3.8 Proceedings Paper

Selective Replay Enhances Learning in Online Continual Analogical Reasoning

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/CVPRW53098.2021.00389

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DARPA/SRI Lifelong Learning Machines program [HR0011-18-C-0051]
  2. AFOSR grant [FA9550-18-1-0121]
  3. NSF [1909696]
  4. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems
  5. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1909696] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Continual learning in neural networks for analogical reasoning has been studied, with experimental baselines, protocols, and transfer metrics established to evaluate performance on tests like Raven's Progressive Matrices. The use of selective replay has shown significant benefits for the RPM task compared to random replay in mitigating catastrophic forgetting.
In continual learning, a system learns from non-stationary data streams or batches without catastrophic forgetting. While this problem has been heavily studied in supervised image classification and reinforcement learning, continual learning in neural networks designed for abstract reasoning has not yet been studied. Here, we study continual learning of analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning tests such as Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPMs) are commonly used to measure non-verbal abstract reasoning in humans, and recently offline neural networks for the RPM problem have been proposed. In this paper, we establish experimental baselines, protocols, and forward and backward transfer metrics to evaluate continual learners on RPMs. We employ experience replay to mitigate catastrophic forgetting. Prior work using replay for image classification tasks has found that selectively choosing the samples to replay offers little, if any, benefit over random selection. In contrast, we find that selective replay can significantly outperform random selection for the RPM task(1).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available