The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CLIN: A Continually Learning Language Agent for Rapid Task Adaptation and Generalization
Open accessAbstract
Language agents have shown some ability to interact with an external environment, e.g., a virtual world such as ScienceWorld, to perform complex tasks, e.g., growing a plant, without the startup costs of reinforcement learning. However, despite their zero-shot capabilities, these agents to date do not continually improve over time beyond performance refinement on a specific task. Here we present CLIN, the first language-based agent to achieve this, so that it continually improves over multiple trials, including when both the environment and task are varied, and without requiring parameter updates. Our approach is to use a persistent, dynamic, textual memory centered on causal abstractions (rather than general "helpful hints") that is regularly updated after each trial so that the agent gradually learns useful knowledge for new trials. In the ScienceWorld benchmark, CLIN is able to continually improve on repeated trials on the same task and environment, outperforming state-of-the-art reflective language agents like Reflexion by 23 absolute points. CLIN can also transfer its learning to new environments (or new tasks), improving its zero-shot performance by 4 points (13 for new tasks) and can further improve performance there through continual memory updates, enhancing performance by an additional 17 points (7 for new tasks). This suggests a new architecture for agents built on frozen models that can still continually and rapidly improve over time.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Memory mechanisms must transcend mere documentation of interactions to construct complex causal dependencies across time steps.
“This necessitates that memory mechanisms transcend the mere documentation of interactions to construct dependencies for causality of a complex nature across steps in time (Majumder et al., 2023; Du et al., 2025c; Raman et al., 2025).”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Majumder et al., 2023
Section 3.2 describes CLIN’s memory as causal abstractions about actions and state transitions, updated from successive trials rather than simply preserving interaction records. Section 4.3 reports that structured causal memory outperformed unstructured advice in an ablation. The paper does not establish that memory mechanisms generally must construct complex causal dependencies across time steps; that requirement is broader than its account of CLIN. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMemory modules synchronize the cognition of the agent with the external world to prevent erroneous decisions arising from inaccurate internal perceptions.
“second, they synchronize the cognition of the agent with the external world to prevent erroneous decisions arising from inaccurate internal perceptions (Majumder et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2025b);”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Majumder et al., 2023
Section 3 (Approach; page unavailable) describes updating beliefs about the world from observed outcomes. Section 3.2 (Memory; page unavailable) says CLIN uses trial outcomes to update memory with insights about useful and unsuitable actions. This supports the idea that memory informs decisions, but the paper does not establish that it prevents errors specifically caused by inaccurate internal perceptions. (LLM, conf=0.81)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMany recent agentic-memory systems-CLIN, Agent Workflow Memory, Dynamic Cheatsheet, and ACE-adopt update-after-every-interaction designs that treat each consolidation step as at worst neutral.
“Many recent agentic-memory systems-CLIN (Majumder et al., 2023), Agent Workflow Memory (Wang et al., 2024), Dynamic Cheatsheet (Suzgun et al., 2026), and ACE (Zhang et al., 2025)-adopt update-after-every-interaction designs that treat each consolidation step as at worst neutral; our results contradict this assumption.”
From Useful Memories Become Faulty When Continuously Updated by LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as Majumder et al., 2023
Section 3.2 states that CLIN updates its memory after each trial, supporting the update-after-trial part of the attribution. It does not say that every consolidation step is neutral or beneficial. Section 3.3 instead cautions that randomly selected memories may not benefit zero-shot generalization. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Adaptive-Agent-Team, Jakob Bauer, Kate Baumli, Satinder Baveja, Feryal M. P. Behbahani, Avishkar Bhoopchand, Nathalie Bradley-Schmieg, Michael Chang, Natalie Clay, Adrian Col- lister, Vibhavari Dasagi, Lucy Gonzalez, Karol Gregor, Edward Hughes, Sheleem Kashem, Maria Loks-Thompson, Hannah Openshaw, Jack Parker-Holder, Shreyaan Pathak, Nicolas Perez Nieves, Nemanja Rakicevic, Tim Rocktäschel, Yannick Schroecker, Jakub Sygnowski, Karl Tuyls, Sarah York, Alexander Zacherl, and Lei M. Zhang. Human-timescale adaptation in an open-ended task space. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:255998274.
- Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil Jayant Joshi, Ryan C. Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, Kuang- Huei Lee, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Linda Luu, Carolina Parada, Peter Pastor, Jornell Quiambao, Kanishka Rao, Jarek Rettinghouse, Diego M Reyes, Pierre Sermanet, Nicolas Sievers, Clayton Tan, Alexander Toshev, Vincent Vanhoucke, F. Xia, Ted Xiao, Peng Xu, Sichun Xu, and Mengyuan Yan. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In Conference on Robot Learning, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:247939706.
- Diego Aineto, Sergio Jiménez, and Eva Onaindía. Learning strips action models with classical planning. In International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, 2018. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:49405691.
- Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Matthew J. Hausknecht. Graph constrained reinforcement learning for natural language action spaces. In ICLR, 2020.
- Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Jack Urbanek, Margaret Li, Arthur Szlam, Tim Rocktaschel, and Jason Weston. How to motivate your dragon: Teaching goal-driven agents to speak and act in fantasy worlds. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:222125301.
- Marcin Andrychowicz, Dwight Crow, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Rachel Fong, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Joshua Tobin, P. Abbeel, and Wojciech Zaremba. Hindsight experience replay. ArXiv, abs/1707.01495, 2017. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3532908. · arXiv
- Ankuj Arora, Humbert Fiorino, Damien Pellier, Marc Métivier, and Sylvie Pesty. A review of learning planning action models. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 33, 2018. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:56483203.
- Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Michael Laskin, P. Abbeel, A. Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence mod- eling. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:235294299.
- Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, S. Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Dasha Valter, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Wei Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed Huai hsin Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. ArXiv, abs/2210.11416, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:253018554. · arXiv
- Bhavana Dalvi, Oyvind Tafjord, and Peter Clark. Towards teachable reasoning systems: Using a dynamic memory of user feedback for continual system improvement. In EMNLP, 2022.
- Ji He, Jianshu Chen, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, Li Deng, and Mari Ostendorf. Deep reinforcement learning with a natural language action space. arXiv: Artificial Intelligence, 2015. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15986631.
- Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 9118-9147. PMLR, 2022.
- Minqi Jiang, Michael Dennis, Jack Parker-Holder, Jakob Nicolaus Foerster, Edward Grefenstette, and Tim Rocktaschel. Replay-guided adversarial environment design. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:238408352.
- Bill Yuchen Lin, Yicheng Fu, Karina Yang, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Faeze Brahman, Shiyu Huang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks. ArXiv, abs/2305.17390, 2023. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258960143. · arXiv
- Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Sean Welleck, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Shashank Gupta, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self- feedback. ArXiv, abs/2303.17651, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 257900871. · arXiv
- Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin A. Riedmiller. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. ArXiv, abs/1312.5602, 2013. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15238391. · arXiv
- Scott Reed, Konrad Zolna, Emilio Parisotto, Sergio Gomez Colmenarejo, Alexander Novikov, Gabriel Barth-Maron, Mai Gimenez, Yury Sulsky, Jackie Kay, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Tom Eccles, Jake Bruce, Ali Razavi, Ashley D. Edwards, Nicolas Manfred Otto Heess, Yutian Chen, Raia Hadsell, Oriol Vinyals, Mahyar Bordbar, and Nando de Freitas. A generalist agent. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2022, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:248722148.
- Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 11 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1908. 10084.
