Continual Learning
Training a model on new information without destroying what it already knew — the problem catastrophic forgetting names, approached from the side of trying to solve it.
When not to use it
- Where retraining from scratch is affordable, which is simpler and more predictable.
- Where the task sequence is short and known in advance, which is multi-task training rather than continual learning.
Reach for something else instead
- Periodic full retraining, the standard answer and the reason most models update on a schedule.
- Retrieval, which puts new information outside the weights entirely and avoids the problem.
- Adapter layers, isolating new capability in added parameters rather than modifying existing ones.
Sources & further reading
- Kirkpatrick et al. (2017), Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks — elastic weight consolidation.
- Parisi et al. (2019), Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review — the three families and the stability-plasticity framing.
- De Lange et al. (2021), A continual learning survey — comparative evaluation across methods.
Primary sources, listed so you can check the claims on this page rather than take them on trust.
Where people go wrong
- Measuring only the new task. The question is performance across everything seen so far.
- Assuming a large model is immune, when the evidence is unsettled and degradation may be diffuse.
- Fine-tuning narrowly without a held-out general capability set, which is how a targeted improvement quietly costs general competence.
At a glance
Where this sits
A destination. 6 concepts lead here, and nothing in the corpus depends on it.
Computed from the prerequisite graph, not assigned. How this works