Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33286958›Full record

ReviewEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2020

An Appraisal of Incremental Learning Methods.

Yong Luo, Liancheng Yin, Wenchao Bai, Keming Mao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yong LuoCollege of Software, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Liancheng YinCollege of Software, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Wenchao BaiCollege of Software, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Keming MaoCollege of Software, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110004, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1243-0123

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a special case of machine learning, incremental learning can acquire useful knowledge from incoming data continuously while it does not need to access the original data. It is expected to have the ability of memorization and it is regarded as one of the ultimate goals of artificial intelligence technology. However, incremental learning remains a long term challenge. Modern deep neural network models achieve outstanding performance on stationary data distributions with batch training. This restriction leads to catastrophic forgetting for incremental learning scenarios since the distribution of incoming data is unknown and has a highly different probability from the old data. Therefore, a model must be both plastic to acquire new knowledge and stable to consolidate existing knowledge. This review aims to draw a systematic review of the state of the art of incremental learning methods. Published reports are selected from Web of Science, IEEEXplore, and DBLP databases up to May 2020. Each paper is reviewed according to the types: architectural strategy, regularization strategy and rehearsal and pseudo-rehearsal strategy. We compare and discuss different methods. Moreover, the development trend and research focus are given. It is concluded that incremental learning is still a hot research area and will be for a long period. More attention should be paid to the exploration of both biological systems and computational models.

Indexed as

catastrophic forgettingincremental learninglifelong learning

Identifiers

PMID33286958
PMCPMC7712976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.