchmarks make a core assumption: models are stateless. Once they complete a task, they move on to the next as if the first never happened. In practice, deployed systems encounter new information and operate in sequential environments where meaningful improvement should occur.

Continual Learning Bench is a benchmark of expert-validated task sequences across real-world domains (software engineering, data science, strategic modeling) where tasks are not independent, systems are expected to change during evaluation, and performance depends on what the system has seen before.

Leaderboard

Sorted by aggregate reward. Only systems with complete task coverage receive a rank.
Rank System Avg Reward Avg Gain Avg Cost
1
ICL · Claude Sonnet 4.6
0.196 0.241 $30.43
2
ICL · GPT-5.4
0.189 0.189 $18.39
3
Claude Code · Sonnet 4.6
0.185 0.241 $38.6
4
ICL · Claude Opus 4.7
0.183 0.195 $49.62
5
Mem0 · GPT-5.4
0.148 0.224 $18.34
6
ICL Notepad · Claude Sonnet 4.6
0.132 0.182 $31.53
7
ICL Notepad · GPT-5.4
0.104 0.156 $14.28
8
ICL · Gemini 3 Flash
0.092 0.155 $7.6
9
ACE · GPT-5.4
0.066 0.077 $62.75
10
Codex · GPT-5.4
0.057 0.12 $27.21
11
ICL Notepad · Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
0.003 0.081 $13.32
12
ICL · Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
-0.076 0.036 $15.23

Aggregate metrics

How it works

Each task is a sequence of instances. A continually-learning system carries state from one instance to the next; the stateless baseline resets between every instance. The difference between the two is the system's gain.
CONTINUAL LEARNING
S1

S2

S3

S4
STATELESS BASELINE
S1

RESET

S2

RESET

S3

RESET

S4
GAIN
reward
(continual) −
reward
(stateless baseline)

Stateful system vs. stateless baseline

Select a stateful system to compare its reward curve against its own stateless baseline — two lines, same task, with and without continual learning. Values are per-instance reward, averaged across runs.
stateful (continual learning) stateless baseline

Per-task breakdown

System Mean Cum. Reward Mean Cum. Gain Cost Runs
ICL · GPT-5.4 46.198 ± 1.001 26.437 ± 1.001 $1.93 ± $0.05 5
Claude Code · Sonnet 4.6 44.282 ± 1.449 24.522 ± 1.449 $10.40 ± $2.27 5
ICL · Claude Sonnet 4.6 36.584 ± 1.262 16.825 ± 1.262 $3.60 ± $0.17 5
ICL Notepad · Claude Sonnet 4.6 35.993 ± 2.414 16.233 ± 2.414 $2.99 ± $0.27 5
Mem0 · GPT-5.4 33.794 ± 2.986 14.033 ± 2.986 $1.39 ± $0.07 5
ICL · Claude Opus 4.7 33.572 ± 3.082 13.813 ± 3.082 $7.58 ± $0.42 5
ICL · Gemini 3 Flash 33.039 ± 0.879 13.279 ± 0.879 $0.68 ± $0.02 5
ICL · Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 33.033 ± 1.136 13.273 ± 1.136 $3.84 ± $0.17 5
Codex · GPT-5.4 32.828 ± 0.000 13.068 ± 0.000 $3.15 ± $0.00 1
ICL Notepad · GPT-5.4 31.915 ± 2.122 12.153 ± 2.122 $1.02 ± $0.05 5
ICL Notepad · Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 29.122 ± 3.011 9.362 ± 3.011 $2.80 ± $0.53 5
ACE · GPT-5.4 19.778 ± 0.009 0.017 ± 0.009 $3.96 ± $0.33 5

Task suite 1.0

Tasks are authored and validated by domain experts. Each task is a sequence of related instances rather than a single static problem — success requires the agent to adapt as the sequence unfolds.
codebase_adaptation
The agent resolves a sequence of GitHub issues on a shared codebase by executing bash commands in a Docker container. Success is measured by how few steps are needed per issue — rewarding agents that accumulate reusable knowledge of the repo over time.
19 sub-tasks
blind_spectrum_monitoring
The agent monitors RF spectrum signals to detect anomalies and identify emitters, operating with incomplete sensor data and shifting sensor configurations. It must learn persistent emitter patterns while adapting to changing array geometry across monitoring sessions.
90 sub-tasks
cohort_studies
The agent estimates patient survival across sequential clinical studies with inconsistent variable definitions and coding conventions. It must synthesize epidemiological knowledge across schemas to improve Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for predefined population cohorts.
20 sub-tasks
database_exploration
The agent answers natural-language questions about an unknown SQLite database by issuing exploratory queries before committing to a final answer. The schema drifts across instances, requiring the agent to relearn structure over time.
40 sub-tasks
exploitable_poker
The agent plays heads-up poker against a deterministic opponent whose strategy has exploitable patterns. It must infer weaknesses from hand outcomes and adapt its betting decisions to accumulate profit over many hands.
120 sub-tasks
sales_prediction
The agent forecasts furniture sales across stores and time periods by writing Python analysis code in Docker. It must learn store-specific growth patterns and schema conventions from historical data, improving its models with each sequential prediction task.
12 sub-tasks

Methodology

reward ↑
Raw task performance score. Higher is better.
gain ↑
Reward minus the same system's stateless baseline — direct measure of how much the system learned from experience.
Agg. Reward / Gain ↑
Each task's reward (or gain) normalized against a reference ceiling and fixed (or corresponding) stateless baseline, then averaged across tasks. Primary ranking metric.
Cost ↓
Aggregate table: sum of each included task's mean single rollout spend. Task table: mean spend per single task rollout.

