Benchmark Almanac

Continual Learning Exam

Claude Opus 5 47.7% leads since October 2026
Not in model cards

Agents work through 120 professional tasks, each a ladder of five levels that must be passed in order. Later levels reuse files, tools and lessons from earlier ones. An evaluation agent grades against expert rubrics.

600 levels over 89 roles in 12 domains, written by 50+ experts. CLE Lite releases 20 tasks. Best of 17 agent setups cleared 47.7% of levels.

Released
October 2026
Kind
Learning from the context
Level
Expert
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 5 #10 on the capability index
Last model added
November 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Continual learning is the ability of LLM agents to improve over time by acquiring, refining, and applying knowledge from experience while retaining useful prior knowledge. It is essential for agents learning over long time horizons, yet current evaluations largely assess individual task performance rather than improvement through accumulated experience. We introduce Continual Learning Exam (CLE), a large-scale benchmark developed by 50+ domain experts to measure experience-driven improvement in realistic professional workflows. CLE comprises 120 human-authored tasks, each organised as a five-level ladder, yielding 600 levels spanning 89 professional roles across 12 occupational domains. Agents must pass each level to unlock the next, with later levels building on experience accumulated during earlier assignments. An evaluation agent assesses each submission against human-authored rubrics. We compare a single-submission setting with one that provides diagnostic feedback after failure and allows one revision. Across 17 harness-model configurations using frontier LLMs, feedback and revision yield a median completion gain of 5.3 percentage points. Yet the best-performing system clears only 47.7% of levels and completes all five levels in just 23.3% of tasks, highlighting the difficulty of sustained learning from experience for existing frontier LLMs. As such, the dataset can also be used to post-train LLMs to strengthen their continual learning capabilities.

Abstract of Continual Learning Exam: Benchmarking Long-Horizon RSI and Experiential Learning in LLM Agents (arXiv:2610.33956, CC0)
11
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Opus 5 leads with 47.7%

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. Every run is in the next chart.

  1. 1 Claude Opus 5 47.7%
  2. 2 Claude Sonnet 5 40.2%
  3. 3 Gemini 3.7 Flash 33.7%
  4. 4 GPT-5.6 Sol 33.2%
  5. 5 GPT-5.6 Terra 33.2%
  6. 6 Doubao Seed Evolving Nov 2026 30%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 27.3%
  8. 8 Tencent Hy3 27.3%
  9. 9 Qwen 3.8 Max 26.7%
  10. 10 GPT-5.6 Luna 25.3%
  11. 11 GLM-5.3 24%

Source: Official Continual Learning Exam leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5 47.7% Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Sonnet 5 40.2% Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3.7 Flash 33.7% Hermes-Agent Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.6 Sol 33.2% Codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5.6 Terra 33.2% Codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Doubao Seed Evolving Nov 2026 30% Hermes-Agent Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 27.3% Hermes-Agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Tencent Hy3 27.3% Hermes-Agent Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen 3.8 Max 26.7% Hermes-Agent Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.6 Luna 25.3% Codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GLM-5.3 24% Hermes-Agent Aug 2026 Official leaderboard

