Anastasia Borovykh

Anne Harrington, Nayan Saxena, Michael Murphy et al.

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 Distillation-based methods accumulate knowledge stably but struggle to update outdated facts.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.

Marta Aparicio Rodriguez, Anastasia Borovykh, Grigorios A. Pavliotis et al.

Generative models have a persistent limitation: their tendency to memorize training data can create legal liabilities and erode creative diversity. Understanding which samples are memorized in whole or in part, and under what conditions, therefore remains an important open problem. Here we answer the question "Are atypical or rare samples memorized first?" in the negative. We train diffusion models on strings generated according to the production rules of the Random Hierarchy Model (RHM), and find that samples composed of common substrings are preferentially memorized. This holds true even if the training data consists of entirely unique samples, indicating that deduplication at the data point level does not provide a meaningful privacy guarantee. Correspondingly we predict, then observe, delayed memorization for fat-tailed datasets (i.e., those with more atypical samples). This effect is amplified when fat-tails are introduced into high-level production rules. These together suggest that dataset diversity, particularly at higher levels of abstraction, plays an important role in staving off memorization. Finally, we identify an intermediate regime of partial memorization in which common substrings are learned first and subsequently overproduced during generation. If training is stopped in this regime, models will exhibit the reversion-to-the-mean blandness often derided as "slop".

Yao Tong, Jiayuan Ye, Anastasia Borovykh et al.

Whether language models can systematically generalize remains actively debated. Yet empirical performance is jointly shaped by multiple factors such as training data, training paradigms, and inference-time strategies, making failures difficult to interpret. We introduce a controlled synthetic environment based on shortest-path planning, a canonical composable sequential optimization problem. The setup enables clean separation of these factors and supports two orthogonal axes of generalization: spatial transfer to unseen maps and length scaling to longer-horizon problems. We find that models exhibit strong spatial transfer but consistently fail under length scaling due to recursive instability. We further analyze how distinct stages of the learning pipeline influence systematic problem-solving: for example, data coverage sets capability limits; reinforcement learning improves training stability but does not expand those limits; and inference-time scaling enhances performance but cannot rescue length-scaling failures.