Methods for maintenance of neural networks in continual learning scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural networks suffer from catastrophic forgetting problem when deployed in a continual learning scenario where new batches of data arrive over time; however they are of different distributions from the previous data used for training the neural network. For assessing the performance of a model in a continual learning scenario, two aspects are important (i) to compute the difference in data distribution between a new and old batch of data and (ii) to understand the retention and learning behavior of deployed neural networks. Current techniques indicate the novelty of a new data batch by comparing its statistical properties with that of the old batch in the input space. However, it is still an open area of research to consider the perspective of a deployed neural network’s ability to generalize on the unseen data samples. In this work, we report a dataset distance measuring technique that indicates the novelty of a new batch of data while considering the deployed neural network’s perspective. We propose the construction of perspective histograms which are a vector representation of the data batches based on the correctness and confidence in the prediction of the deployed model. We have successfully tested the hypothesis empirically on image data coming MNIST Digits, MNIST Fashion, CIFAR10, for its ability to detect data perturbations of type rotation, Gaussian blur, and translation. Upon new data, given a model and its training data, we have proposed and evaluated four new scoring schemes, retention score (R), learning score (L), Oscore and SP-score for studying how much the model can retain its performance on past data, how much it can learn new data, the combined expression for the magnitude of retention and learning and stability-plasticity characteristics respectively. The scoring schemes have been evaluated MNIST Digits and MNIST Fashion data sets on different types of neural network architectures based on the number of parameters, activation functions, and learning loss functions, and an instance of a typical analysis report is presented. Machine learning model maintenance is a reality in production systems in the industry, and we hope our proposed methodology offers a solution to the need of the day in this aspect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".