2017
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1703.08475
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting by Incremental Moment Matching

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
40
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, most of the existing methods are proposed to address the single image classification problem, hence not readily applicable to object detection. Our method falls within the context of the regularization-based learning approach [13,10,14]. For example, when learning incrementally, ILDVQ [13] preserves feature representation of the network on older tasks by using a less-forgetting loss, where response targets are computed using data from the current task.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, most of the existing methods are proposed to address the single image classification problem, hence not readily applicable to object detection. Our method falls within the context of the regularization-based learning approach [13,10,14]. For example, when learning incrementally, ILDVQ [13] preserves feature representation of the network on older tasks by using a less-forgetting loss, where response targets are computed using data from the current task.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, networks trained from few-shot tasks tend to be less stable and forget previously seen tasks more severely. A common approach Incremental Moment Matching (mean-IMM) [10] proposes to prevent catastrophic forgetting by averaging model weights of two sequential tasks, by implicitly assuming that the obtained optimum at each incremental step is flat and overlaps with each other. However, we argue that such assumption can only hold for data-sufficient scenarios but not for few-shot.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather than focusing on the weights in all layers of CNNs, LFL [32] restricts the drastic changes in the learned parameters in the final hidden activations to preserve the previously learned input-output mappings and maintain the decision boundaries. IMM [33] progressively matches the Gaussian posterior distribution of the CNNs trained on the old and new tasks and uses various transfer learning techniques to render the Gaussian distribution smooth and reasonable.…”
Section: A Information Retrospectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regularization-based techniques such as elastic weight consolidation (EWC) [18], synaptic intelligence (SI) [52] and incremental moment matching (IMM) [24], modify model parameters in such a way that preserves important weights for previous tasks while finding less sensitive weights to accommodate new tasks. Despite the popularity of these methods, they tend not to perform well in class-incremental settings since they were originally introduced for task-incremental learning [48].…”
Section: Continual Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, for Class-Incremental test settings, the model is estimating 𝑃 (𝑦 𝑗 = 𝑘 |x 𝑗 ) since it is only presented with the unknown x 𝑗 without any additional information to which task the unknown samples belong to. This in turn makes class-incremental settings significantly more challenging than taskincremental settings and explains why most of the work published in the field assumes that 𝑡 𝑖 is presented during testing [24,26,36]. To elicit the intuition behind our approach, we first break the problem of class-incremental learning into a more granular task-agnostic formulation, namely, instead of assuming that the model is presented with a stream of tasks containing multiple classes, we assume that the model is presented with a stream of independent classes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%