arXiv:2603.12658v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Continual learning (CL) has emerged as a pivotal paradigm to enable large language models (LLMs) to dynamically adapt to evolving knowledge and sequential tasks while mitigating catastrophic forgetting-a critical limitation of the static pre-training paradigm inherent to modern LLMs. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of CL methodologies tailored for LLMs, structured around three core training stages: continual pre-training, continual fine-tuning, and continual alignment.Beyond the canonical taxonomy of rehearsal-, regularization-, and architecture-based methods, we further subdivide each category by its distinct forgetting mitigation mechanisms and conduct a rigorous comparative analysis of the adaptability and critical improvements of traditional CL methods for LLMs. In doing so, we explicitly highlight core distinctions between LLM CL and traditional machine learning, particularly with respect to scale, parameter efficiency, and emergent capabilities. Our analysis covers essential evaluation metrics, including forgetting rates and knowledge transfer efficiency, along with emerging benchmarks for assessing CL performance. This survey reveals that while current methods demonstrate promising results in specific domains, fundamental challenges persist in achieving seamless knowledge integration across diverse tasks and temporal scales. This systematic review contributes to the growing body of knowledge on LLM adaptation, providing researchers and practitioners with a structured framework for understanding current achievements and future opportunities in lifelong learning for language models.

arXiv:2509.26495v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) safety is one of the most pressing challenges for enabling wide-scale deployment. While most studies and global discussions focus on generic harms, such as models assisting users in harming themselves or others, enterprises face a more fundamental concern: whether LLM-based agents are safe for their intended use case. To address this, we introduce operational safety, defined as an LLM's ability to appropriately accept or refuse user queries when tasked with a specific purpose. We further propose OffTopicEval, an evaluation suite and benchmark for measuring operational safety both in general and within specific agentic use cases. Our evaluations on six model families comprising 20 open-weight LLMs reveal that while performance varies across models, all of them remain highly operationally unsafe. Even the strongest models - Qwen-3 (235B) with 77.77% and Mistral (24B) with 79.96% - fall far short of reliable operational safety, while GPT models plateau in the 62-73% range, Phi achieves only mid-level scores (48-70%), and Gemma and Llama-3 collapse to 39.53% and 23.84%, respectively. While operational safety is a core model alignment issue, to suppress these failures, we propose prompt-based steering methods: query grounding (Q-ground) and system-prompt grounding (P-ground), which substantially improve OOD refusal. Q-ground provides consistent gains of up to 23%, while P-ground delivers even larger boosts, raising Llama-3.3 (70B) by 41% and Qwen-3 (30B) by 27%. These results highlight both the urgent need for operational safety interventions and the promise of prompt-based steering as a first step toward more reliable LLM-based agents.

arXiv:2602.12670v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agent Skills are structured packages of procedural knowledge that augment LLM agents at inference time. Despite rapid adoption, there is no standard way to measure whether they actually help. We present SkillsBench, a benchmark of 86 tasks across 11 domains paired with curated Skills and deterministic verifiers. Each task is evaluated under three conditions: no Skills, curated Skills, and self-generated Skills. We test 7 agent-model configurations over 7,308 trajectories. Curated Skills raise average pass rate by 16.2 percentage points(pp), but effects vary widely by domain (+4.5pp for Software Engineering to +51.9pp for Healthcare) and 16 of 84 tasks show negative deltas. Self-generated Skills provide no benefit on average, showing that models cannot reliably author the procedural knowledge they benefit from consuming. Focused Skills with 2--3 modules outperform comprehensive documentation, and smaller models with Skills can match larger models without them.