Summary
The authors propose a modified data distillation method to develop a hybrid memory approach that combines real and synthetic examples, to reduce catastrophic forgetting in Class Incremental Learning (CIL) without requiring extensive data storage. This hybrid memory relies on a novel technique called Continual Data Distillation (CDD), which generates synthetic exemplars from a sequence of checkpoints taken along the same model’s training trajectory, instead of needing multiple model initializations. The work mainly builds on a memory update strategy, where real data are conditionally selected to complement synthetic exemplars, maximizing a data distillation objective through a greedy selection process.
Strengths
The motivation for this work is strong, clear, and easy to follow. By addressing the challenge of catastrophic forgetting in Class Incremental Learning (CIL), the authors offer a practical solution that optimizes memory use while maintaining performance.
Several studies, including theoretical discussions, ablation studies on the update strategy, investigations into the synthetic/real exemplar ratio, and other relevant analyses, reinforce the validity of this work.
Weaknesses
- Instead of focusing on reporting results for both the **zero-base** setting and the **half-base** setting- which I consider less important—the authors could have presented results on other benchmarks, particularly since using only two datasets is rather limited. Expanding the range of benchmarks, especially across slightly different domains, *e.g.*, Caltech256 (*Griffin, G. Holub, AD. Perona, P*) or MIT67 (*Quattoni & Torralba*), would enhance the relevance of their findings.
- While the authors adhere to the standards set by other works, it would be beneficial to provide explicitly how **AIA** and **LAA** are computed. This would facilitate a better understanding of the results. Could you please include a brief description of the AIA and LAA computations either in the main text or as a footnote in the results tables?
- I recommend including the standard upper and lower bounds for Class Incremental Learning (*i.e.*, training on all tasks jointly and finetuning with no countermeasure to forgetting). This would provide a more comprehensive view of the method's capabilities.
Questions
I would like to confirm whether the results presented in the base version of the competitor methods (*i.e.*, the upper part of Table 1) are derived using their original replay mechanisms, such as iCaRL with Herding, and not altered in any way. Additionally, could you clarify how these original methods have been combined with your proposed approach, particularly in relation to the introduction of Hybrid Memory (*i.e.*, the lower part *w. H*)?
Have you considered whether the success of your data distillation might be sufficient when paired with a strategy that maximizes diversity? For example, could already existing Memory Update techniques (like Herding or the approach based on Algo. 2 of [1]) make your Hybrid Memory effective without requiring conditional updates for the real data? This analysis could provide valuable insights and enrich the discussion presented in Figure 5.
[1] Buzzega, Pietro, et al. "Rethinking experience replay: a bag of tricks for continual learning." 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). IEEE, 2021.
I noticed that you mentioned the results are averaged over three runs. It would be helpful to include the standard deviations at least in the main results Tables.
Ethics concerns
No Ethics Concerns.