Back to benchmarks
Released May 26, 2026
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

New
Open Benchmarks Grants

Frontier-Bench

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
GPT-5.6 Sol (Codex)
34.4%
2
Image
Fable 5 (Claude Code)
33.8%
3
Image
Opus 4.8 (Claude Code)
21.1%
Open Benchmarks Grants

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 (300 steps)
1
Image
gpt-5-5 · xhigh
13%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.7 · max
13%
3
Image
Claude Sonnet 4.6 · medium
8.3%
New

Senior SWE-Bench

A benchmark for evaluating coding agents on senior-level engineering work: building features from realistic instructions, investigating bugs that require runtime investigation, and shipping code that aligns to existing codebase conventions.

Tasteful Solve Rate
1
Image
Claude Fable 5
27.9%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.8
25.0%
3
Image
Claude Sonnet 5
17.4%
Open Benchmarks Grants

Agents’ Last Exam

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
1
Image
Codex · GPT-5.5
24%
2
Image
ALE Claw · GPT-5.5
23%
3
Image
Claude Code · Claude-Fable-5
22%

Agentic Coding

A benchmark for evaluating AI models on complex, real-world coding tasks that require multi-step reasoning, tool use, and autonomous problem-solving.

Top Models
1
Image
Claude Opus 4.6
65.2%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.5
58.0%
3
Image
Claude Sonnet 4.5
57.6%
Open Benchmarks Grants

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.