Online Continual Learning in Image Classification: An Empirical Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online continual learning for image classification studies the problem of learning to classify images from an online stream of data and tasks, where tasks may include new classes (class incremental) or data nonstationarity (domain incremental). One of the key challenges of continual learning is to avoid catastrophic forgetting (CF), i.e., forgetting old tasks in the presence of more recent tasks. Over the past few years, many methods and tricks have been introduced to address this problem, but many have not been fairly and systematically compared under a variety of realistic and practical settings. To better understand the relative advantages of various approaches and the settings where they work best, this survey aims to (1) compare state-of-the-art methods such as MIR, iCARL, and GDumb and determine which works best at different experimental settings; (2) determine if the best class incremental methods are also competitive in domain incremental setting; (3) evaluate the performance of 7 simple but effective trick such as "review" trick and nearest class mean (NCM) classifier to assess their relative impact. Regarding (1), we observe iCaRL remains competitive when the memory buffer is small; GDumb outperforms many recently proposed methods in medium-size datasets and MIR performs the best in larger-scale datasets. For (2), we note that GDumb performs quite poorly while MIR -- already competitive for (1) -- is also strongly competitive in this very different but important setting. Overall, this allows us to conclude that MIR is overall a strong and versatile method across a wide variety of settings. For (3), we find that all 7 tricks are beneficial, and when augmented with the "review" trick and NCM classifier, MIR produces performance levels that bring online continual learning much closer to its ultimate goal of matching offline training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".