LifelongAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents as Lifelong Learners
Open accessAbstract
Lifelong learning is essential for intelligent agents operating in dynamic environments. Current large language model (LLM)-based agents, however, remain stateless and unable to accumulate or transfer knowledge over time. Existing benchmarks treat agents as static systems and fail to evaluate lifelong learning capabilities. We present LifelongAgentBench, the first unified benchmark designed to systematically assess the lifelong learning ability of LLM agents. It provides skill-grounded, interdependent tasks across three interactive environments, Database, Operating System, and Knowledge Graph, with automatic label verification, reproducibility, and modular extensibility. Extensive experiments reveal that conventional experience replay has limited effectiveness for LLM agents due to irrelevant information and context length constraints. We further introduce a group self-consistency mechanism that significantly improves lifelong learning performance. We hope LifelongAgentBench will advance the development of adaptive, memory-capable LLM agents.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Wei et al. (2025a) and Zheng et al. (2025) emphasize the capacity for the transfer of experience, measuring levels of abstraction and generalization by assessing the transfer of acquired experience to a diverse range of other tasks.
“conversely, Wei et al. (2025a) and Zheng et al. (2025) emphasize the capacity for the transfer of experience, measuring levels of abstraction and generalization by assessing the transfer of acquired experience to a diverse range of other tasks.”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2025
LifelongBench studies lifelong learning across environments and skills but focuses on retention without modeling memory structure or updates.
“LifelongBench (Zheng et al., 2025) studies lifelong learning across environments and skills but focuses on retention without modeling memory structure or updates.”
From Evo-Memory: Benchmarking LLM Agent Test-time Learning with Self-Evolving Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2025
Several recent benchmarks have begun examining static adaptation but remain limited in scope.
“Several recent benchmarks have begun examining static adaptation but remain limited in scope.”
From Evo-Memory: Benchmarking LLM Agent Test-time Learning with Self-Evolving Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2025
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
- Authors
- Zheng, J., Cai, X., Li, Q., Zhang, D., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Song, L., & Ma, Q.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2505.11942
- OpenAlex
- W4416556826
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Keywords
- lifelong learning, LLM agents, benchmark, knowledge transfer, experience replay, self-consistency, database interaction, knowledge graphs, interactive environments
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
