Reset It and Forget It: Relearning Last-Layer Weights Improves Continual and Transfer Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work identifies a simple pre-training mechanism that leads to representations exhibiting better continual and transfer learning. This mechanism—the repeated resetting of weights in the last layer, which we nickname “zapping”—was originally designed for a meta-continual-learning procedure, yet we show it is surprisingly applicable in many settings beyond both meta-learning and continual learning. In our experiments, we wish to transfer a pre-trained image classifier to a new set of classes, in few shots. We show that our zapping procedure results in improved transfer accuracy and/or more rapid adaptation in both standard fine-tuning and continual learning settings, while being simple to implement and computationally efficient. In many cases, we achieve performance on par with state of the art meta-learning without needing the expensive higher-order gradients by using a combination of zapping and sequential learning. An intuitive explanation for the effectiveness of this zapping procedure is that representations trained with repeated zapping learn features that are capable of rapidly adapting to newly initialized classifiers. Such an approach may be considered a computationally cheaper type of, or alternative to, meta-learning rapidly adaptable features with higher-order gradients. This adds to recent work on the usefulness of resetting neural network parameters during training, and invites further investigation of this mechanism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".