Acknowledgments

The benchmark is led by researchers at UC Berkeley Skylab, UW-Madison, and Snorkel AI via the Open Benchmarks Grants program. Snorkel is actively collaborating on baseline human performance calibration for select tasks.

Get notified when we launch a new benchmark

Share this benchmark

More benchmarks

Agentic Coding

Agentic Coding 2.0

Evaluating whether coding agents can plan, execute, verify, and recover across complex terminal-native engineering tasks.

By pass@1
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
47.6%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
39.6%
3
Image
Opus 5
38.9%
Software Engineering

SWE-bench CLI

Tests whether an AI coding agent can diagnose and deliver a validated, multi-file change in a real open-source repository, navigating code, tests, dependencies, and tooling through the command line.

By pass@1
1
Image
Fable 5.1
14.5%
2
Image
Opus 5
14.0%
3
Image
GPT-6 Astra
12.4%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelUnderwrite 2.0

Measures an agent’s ability to turn incomplete, distributed insurance evidence into an auditable underwriting decision while respecting authority and policy constraints.

By pass@1
1
Image
GLM 5.3
30.4%
2
Image
DeepSeek V4 Pro
28.5%
3
Image
Kimi K3
27.9%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelManufacturing

Measures how well AI agents can turn fragmented plant-floor, engineering, and supplier evidence into safe, technically defensible decisions and actions.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
16.4%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
11.9%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
11.3%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelRevOps

Tests whether AI agents can reconcile revenue systems, enforce hard commercial controls, and carry a decision through to the correct business state.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
15.8%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
14.0%
3
Image
Kimi K3
13.1%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelFinance 2.0

Scores how agents gather evidence, perform financial analysis, follow compliance constraints, and complete required state updates in a simulated environment.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
25.1%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
21.2%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
19.6%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelLegal

Evaluates AI agents on whether they can advance a legal matter while preserving the chain from controlling evidence to procedure, authority, and action.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
40.7%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
37.8%
3
Image
Muse Spark 1.3
36.5%
Knowledge Work

WorkplaceAgents

Evaluates AI agents on economically valuable professional work and verifiable workplace deliverables.

By pass@1
1
Image
Muse Spark 1.3
17.7%
2
Image
Grok 4.6
17.1%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
15.8%
Agentic Coding

Terminal-Bench 4.0

A benchmark to measure and evolve with the frontier of agent work: real terminal environments, real software engineering tasks, and a rolling task set that is revised as agents catch up to it.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
58.2%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
57.9%
3
Image
Opus 5
53.9%
Scientific & Research Workflows

Terminal-Bench-Science

A benchmark for evaluating AI agents on workflows from researchers’ own work. Scientists, not model developers or vendors, set the bar for scientific capability in AI.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
Fable 5.1
40.0%
2
Image
Opus 5
30.0%
3
Image
GPT-5.6 Sol
22.4%
Agentic Coding

Terminal-Bench 3.0

The next frontier benchmark for agent work. A harder, more domain-diverse successor to Terminal-Bench 2.1 — built in the open, task by task, under continuous adversarial review.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
Opus 5
42.7%
2
Image
GPT-5.6 Sol
34.6%
3
Image
Fable 5
34.1%
Computer Use

OSWorld 2.0

Long-horizon professional workflows with verifiable outcomes across 55 sub-industries. 147 public tasks of a 1,500+ task corpus, sourced and validated by 300+ industry experts.

By binary accuracy (500 steps)
1
Image
Opus 5 · max
44.33%
2
Image
Opus 5 · xhigh
36.89%
3
Image
Opus 5 · high
33.33%
Software Engineering

Senior SWE-Bench

Evaluating coding agents on senior-level engineering work.

Tasteful Solve Rate
1
Image
Fable 5.1
34.7%
2
Image
Fable 5
34.7%
3
Image
Opus 5
34.7%
Knowledge Work

Agents’ Last Exam

Evaluating AI agents on long-horizon, economically valuable professional workflows with verifiable outcomes.

By Binary Accuracy
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
34.2
2
Image
Muse Spark 1.3
32.2%
3
Image
Opus 5
31.6%
Software Engineering

SlopCode Bench

Measures code quality degradation in AI-assisted codebases. Tracks checkpoint solve rates, erosion (code bloat), and verbosity under realistic repo conditions.

Top Models by Iso Solve
1
Image
GPT-5.5
28.06%
2
Image
GPT-5.3-Codex
26.02%
3
Image
GPT-5.4
23.47%
of

For models that need to be right. Not just good enough.