NTH

Are Self-Evolving Agents Continual Learners?

AuthorsXiaoyin Chen, Yizheng Huang, Yinglun Xu, Ziyun Zhao, Emmett McQuinn, Julie Liu, Hope Yao

AffiliationsMila – Quebec AI Institute · Université de Montréal · Work done as a student researcher at Google DeepMind · \thepa

October 30, 2026 2 min read
Watch on YouTube
The one-line take

The study finds that current self-evolving AI agents can learn new workflows, but often do so by disrupting what they already know.

Key results

3.7
GEPA average terminal advantage (pp)

Average across the four drifting streams.

6.2
GEPA plasticity (pp)

Average gain on each task group during its own training block.

-4.3
GEPA stability (pp)

Average cross-block stability score; more negative indicates greater interference or forgetting.

3.3
ReasoningBank plasticity (pp)

Average gain on each task group during its own training block.

-1.9
ReasoningBank stability (pp)

Average cross-block stability score, better than GEPA's.

52%
BFCL-Miss episodes retrieving BFCL-Base memory

Observed at stream end in the workflow and compound streams.

What the paper found

The paper asks whether self-evolving language-model agents can learn new tasks without forgetting old ones, while keeping the model weights frozen and updating only the surrounding harness. Across four drifting streams built from BIRD, BFCL, and ScienceWorld, it evaluates Gemini 3.6 Flash with ReasoningBank, which retrieves similar past experiences; GEPA, which rewrites a shared strategy prompt; and Meta-Harness, which edits a broader workspace. Self-evolution usually improves overall performance, but the methods trade learning new tasks for preserving earlier skills: GEPA achieves a 3.7-percentage-point average terminal gain and 6.2 points of plasticity, alongside a stability score of -4.3 points. ReasoningBank is less plastic at 3.3 points but more stable at -1.9 points, with a 2.5-point average terminal gain. The failure mechanisms differ: shared-prompt edits can apply task-specific rules to unrelated tasks or overwrite earlier instructions, while similarity-based retrieval can inject irrelevant memories and confuse tasks that look alike but require opposite workflows. In the workflow and compound streams, 52% of BFCL-Miss episodes at the end retrieved a BFCL-Base memory, illustrating that query similarity alone cannot identify whether a past workflow is compatible. The results suggest these agents are not yet complete continual learners; they need ways to isolate updates by task and retrieve memories based on workflow compatibility, not just surface similarity.

Original abstract

Large language model agents are often deployed in environments where new knowledge, tools, and workflows keep arriving. Such an agent is therefore expected to adapt continually, learning new tasks as they arrive without forgetting earlier ones. This resembles the continual learning problem, but at a pace that conventional gradient updates cannot sustain. Nonparametric self-evolving agents are a natural alternative: they adapt by rewriting their own harness, such as prompts, memory, and skills, from task feedback while the model weights stay frozen. We study whether such agents are effective continual learners across four drifting task streams that shift in topic, workflow, or domain (built from BIRD, BFCL, and ScienceWorld). Evaluating three representative methods spanning experience retrieval and self-modification (ReasoningBank, GEPA, and Meta-Harness), we find that although self-evolution improves aggregate performance on most streams, higher plasticity consistently comes at the cost of stability. Specifically, self-modifying methods apply global edits to a shared prompt or workspace, interfering with unseen tasks and overwriting earlier knowledge as the stream shifts. Conversely, similarity-based memory retrieval localizes updates across distant domains, but still retrieves foreign memories on unseen tasks and suffers from retrieval collision when similar queries require conflicting workflows. These findings show that current self-evolving agents remain incomplete continual learners.

Read the original paper

More in Continual Learning

Browse all 30 papers →
02Continual Learning

Towards Continual Learning: Mitigating Forgetting With Subspace Tuning

Arnav Chavan, Kusha Sareen, Rishabh Tiwari, Abhranil Chandra, Johan Obando-Ceron, Kurt Keutzer, Scott Niekum, Inderjit S Dhillon, Devvrit Khatri

Subspace Tuning aims to help language models learn new skills while preserving the capabilities they already have.

Read analysis
03Continual Learning

Cortex: Consolidating Context into Parametric Memory

Jintian Zhang, Feng He, Xinnian Liang, Ziwen Xu, Haoming Xu, Haojing Huang, Shuangzhi Wu, Ningyu Zhang

Cortex aims to help language models retain useful information from temporary context without forgetting what they already know.

Read analysis