TL;DR
This survey reviews and compares state-of-the-art continual learning methods for classification, proposing a new framework to balance stability and plasticity, and empirically evaluates their performance on multiple benchmarks.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive taxonomy, introduces a novel stability-plasticity framework, and empirically compares 11 methods across diverse datasets.
Findings
Different methods vary in memory and computation requirements.
Model capacity and regularization influence continual learning performance.
Task order impacts the effectiveness of continual learning methods.
Abstract
Artificial neural networks thrive in solving the classification problem for a particular rigid task, acquiring knowledge through generalized learning behaviour from a distinct training phase. The resulting network resembles a static entity of knowledge, with endeavours to extend this knowledge without targeting the original task resulting in a catastrophic forgetting. Continual learning shifts this paradigm towards networks that can continually accumulate knowledge over different tasks without the need to retrain from scratch. We focus on task incremental classification, where tasks arrive sequentially and are delineated by clear boundaries. Our main contributions concern 1) a taxonomy and extensive overview of the state-of-the-art, 2) a novel framework to continually determine the stability-plasticity trade-off of the continual learner, 3) a comprehensive experimental comparison of 11…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsWeight Decay · Dropout
