MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134816815 · doi:10.66238/ijcbs27

Continual Learning for Streaming Data with Dynamic Memory Allocation and Drift-Aware Rehearsal

2025· article· W7134816815 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Lu, Alessandro Rossi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational and Biological Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgettingConcept driftData stream miningClass (philosophy)Incremental learningData streamStreaming dataArtificial neural networkAdaptive memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capability of artificial neural networks to learn continuously from non-stationary data streams without catastrophic forgetting remains a paramount challenge in machine learning. While Experience Replay (ER) has emerged as a robust strategy, standard approaches often rely on fixed-size memory buffers and uniform sampling, which are suboptimal for streaming data exhibiting significant concept drift and class imbalance. In this paper, we propose a novel framework titled Dynamic Memory Allocation with Drift-Aware Rehearsal (DM-DAR). Our approach introduces a dynamic budgeting mechanism that adjusts the memory quota per class based on real-time estimation of forgetting and feature space drift. Furthermore, we implement a dual-criterion retrieval strategy that prioritizes samples located near the decision boundary and those representing the centroid of drifting distributions. Extensive experiments on split-CIFAR100 and sequential TinyImage Net benchmarks demonstrate that DM-DAR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in terms of average accuracy and backward transfer, while maintaining computational efficiency. The results suggest that adaptive resource management is crucial for the longevity and plasticity of continual learning systems deployed in volatile environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational and Biological SciencesSame topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207