Online Class-Incremental Continual Learning with Adversarial Shapley Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As image-based deep learning becomes pervasive on every device, from cell phones to smart watches, there is a growing need to develop methods that continually learn from data while minimizing memory footprint and power consumption. While memory replay techniques have shown exceptional promise for this task of continual learning, the best method for selecting which buffered images to replay is still an open question. In this paper, we specifically focus on the online class-incremental setting where a model needs to learn new classes continually from an online data stream. To this end, we contribute a novel Adversarial Shapley value scoring method that scores memory data samples according to their ability to preserve latent decision boundaries for previously observed classes (to maintain learning stability and avoid forgetting) while interfering with latent decision boundaries of current classes being learned (to encourage plasticity and optimal learning of new class boundaries). Overall, we observe that our proposed ASER method provides competitive or improved performance compared to state-of-the-art replay-based continual learning methods on a variety of datasets.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".