CVPR 2020 continual learning in computer vision competition: Approaches, results, current challenges and future directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few years, we have witnessed a renewed and fast-growing interest in continual learning with deep neural networks with the shared objective of making current AI systems more adaptive, efficient and autonomous. However, despite the significant and undoubted progress of the field in addressing the issue of catastrophic forgetting, benchmarking different continual learning approaches is a difficult task by itself. In fact, given the proliferation of different settings, training and evaluation protocols, metrics and nomenclature, it is often tricky to properly characterize a continual learning algorithm, relate it to other solutions and gauge its real-world applicability. The first Continual Learning in Computer Vision challenge held at CVPR in 2020 has been one of the first opportunities to evaluate different continual learning algorithms on a common hardware with a large set of shared evaluation metrics and 3 different settings based on the realistic CORe50 video benchmark. In this paper, we report the main results of the competition, which counted more than 79 teams registered and 11 finalists. We also summarize the winning approaches, current challenges and future research directions.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it