Elastic Weight Consolidation for Knowledge Graph Continual Learning: An Empirical Evaluation
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
Knowledge graphs (KGs) require continual updates as new information emerges, but neural embedding models suffer from catastrophic forgetting when learning new tasks sequentially. We evaluate Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC), a regularization-based continual learning method, on KG link prediction using TransE embeddings on FB15k-237. Across multiple experiments with five random seeds, we find that EWC reduces catastrophic forgetting from 12.62% to 6.85%, a 45.7% reduction compared to naive sequential training. We observe that the task partitioning strategy affects the magnitude of forgetting: relation-based partitioning (grouping triples by relation type) exhibits 9.8 percentage points higher forgetting than randomly partitioned tasks (12.62% vs 2.81%), suggesting that task construction influences evaluation outcomes. While focused on a single embedding model and dataset, our results demonstrate that EWC effectively mitigates catastrophic forgetting in KG continual learning and highlight the importance of evaluation protocol design.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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