Continual Learning Exam built 600 graded levels across 89 professional roles, and the best frontier-LLM agent cleared only 47.7% of them and finished all five levels of a task in just 23.3% of cases
AspireAI community · arXiv
Continual Learning Exam measures whether LLM agents actually improve from accumulated experience rather than just scoring well on a single task. Fifty-plus domain experts authored 120 tasks, each organised as a five-level ladder, giving 600 levels spanning 89 professional roles across 12 occupational domains, where agents must pass one level to unlock the next and an evaluation agent grades against human-written rubrics. Across 17 harness-model configurations with frontier LLMs, adding diagnostic feedback and one revision yielded a median completion gain of 5.3 percentage points. The headline is the ceiling: the best system clears only 47.7% of levels, and completes all five levels of a task in just 23.3% of cases. The dataset is public and is also offered as a post-training target.
Read the story and explore more from the AspireAI community.
Two sparse-autoencoder analyses have resisted scaling: matching semantically similar features across layers, and compressing large feature circuits into interpretable supernodes. This paper argues both are the same underlying problem, estimating semantic distances between SAE features that sit on different activation manifolds. Its representation treats each feature not as a single decoder vector but as an activation-weighted distribution over the hidden states expressing it, projects those distributions into a shared reference space, and compares them with Wasserstein distance. The representation is proved invariant to activation rescaling and stable under perturbation, and recovers true matches under finite-sample margin conditions. Empirically it outperformed decoder-vector and LLM-based baselines and captured subtle functional distinctions between related features, and it compressed large feature circuits into interpretable supernodes automatically. The limitation is that this is interpretability tooling: the paper demonstrates better feature matching and circuit compression, not that downstream interpretability claims become more accurate.