4.7 Article

Curriculum Learning: A Survey

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER VISION
Volume 130, Issue 6, Pages 1526-1565

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11263-022-01611-x

Keywords

Curriculum learning; Learning from easy to hard; Self-paced learning; Neural networks; Deep learning

Funding

  1. Grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CNCS -UEFISCDI, within PNCDI III [PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-0235]
  2. Romanian Young Academy - Stiftung Mercator
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  4. European Union [951911 -AI4Media]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Curriculum learning is widely used in machine learning to enhance performance by training models in a meaningful order. However, there are challenges in ranking samples and introducing more difficult data, which require further research.
Training machine learning models in a meaningful order, from the easy samples to the hard ones, using curriculum learning can provide performance improvements over the standard training approach based on random data shuffling, without any additional computational costs. Curriculum learning strategies have been successfully employed in all areas of machine learning, in a wide range of tasks. However, the necessity of finding a way to rank the samples from easy to hard, as well as the right pacing function for introducing more difficult data can limit the usage of the curriculum approaches. In this survey, we show how these limits have been tackled in the literature, and we present different curriculum learning instantiations for various tasks in machine learning. We construct a multi-perspective taxonomy of curriculum learning approaches by hand, considering various classification criteria. We further build a hierarchical tree of curriculum learning methods using an agglomerative clustering algorithm, linking the discovered clusters with our taxonomy. At the end, we provide some interesting directions for future work.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available