Benchmark Almanac

Continual Learning Bench

Claude Sonnet 4.6 0.20 leads since June 2026
Not in model cards

AI systems work through sequences of related task instances in six domains and should get better as they go. A gain score subtracts each system's own stateless baseline to isolate learning.

Task Suite 1.0 has 301 instances in domains such as codebase adaptation, outbreak forecasting and poker. Funded by Snorkel Open Benchmarks Grants. Not Tencent's CL-bench.

Released
June 2026
Kind
Learning from the context
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
Last model added
April 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Continual learning, the ability of AI systems to improve through sequential experience, has attracted substantial interest, but no high-quality benchmark exists to evaluate it. We introduce Continual Learning Bench (CL-Bench), the first difficult, expert-validated benchmark designed to measure whether LLM-based systems genuinely improve with experience. CL-Bench spans six diverse domains (software engineering, signal processing, disease outbreak forecasting, database querying, strategic game-playing, and demand forecasting), each validated by domain experts and designed so that tasks share a learnable latent structure (codebase layout, disease outbreak dynamics, opponent strategies) that a stateful system can discover online but a stateless one cannot. We evaluate frontier models across several agent architectures, from naive in-context learning (ICL) to dedicated memory systems, introducing a gain metric to isolate learning from prior capabilities. We find that these systems leave headroom for improved continual learning: agents frequently overfit to immediate observations or fail to reuse knowledge across instances, and dedicated memory systems do not fix this – in fact, naive ICL outperforms systems dedicated to memory management. CL-Bench is the first benchmark to evaluate continual learning across diverse real-world domains with expert-validated tasks and isolate online learning from underlying model capability, showing a need for better continual learning systems.

Abstract of Continual Learning Bench: Evaluating Frontier AI Systems in Real-World Stateful Environments (arXiv:2606.05661, CC0)
5
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads with 0.20 among models released by April 2026

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

The newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Sonnet 4.6 0.20
  2. 2 GPT-5.4 0.19
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.7 0.18
  4. 4 Gemini 3 Flash 0.09
  5. 5 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.00

Source: Official Continual Learning Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Sonnet 4.6 0.20 ICL Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.4 0.19 ICL Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.7 0.18 ICL Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 3 Flash 0.09 ICL Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.00 ICL Notepad Feb 2026 Official leaderboard

Aggregate reward vs. average evaluation cost

The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

0 0.1 0.2 $0$20$40$60$80 Average evaluation cost ($), lower is better Aggregate reward Claude Sonnet 4.6: Aggregate reward 0.18, average evaluation cost $38.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Aggregate reward 0.13, average evaluation cost $31.5 Gemini 3.1 Pro: Aggregate reward 0.003, average evaluation cost $13.3 Gemini 3.1 Pro: Aggregate reward -0.08, average evaluation cost $15.2 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.07, average evaluation cost $62.8 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.06, average evaluation cost $27.2 Claude Opus 4.7: Aggregate reward 0.18, average evaluation cost $49.6 Gemini 3 Flash: Aggregate reward 0.09, average evaluation cost $7.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Aggregate reward 0.2, average evaluation cost $30.4 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.19, average evaluation cost $18.4 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.15, average evaluation cost $18.3 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.1, average evaluation cost $14.3 Claude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.4GPT-5.4GPT-5.4Gemini 3 Flash 0 0.1 0.2 $0$20$40$60$80 Average evaluation cost ($), lower is better Aggregate reward Claude Sonnet 4.6: Aggregate reward 0.18, average evaluation cost $38.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Aggregate reward 0.13, average evaluation cost $31.5 Gemini 3.1 Pro: Aggregate reward 0.003, average evaluation cost $13.3 Gemini 3.1 Pro: Aggregate reward -0.08, average evaluation cost $15.2 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.07, average evaluation cost $62.8 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.06, average evaluation cost $27.2 Claude Opus 4.7: Aggregate reward 0.18, average evaluation cost $49.6 Gemini 3 Flash: Aggregate reward 0.09, average evaluation cost $7.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Aggregate reward 0.2, average evaluation cost $30.4 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.19, average evaluation cost $18.4 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.15, average evaluation cost $18.3 GPT-5.4: Aggregate reward 0.1, average evaluation cost $14.3 Claude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.4GPT-5.4GPT-5.4Gemini 3 Flash
ModelSettingAggregate rewardAverage evaluation cost
Claude Sonnet 4.6 ICL 0.2 $30.43
GPT-5.4 ICL 0.19 $18.39
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Code 0.19 $38.6
Claude Opus 4.7 ICL 0.18 $49.62
GPT-5.4 Mem0 0.15 $18.34
Claude Sonnet 4.6 ICL Notepad 0.13 $31.53
GPT-5.4 ICL Notepad 0.1 $14.28
Gemini 3 Flash ICL 0.09 $7.6
GPT-5.4 ACE 0.07 $62.75
GPT-5.4 Codex 0.06 $27.21
Gemini 3.1 Pro ICL Notepad 0 $13.32
Gemini 3.1 Pro ICL -0.08 $15.23

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jun 2026

Source: Official Continual Learning Bench leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
-0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 2026 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 2026

Source: Official Continual Learning Bench leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Long context

All 79 in Long context
  • MRCR v2 In use Multi-round coreference: retrieve the n-th of several similar requests hidden in a long synthetic conversation, up to 1M tokens. Muse Spark 1.3 98.5%
  • LongBench v2 In use 503 multiple-choice questions over 8K-2M-word contexts (QA, dialogue, code repos, structured data). Accuracy. Inkling 2 Small 70.6%
  • GraphWalks In use A graph is given as an edge list in long context. The model answers BFS or parent queries, scored by F1. Claude Fable 5 99.96%
  • OpenAI MRCR v2 In use Models read a long synthetic chat that hides 2, 4 or 8 identical writing requests and must reproduce the response to the i-th one. Scored by mean string match ratio per context bin. Gemini 3.7 Flash 89%
  • CL-bench In use Model must learn new knowledge from a supplied long context (rules, procedures, data) and solve tasks. Strict LLM-verified rubrics. GPT-5.4 27.9%
  • AA-LCR 1.1 In use Models answer 100 questions that need reasoning across sets of real documents of about 100K tokens. An LLM equality checker with a fixed system prompt compares each answer with the key. Step 5 Preview 88.3%