Spaced Repetition Training (SRT) is introduced, a continual learning framework inspired by cognitive science, which schedules sample-rehearsal using the SuperMemo-2 (SM-2) algorithm, and preserves broad benchmark performance that naive continual pre-training and uniform replay substantially degrade.
Abstract
Continual pre-training of large language models must acquire new information without erasing old knowledge. Existing replay methods often choose a global old/new mixture and sample uniformly, ignoring that examples differ in how quickly they are forgotten. We formulate continual pre-training as adaptive review scheduling: the training loop should decide not only how much history to replay, but which examples should return at each step. We introduce Spaced Repetition Training (SRT), a continual learning framework inspired by cognitive science, which schedules sample-rehearsal using the SuperMemo-2 (SM-2) algorithm. SRT maintains per-example review state, maps per-example perplexity to a recall-quality signal, and schedules historical examples for retention and new examples for consolidation while leaving the model, objective, and optimizer unchanged. On temporally separated Wikipedia and code corpora, SRT improves the stability-plasticity trade-off, recovering 5 to 37 percentage points of old-knowledge accuracy lost by naive continual pre-training across model scales while preserving or improving new-knowledge acquisition. At larger scale, SRT preserves broad benchmark performance that naive continual pre-training and uniform replay substantially degrade. Experiments with vision and tabular data further suggest that the scheduling principle extends beyond language when paired with an appropriate recall signal.
As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable, the next question is how can we enable models to continually learn? Today, the field largely frames this as a problem of context management and mitigating forgetting. We argue this framing is incomplete: continual learning is fundamentally about increasing model competence as the world changes. We disentangle this change along two axes -- space, where the model encounters new domains, and time, where the underlying data drifts under a fixed task. This framing lets us study continual learning under realistic conditions: new domains arrive over time, facts drift past their training cutoff, and agentic interactions accumulate state across episodes. To evaluate methods under this setting, we recast widely used LLM benchmarks as sequential problems and introduce a single mechanism-agnostic protocol that compares prompt-based methods (GEPA, ACE), supervised learning (SFT, SDFT), reinforcement learning (GRPO, SDPO), and context compression (Cartridges, In-place TTT). Prompt-based methods fit each new stage quickly but degrade on future tasks. Distillation-based methods accumulate knowledge stably but struggle to update outdated facts. Context compression improves efficiency without substantially improving the ability to learn new tasks. Online reinforcement learning adapts most effectively to knowledge updates but remains sensitive to noisy reward signals. Overall, our results suggest that continual learning is not a single capability: different patterns of environmental change require fundamentally different update behaviors, determining when adaptation must be learned inside model weights and when it can be achieved through external scaffolding. We hope that understanding where each method succeeds and fails will guide the design of stronger continual learning systems.
A. Harrington, Nayan Saxena, Michael Murphy et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
This work follows invented facts written into Qwen3 models from creation through sequences of twenty to one hundred later writes, using held-out questions of five types, and finds that facts can be behaviourally forgotten without being erased.
A single training example's contribution to a finished model is normally estimated rather than measured, because measuring it takes two expensive full pre-training runs that differ in one row of one batch. We ran that counterfactual 24 times at a small scale. We trained 32 GPT-2 models at 124M parameters from scratch on OpenWebText, over four conditions and eight seeds. At step 200 of 9,536, at peak learning rate, we replaced one row of a 256-row batch with a fixed context injection carrying a 194-token passage. The three injected conditions are: 1. fluent prose with a corpus-attested subject, 2. fluent prose with a fabricated subject matched to it within 0.14% on full-batch gradient delta, and 3. random keyboard characters. The fourth condition is an uninjected twin. The passage is learned from one exposure and then decays. Fifty steps after injection, the arm that saw a passage predicts it better than the arm that did not by 0.039 and 0.044 nats of cross-entropy on the passage, at eight of eight seeds with p<$10^{-4}$. At the final step we do not detect that difference for either passage, at p = 0.25 and p = 0.71, against minimum detectable effects of 0.025 and 0.079 nats, nor between the two passages, at p=0.54. Every geometric measure we report is taken after that decay. Our pre-registered contrast on interpolation loss barrier is +0.0068 with p = 0.509, against a minimum detectable effect of 0.032 barrier units. Held-out cross-entropy is $-0.00044$ with p = 0.310. Per-layer centered kernel alignment does not detectably separate any condition at any layer. Weight displacement reaches 44.1% of the seed-to-seed Euclidean distance and is 92% settled by the midpoint of training, while the barrier reaches 3.0% of the seed-to-seed barrier. Those two figures sit roughly 15 times apart, and that is a lower bound. The injection relocates the model within its basin without moving it out.
