GradMix: Gradient-based Selective Mixup for Robust Data Augmentation in Class-Incremental Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of continual learning, acquiring new knowledge while maintaining previous knowledge presents a significant challenge. Existing methods often use experience replay techniques that store a small portion of previous task data for training. In experience replay approaches, data augmentation has emerged as a promising strategy to further improve the model performance by mixing limited previous task data with sufficient current task data. However, we theoretically and empirically analyze that training with mixed samples from random sample pairs may harm the knowledge of previous tasks and cause greater catastrophic forgetting. We then propose GradMix, a robust data augmentation method specifically designed for mitigating catastrophic forgetting in class-incremental learning. GradMix performs gradient-based selective mixup using a class-based criterion that mixes only samples from helpful class pairs and not from detrimental class pairs for reducing catastrophic forgetting. Our experiments on various real datasets show that GradMix outperforms data augmentation baselines in accuracy by minimizing the forgetting of previous knowledge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".