Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Learning, Fast and Slow: Towards LLMs That Adapt Continually

Rishabh Tiwari, Kusha Sareen, Lakshya A Agrawal, Joseph E. Gonzalez +5 more

Published

May 12, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

May 14, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL). However, updating parameters forces them to absorb task-specific information, which can result in catastrophic forgetting and loss of plasticity. In contrast, in-context learning with fixed LLM parameters can cheaply and rapidly adapt to task-specific requirements (e.g., prompt optimization), but cannot by itself typically match the performance gains available through updating LLM parameters. There is no good reason for restricting learning to being in-context or in-weights. Moreover, humans also likely learn at different time scales (e.g., System 1 vs 2). To this end, we introduce a fast-slow learning framework for LLMs, with model parameters as "slow" weights and optimized context as "fast" weights. These fast "weights" can learn from textual feedback to absorb the task-specific information, while allowing slow weights to stay closer to the base model and persist general reasoning behaviors. Fast-Slow Training (FST) is up to 3x more sample-efficient than only slow learning (RL) across reasoning tasks, while consistently reaching a higher performance asymptote. Moreover, FST-trained models remain closer to the base LLM (up to 70% less KL divergence), resulting in less catastrophic forgetting than RL-training. This reduced drift also preserves plasticity: after training on one task, FST trained models adapt more effectively to a subsequent task than parameter-only trained models. In continual learning scenarios, where task domains change on the fly, FST continues to acquire each new task while parameter-only RL stalls.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL).

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL).
  • However, updating parameters forces them to absorb task-specific information, which can result in catastrophic forgetting and loss of plasticity.
  • In contrast, in-context learning with fixed LLM parameters can cheaply and rapidly adapt to task-specific requirements (e.g., prompt optimization), but cannot by itself typically match the performance gains available through updating LLM parameters.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • Moreover, humans also likely learn at different time scales (e.g., System 1 vs 2).
  • To this end, we introduce a fast-slow learning framework for LLMs, with model parameters as "slow" weights and optimized context as "fast" weights.
  • Moreover, FST-trained models remain closer to the base LLM (up to 70% less KL divergence), resulting in less catastrophic forgetting than RL-training.

Why it matters for eval

  • Moreover, humans also likely learn at different time scales (e.g., System 1 vs 2).

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.