Trial 2 completion against active runtime

Figure 3 on the page: each point is one harness and model; it plots total runtime, redrawn here per task. 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% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1001,00010K Active runtime per task (s), log scale, lower is better Trial 2 completion DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Trial 2 completion 27.3%, active runtime per task 2,550 s DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Trial 2 completion 10%, active runtime per task 981 s Tencent Hy3: Trial 2 completion 27.3%, active runtime per task 2,409 s Tencent Hy3: Trial 2 completion 14%, active runtime per task 783 s GPT-5.6 Sol: Trial 2 completion 33.2%, active runtime per task 846 s Qwen 3.8 Max: Trial 2 completion 26.7%, active runtime per task 2,104 s Qwen 3.8 Max: Trial 2 completion 19.8%, active runtime per task 1,753 s Gemini 3.7 Flash: Trial 2 completion 33.7%, active runtime per task 3,066 s Gemini 3.7 Flash: Trial 2 completion 24%, active runtime per task 713 s GLM-5.3: Trial 2 completion 24%, active runtime per task 1,467 s GLM-5.3: Trial 2 completion 11.5%, active runtime per task 768 s Doubao Seed Evolving: Trial 2 completion 30%, active runtime per task 2,436 s Doubao Seed Evolving: Trial 2 completion 21.2%, active runtime per task 939 s Claude Sonnet 5: Trial 2 completion 40.2%, active runtime per task 1,113 s GPT-5.6 Luna: Trial 2 completion 25.3%, active runtime per task 573 s GPT-5.6 Terra: Trial 2 completion 33.2%, active runtime per task 606 s Claude Opus 5: Trial 2 completion 47.7%, active runtime per task 1,767 s Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 Luna 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1001,00010K Active runtime per task (s), log scale, lower is better Trial 2 completion DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Trial 2 completion 27.3%, active runtime per task 2,550 s DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Trial 2 completion 10%, active runtime per task 981 s Tencent Hy3: Trial 2 completion 27.3%, active runtime per task 2,409 s Tencent Hy3: Trial 2 completion 14%, active runtime per task 783 s GPT-5.6 Sol: Trial 2 completion 33.2%, active runtime per task 846 s Qwen 3.8 Max: Trial 2 completion 26.7%, active runtime per task 2,104 s Qwen 3.8 Max: Trial 2 completion 19.8%, active runtime per task 1,753 s Gemini 3.7 Flash: Trial 2 completion 33.7%, active runtime per task 3,066 s Gemini 3.7 Flash: Trial 2 completion 24%, active runtime per task 713 s GLM-5.3: Trial 2 completion 24%, active runtime per task 1,467 s GLM-5.3: Trial 2 completion 11.5%, active runtime per task 768 s Doubao Seed Evolving: Trial 2 completion 30%, active runtime per task 2,436 s Doubao Seed Evolving: Trial 2 completion 21.2%, active runtime per task 939 s Claude Sonnet 5: Trial 2 completion 40.2%, active runtime per task 1,113 s GPT-5.6 Luna: Trial 2 completion 25.3%, active runtime per task 573 s GPT-5.6 Terra: Trial 2 completion 33.2%, active runtime per task 606 s Claude Opus 5: Trial 2 completion 47.7%, active runtime per task 1,767 s Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 Luna
ModelSettingTrial 2 completionActive runtime per task
Claude Opus 5 Claude Code 47.7% 1,767 s
Claude Sonnet 5 Claude Code 40.2% 1,113 s
Gemini 3.7 Flash Hermes-Agent 33.7% 3,066 s
GPT-5.6 Terra Codex 33.2% 606 s
GPT-5.6 Sol Codex 33.2% 846 s
Doubao Seed Evolving Nov 2026 Hermes-Agent 30% 2,436 s
Tencent Hy3 Hermes-Agent 27.3% 2,409 s
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Hermes-Agent 27.3% 2,550 s
Qwen 3.8 Max Hermes-Agent 26.7% 2,104 s
GPT-5.6 Luna Codex 25.3% 573 s
Gemini 3.7 Flash OpenClaw 24% 713 s
GLM-5.3 Hermes-Agent 24% 1,467 s
Doubao Seed Evolving Nov 2026 OpenClaw 21.2% 939 s
Qwen 3.8 Max OpenClaw 19.8% 1,753 s
Tencent Hy3 OpenClaw 14% 783 s
GLM-5.3 OpenClaw 11.5% 768 s
DeepSeek-V4-Pro OpenClaw 10% 981 s

The best score, 47.7%, costs $6.00 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Anthropic Tencent OpenAI Google DeepMind Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 Claude Sonnet 5 Gemini 3.7 Flash GPT-5.6 Terra Tencent Hy3 Tencent Hy3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 Claude Sonnet 5

Source: Official Continual Learning Exam leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5 Claude Code 47.7% $6.00
Claude Sonnet 5 Claude Code 40.2% $4.22
Gemini 3.7 Flash Hermes-Agent 33.7% $3.29
GPT-5.6 Sol Codex 33.2% $1.76
GPT-5.6 Terra Codex 33.2% $0.69
Doubao Seed Evolving Nov 2026 Hermes-Agent 30% $0.86
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Hermes-Agent 27.3% $0.80
Tencent Hy3 Hermes-Agent 27.3% $0.13
Qwen 3.8 Max Hermes-Agent 26.7% $1.12
GPT-5.6 Luna Codex 25.3% $0.28
Gemini 3.7 Flash OpenClaw 24% $1.77
GLM-5.3 Hermes-Agent 24% $0.85
Doubao Seed Evolving Nov 2026 OpenClaw 21.2% $0.34
Qwen 3.8 Max OpenClaw 19.8% $0.85
Tencent Hy3 OpenClaw 14% $0.10
GLM-5.3 OpenClaw 11.5% $0.67
DeepSeek-V4-Pro OpenClaw 10% $0.40

Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard 1 leader

Source: Official Continual Learning Exam 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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5 Claude Sonnet 5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5 Claude Sonnet 5

Source: Official Continual Learning Exam 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%