Riemannian Walk for Incremental Learning: Understanding Forgetting and Intransigence

Incremental learning (IL) has received a lot of attention recently, however, the literature lacks a precise problem definition, proper evaluation settings, and metrics tailored specifically for the IL problem. One of the main objectives of this work is to fill these gaps so as to provide a common ground for better understanding of IL. The main challenge for an IL algorithm is to update the classifier whilst preserving existing knowledge. We observe that, in addition to forgetting, a known issue while preserving knowledge, IL also suffers from a problem we call intransigence, inability of a model to update its knowledge. We introduce two metrics to quantify forgetting and intransigence that allow us to understand, analyse, and gain better insights into the behaviour of IL algorithms. We present RWalk, a generalization of EWC++ (our efficient version of EWC [Kirkpatrick2016EWC]) and Path Integral [Zenke2017Continual] with a theoretically grounded KL-divergence based perspective. We provide a thorough analysis of various IL algorithms on MNIST and CIFAR-100 datasets. In these experiments, RWalk obtains superior results in terms of accuracy, and also provides a better trade-off between forgetting and intransigence

An Empirical Investigation of Catastrophic Forgetting in Gradient-Based Neural Networks

Catastrophic forgetting is a problem faced by many machine learning models and algorithms. When trained on one task, then trained on a second task, many machine learning models "forget" how to perform the first task. This is widely believed to be a serious problem for neural networks. Here, we investigate the extent to which the catastrophic forgetting problem occurs for modern neural networks, comparing both established and recent gradient-based training algorithms and activation functions. We also examine the effect of the relationship between the first task and the second task on catastrophic forgetting. We find that it is always best to train using the dropout algorithm--the dropout algorithm is consistently best at adapting to the new task, remembering the old task, and has the best tradeoff curve between these two extremes. We find that different tasks and relationships between tasks result in very different rankings of activation function performance. This suggests the choice of activation function should always be cross-validated