Maintaining Plasticity in Deep Continual Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern deep-learning systems are specialized to problem settings in which training occurs once and then never again, as opposed to continual-learning settings in which training occurs continually. If deep-learning systems are applied in a continual learning setting, then it is well known that they may fail to remember earlier examples. More fundamental, but less well known, is that they may also lose their ability to learn on new examples, a phenomenon called loss of plasticity. We provide direct demonstrations of loss of plasticity using the MNIST and ImageNet datasets repurposed for continual learning as sequences of tasks. In ImageNet, binary classification performance dropped from 89% accuracy on an early task down to 77%, about the level of a linear network, on the 2000th task. Loss of plasticity occurred with a wide range of deep network architectures, optimizers, activation functions, batch normalization, dropout, but was substantially eased by L2-regularization, particularly when combined with weight perturbation. Further, we introduce a new algorithm -- continual backpropagation -- which slightly modifies conventional backpropagation to reinitialize a small fraction of less-used units after each example and appears to maintain plasticity indefinitely.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".