Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38625859›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

The limitations of automatically generated curricula for continual learning.

Anna Kravchenko, Rhodri Cusack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Anna KravchenkoFaculty of Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8628-0047
Rhodri CusackTrinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many applications, artificial neural networks are best trained for a task by following a curriculum, in which simpler concepts are learned before more complex ones. This curriculum can be hand-crafted by the engineer or optimised like other hyperparameters, by evaluating many curricula. However, this is computationally intensive and the hyperparameters are unlikely to generalise to new datasets. An attractive alternative, demonstrated in influential prior works, is that the network could choose its own curriculum by monitoring its learning. This would be particularly beneficial for continual learning, in which the network must learn from an environment that is changing over time, relevant both to practical applications and in the modelling of human development. In this paper we test the generality of this approach using a proof-of-principle model, training a network on two sequential tasks under static and continual conditions, and investigating both the benefits of a curriculum and the handicap induced by continuous learning. Additionally, we test a variety of prior task-switching metrics, and find that in some cases even in this simple scenario the a network is often unable to choose the optimal curriculum, as the benefits are sometimes only apparent with hindsight, at the end of training. We discuss the implications of the results for network engineering and models of human development.

Indexed as

CurriculumNeural Networks, ComputerBenchmarkingEducation, ContinuingHumansUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID38625859
PMCPMC11020929

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.