IBCL: Zero-shot Model Generation under Stability-Plasticity Trade-offs
Pengyuan Lu, Michele Caprio, Eric Eaton, Insup Lee

TL;DR
IBCL introduces a zero-shot method for generating models tailored to specific stability-plasticity trade-offs in continual learning, avoiding retraining and improving efficiency and accuracy.
Contribution
It proposes IBCL, a novel Bayesian approach that efficiently produces Pareto-optimal models for specified trade-offs without retraining.
Findings
Improves classification accuracy by up to 44% on average.
Reduces training overhead to constant regardless of preferences.
Maintains Pareto front hypervolume in reinforcement learning tasks.
Abstract
Algorithms that balance the stability-plasticity trade-off are well studied in the Continual Learning literature. However, only a few focus on obtaining models for specified trade-off preferences. When solving the problem of continual learning under specific trade-offs (CLuST), state-of-the-art techniques leverage rehearsal-based learning, which requires retraining when a model corresponding to a new trade-off preference is requested. This is inefficient, since there potentially exists a significant number of different trade-offs, and a large number of models may be requested. As a response, we propose Imprecise Bayesian Continual Learning (IBCL), an algorithm that tackles CLuST efficiently. IBCL replaces retraining with a constant-time convex combination. Given a new task, IBCL (1) updates the knowledge base as a convex hull of model parameter distributions, and (2) generates one…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
1. The algorithm offers many favorable features, including the efficiency in model generation and sub-linear memory growth 2. It is innovative to investigate the problem through a Bayesian lens.
I do not think this paper is well written enough for me to follow easily. First, some definitions are not formal. For example Definition 1, 2 should be written more formally. See questions 1 and 2 below. Second, some important concepts should be presented in detail with formulae. For example, in line 218, continual Bayesian learning appears without a formal introduction. Third, the words and phrases should be picked more carefully. For example, in line 8 of Algorithm 1, one should state: store x
1. The paper is written in a well-organized and self-contained way. The key concepts are clearly defined and sufficiently explained. 2. The idea of avoiding re-training models when receiving new preference vectors is smart. Transforming the convex combination of distributions into the convex combinations of posterior distributions of model parameters is natural, especially when the tasks are similar. 3. The numerical experiments verify the excellence of the algorithm. The code is also well-writt
1. The contribution is restricted to the domain-incremental continual learning scenario. 2. The algorithm's effectiveness relies on a core assumption that there is a continuous mapping from the data distribution to the distribution of the ground-truth model parameters and that mapping is (approximately) linear. The authors should specify this reliance and perhaps give more discussions on the validity of the assumption (for example, the dependence on the model/prior choices and the dependence on
1. The idea of using Bayesian techniques, FGCS and the convex combination of posteriors of previous tasks to achieve zero-shot training seems interesting in the context of continual learning. 2. In the problems of continual learning under specific trade-offs (CluST), the proposed method significantly improves existing rehearsal-based and prompt-based algorithms.
1. This paper is not well written. First, the motivation is not very clear. The paper considers CL under given preferences (i.e, weights). Although the paper gives some examples in recommendation systems, it does not talk much about how to get such weights. In addition, what is the setting of infinitely number of perferences? Some motivating examples are highly needed. 2. In terms of the presentation, there are also multiple places to be clarified. First, in line 208, there is a probability $\h
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
MethodsBalanced Selection
