Catastrophic Forgetting in Deep Learning: A Comprehensive Taxonomy
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
Deep Learning models have achieved remarkable performance in tasks such as image classification or generation, often surpassing human accuracy. However, they can struggle to learn new tasks and update their knowledge without access to previous data, leading to a significant loss of accuracy known as Catastrophic Forgetting (CF). This phenomenon was first observed by McCloskey and Cohen in 1989 and remains an active research topic. Incremental learning without forgetting is widely recognized as a crucial aspect in building better AI systems, as it allows models to adapt to new tasks without losing the ability to perform previously learned ones. This article surveys recent studies that tackle CF in modern Deep Learning models that use gradient descent as their learning algorithm. Although several solutions have been proposed, a definitive solution or consensus on assessing CF is yet to be established. The article provides a comprehensive review of recent solutions, proposes a taxonomy to organize them, and identifies research gaps in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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