IIRC: Incremental Implicitly-Refined Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce the "Incremental Implicitly-Refined Classi-fication (IIRC)" setup, an extension to the class incremental learning setup where the incoming batches of classes have two granularity levels. i.e., each sample could have a high-level (coarse) label like "bear" and a low-level (fine) label like "polar bear". Only one label is provided at a time, and the model has to figure out the other label if it has already learnfed it. This setup is more aligned with real-life scenarios, where a learner usually interacts with the same family of entities multiple times, discovers more granularity about them, while still trying not to forget previous knowledge. Moreover, this setup enables evaluating models for some important lifelong learning challenges that cannot be easily addressed under the existing setups. These challenges can be motivated by the example "if a model was trained on the class bear in one task and on polar bear in another task, will it forget the concept of bear, will it rightfully infer that a polar bear is still a bear? and will it wrongfully associate the label of polar bear to other breeds of bear?". We develop a standardized benchmark that enables evaluating models on the IIRC setup. We evaluate several state-of-the-art lifelong learning algorithms and highlight their strengths and limitations. For example, distillation-based methods perform relatively well but are prone to incorrectly predicting too many labels per image. We hope that the proposed setup, along with the benchmark, would provide a meaningful problem setting to the practitioners
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".