Effective long-context modeling is not merely about retaining more of the past, but about preserving the information that may prove relevant later. Test-time training (TTT) is an appealing approach that performs online parameter updates for long-context modeling, yet existing TTT methods only optimize either reconstruction or online adaptation objectives without considering the future utility of retained information. In this work, we propose \textbf{T}est-\textbf{T}ime \textbf{C}ontext \textbf{D}istillation (TTCD), a TTT framework that introduces a self-supervised objective for allocating limited memory capacity for future use. Specifically, TTCD uses a long-window teacher to supervise the fast weights of a short-window student, where the hidden-state discrepancy between them offers a dense, self-supervised signal guiding the model to memorize the contextual information crucial for future token predictions. We focus on an in-place variant: In-Place TTCD (IP-TTCD), which uses the existing MLP parameters as the fast weights. Experiments on long-context language modeling tasks show IP-TTCD consistently outperforms DeltaNet, Gated DeltaNet, sliding-window attention, and TTT when pre-trained from scratch. Furthermore, IP-TTCD allows pre-trained transformer models to adapt their parameters during inference through continual pre-training, gaining long-context capabilities with only a lightweight architectural augmentation. Our results position TTCD as a step toward architectural continual learning.
Zixuan Wang, Xingyu Dang, Ruiming Zhu et al.· 0 citations
Machine unlearning aims to remove targeted data or behaviors from a trained model without retraining from scratch. Yet most evaluations assume that the examples to forget are already known. In realistic language-model deployments, a requester may ask a model to stop reproducing a song or book without knowing which spans, documents, quotations, or near-duplicates in a trillion-token corpus support that behavior. We study this missing upstream problem, forget set curation: mapping a suppression request to the data passed to an unlearning algorithm. We introduce CleanSlate, a benchmark for verbatim output suppression over songs and books, with model-specific extraction profiles, content-grounded QA, and capability-retention evaluations. CleanSlate exposes two failure modes. Natural lexical and exact-substring curators often yield forget sets that lead to weak suppression. An evaluation-aware curator suppresses requested continuations almost completely, but causes collateral regression on non-requested content and model-dependent capability loss. These results show that practical unlearning is not only an optimization problem once a forget set is given: the data chosen for forgetting determines both what can be unlearnt and what else is damaged.
Animesh Jha, Arpandeep Khatua, Youssef Allouah et al.· 0 citations
Continual learning studies how deployed language models can continually acquire new tasks without expensive retraining from scratch. Existing methods, whether rehearsal-based (replaying stored past data) or rehearsal-free (regularising or isolating parameters), overwhelmingly target one objective: preventing catastrophic forgetting. Forward transfer, the past helping the future, has meanwhile been pursued almost exclusively through parameter reuse, with no explicit account of when transfer should be expected at all. We begin one step earlier: before designing a transfer mechanism, we ask when transfer should exist at all. We answer with a framework of three measurable conditions: the target task must leave room for improvement beyond its own limited supervision, transferable information must survive continued optimisation, and replay must come from compatible previous tasks. We instantiate this view as Transfer-Selective Replay (TSR), which selects replay data predicted to benefit the incoming task rather than replaying past examples indiscriminately. Selection is guided by a zero-training task signature, while distillation preserves stability on previous tasks. Under the standard continual learning protocol in the low-budget regime, TSR consistently improves forward transfer while maintaining stability, outperforming existing replay baselines across heterogeneous and homogeneous task streams. More broadly, the results argue for treating transfer as a first-class objective of continual learning, to be understood before it is engineered.
Yang Meng, Zhenyang Liu, Zhuokai Zhao et al.· 0 citations