- Noah Shinn, Beck Labash, and Ashwin Gopinath. Reflexion: an autonomous agent with dynamic memory and self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11366, 2023. · arXiv
- Niket Tandon, Aman Madaan, Peter Clark, and Yiming Yang. Memory-assisted prompt editing to improve GPT-3 after deployment. In ACL Workshop on Commonsense Representation and Reasoning (CSRR'22), 2022. (also arxiv:2201.06009). · arXiv
- Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi (Jim) Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2305.16291, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 258887849. · arXiv
- Ruoyao Wang, Peter Alexander Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. Science- world: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:247451124.
- Shunyu Yao, Rohan Rao, Matthew J. Hausknecht, and Karthik Narasimhan. Keep calm and explore: Language models for action generation in text-based games. ArXiv, abs/2010.02903, 2020. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:222142129. · arXiv
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. ArXiv, abs/2210.03629, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:252762395. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A vision of human–AI collaboration for enhanced biological collection curation and research
Stenhouse, A., Fisher, N., Lepschi, B. J., Schmidt‐Lebuhn, A. N., Rodríguez, J., Turco, F., Reeson, A. F., Paris, C. L., & Thrall, P. H. (2025) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biaf021 · Cited by 12
Wang, Z. Z., Mao, J., Fried, D., & Neubig, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.07429 · Cited by 5
“Learning Common Procedures from Experiences Some works use full examples (Zheng et al., 2024) as context for an agent, yet they entangle with example-specific contexts and face challenges in extrapolating to other tasks or domains (Majumder et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory
Chhikara, P., Khant, D., Aryan, S., Singh, T., & Yadav, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.19413 · Cited by 10
AriGraph: Learning Knowledge Graph World Models with Episodic Memory for LLM Agents
Anokhin, P., Semenov, N., Sorokin, A., Evseev, D., Kravchenko, A., Burtsev, M., & Burnaev, E. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.04363 · Cited by 8
From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3
“…they synchronize the cognition of the agent with the external world to prevent erroneous decisions arising from inaccurate internal perceptions (Majumder et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2025b); finally, they internalize interactions into persistent traits of the persona to ensure uniformity in…”
Continually Learning Planning Agent for Large Environments guided by LLMs
Paul, S. K. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) · doi:10.1109/cai59869.2024.00076 · Cited by 3
A Second-Generation Agentic Framework for Generative Ai-Driven Augmented Reality Educational Games
Ordoumpozanis, K., & Apostolidis, H. (2025) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference · doi:10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016327 · Cited by 3
RealMem: Benchmarking LLMs in Real-World Memory-Driven Interaction
Bian, H., Yao, Z., Hu, S., Xu, Z., Zhang, S., Guo, Y., Yang, Z., Han, X., Wang, H., & Chen, R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.06966
“(3) Dynamic State Evolution: The interaction environment is inherently non-stationary, demanding continuous synchronization of memory with constantly evolving information states (Majumder et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2025a).”
When Continual Learning Moves to Memory: A Study of Experience Reuse in LLM Agents
Hu, Q., Long, Q., & Wang, W. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.27003 · Cited by 19
Useful Memories Become Faulty When Continuously Updated by LLMs
Zhang, D., Lin, Y., Wu, Z., Sun, Y., Li, B., Li, D., & Peng, H. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12978
Real-Time Procedural Learning From Experience for AI Agents
Bi, D., Hu, Y., & Nasir, M. N. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774905.3795087 · Cited by 2
PREPING: Zero-Task Agent Memory Construction via Self-Practice
Choi, Y., Park, S., Kang, M., Baek, J., & Hwang, S. J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13880
Metadata
- Authors
- Majumder, B. P., Mishra, B. D., Jansen, P., Tafjord, O., Tandon, N., Zhang, L., Callison-Burch, C., & Clark, P.
- Affiliations
- Allen Institute (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2310.10134
- OpenAlex
- W4387724681
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- language agents, continual learning, task adaptation, generalization, causal abstraction, textual memory, zero-shot learning, task transfer, reflective agents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
