Measuring Catastrophic Forgetting in Neural Networks
Ronald Kemker, Marc McClure, Angelina Abitino, Tyler Hayes, Christopher Kanan
Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science
Rochester Institute of Technology
54 Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester NY 14623

Abstract
Deep neural networks are used in many state-of-the-art systems for machine perception. Once a network is trained to
do a specific task, e.g., bird classification, it cannot easily be
trained to do new tasks, e.g., incrementally learning to recognize additional bird species or learning an entirely different
task such as flower recognition. When new tasks are added,
typical deep neural networks are prone to catastrophically forgetting previous tasks. Networks that are capable of assimilating new information incrementally, much like how humans
form new memories over time, will be more efficient than retraining the model from scratch each time a new task needs
to be learned. There have been multiple attempts to develop
schemes that mitigate catastrophic forgetting, but these methods have not been directly compared, the tests used to evaluate them vary considerably, and these methods have only
been evaluated on small-scale problems (e.g., MNIST). In
this paper, we introduce new metrics and benchmarks for directly comparing five different mechanisms designed to mitigate catastrophic forgetting in neural networks: regularization, ensembling, rehearsal, dual-memory, and sparse-coding.
Our experiments on real-world images and sounds show that
the mechanism(s) that are critical for optimal performance
vary based on the incremental training paradigm and type of
data being used, but they all demonstrate that the catastrophic
forgetting problem has yet to be solved.

Introduction
While the basic architecture and training algorithms behind deep neural networks (DNNs) are over 30 years
old, interest in them has never been greater in both industry and the artificial intelligence research community.
Owing to far larger datasets, increases in computational
power, and innovations in activation functions, DNNs have
achieved near-human or super-human abilities on a number
of problems, including image classification (He et al. 2016),
speech-to-text (Khilari and Bhope 2015), and face identification (Schroff, Kalenichenko, and Philbin 2015). These
algorithms power most of the recent advances in semantic
segmentation (Long, Shelhamer, and Darrell 2015), visual
question answering (Kafle and Kanan 2017), and reinforcement learning (Mnih et al. 2013). While these systems have
become more capable, the standard multi-layer perceptron
(MLP) architecture and typical training algorithms cannot
handle incrementally learning new tasks or categories with-

EWC
FEL
MLP
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Ideal
Offline
Model

60

Average Accuracy Across
All Permutations (%)

arXiv:1708.02072v4 [cs.AI] 9 Nov 2017

{rmk6217, mcm5756, tlh6792, kanan}@rit.edu , aabitin1@swarthmore.edu

50
40
30
20
10
0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Number of Permutations Trained

9

Figure 1: Catastrophic forgetting impairs incremental learning in neural networks. As a network is incrementally trained
(solid lines), ideally its performance would match that of a
model trained offline with all of the data upfront (dashed
line). In this paper, we develop methods and benchmarks for
measuring catastrophic forgetting. Our experiments show
that even methods designed to prevent catastrophic forgetting perform significantly worse than an offline model. Incremental learning is key to many real-world applications
because it allows the model to adapt after being deployed.

out catastrophically forgetting previously learned training
data. Fixing this problem is critical to making agents that incrementally improve after deployment. For non-embedded
or personalized systems, catastrophic forgetting is often
overcome simply by storing new training examples and then
re-training either the entire network from scratch or possibly
only the last few layers. In both cases, retraining uses both
the previously learned examples and the new examples, randomly shuffling them so that they are independent and identically distributed (iid). Retraining can be slow, especially if
a dataset has millions or billions of instances.
Catastrophic forgetting was first recognized in MLPs almost 30 years ago (McCloskey and Cohen 1989). Since
then, there have been multiple attempts to mitigate this phenomenon (Hinton and Plaut 1987; Robins 1995; Goodrich
and Arel 2014; Draelos et al. 2016; Ren et al. 2017;
Fernando et al. 2017; Kirkpatrick et al. 2017). However,
these methods vary considerably in how they train and evaluate their models and they focus on small datasets, e.g.,

MNIST. It is not clear if these methods will scale to larger
datasets containing hundreds of categories. In this paper, we
remedy this problem by providing a comprehensive empirical review of methods to mitigate catastrophic forgetting
across a variety of new metrics. While catastrophic forgetting occurs in unsupervised frameworks (Draelos et al. 2016;
Goodrich and Arel 2014; Triki et al. 2017), we focus on supervised classification. Our major contributions are:
• We demonstrate that despite popular claims (Kirkpatrick
et al. 2017), catastrophic forgetting is not solved.
• We establish new benchmarks with novel metrics for
measuring catastrophic forgetting. Previous work has focused on MNIST, which contains low-resolution images and only 10 classes. Instead, we use real-world
image/audio classification datasets containing 100-200
classes. We show that, although existing models perform
well on MNIST for a variety of different incremental
learning problems, performance drops significantly with
more challenging datasets.
• We identified five common mechanisms for mitigating
catastrophic forgetting: 1) regularization, 2) ensembling,
3) rehearsal, 4) dual-memory models, and 5) sparsecoding. Unlike previous work, we directly compare these
distinct approaches.

Problem Formulation
In this paper, we study catastrophic forgetting in MLP-based
neural networks that are incrementally trained for classification tasks. In our setup, the labeled training dataset D is
T
.
organized into T study sessions (batches), i.e., D = {Bt }t=1
Each study session Bt consists of Nt labeled training data

Nt
points, i.e., Bt = (x j , y j ) j=1
, where x j ∈ Rd and y j is a discrete label. Nt is variable across sessions. The model is only
permitted to learn sessions sequentially, in order. At time t
the network can only learn from study session Bt ; however,
models may use auxiliary memory to store previously observed sessions, but this memory use must be reported. We
do not assume sessions are iid, e.g., some sessions may contain data from only a single category. In between sessions,
the model may be evaluated on test data. Because this paper’s focus is catastrophic forgetting, we focus less on representation learning and obtain feature vectors using embeddings from pre-trained networks. Note that in some other papers, new sessions are called new ‘tasks.’ We refer to the first
study session as the model’s ‘base set knowledge.’

ensembling. The second is to prevent the forgetting of prior
knowledge simply by training on the old tasks (or some facsimile of them) as well as new tasks, thereby preventing the
old tasks from being forgotten. Besides requiring costly relearning of previous examples and additional storage, this
scheme is still not as effective as simply combining the new
data with the old data and completely re-training the model
from scratch. This solution is inefficient as it prevents the development of deployable systems that are capable of learning new tasks over the course of their lifetime.

Previous Surveys
French (1999) exhaustively reviewed mechanisms for preventing catastrophic forgetting that were explored in the
1980s and 1990s. Goodfellow et al. (2013) compared different activation functions and learning algorithms to see
how they affected catastrophic forgetting, but these methods were not explicitly designed to mitigate catastrophic forgetting. The authors concluded that the learning algorithms
have a larger impact, which is what we focus on in our paper.
They sequentially trained a network on two separate tasks
using three different scenarios: 1) identical tasks with different forms of input, 2) similar tasks, and 3) dissimilar tasks.
We adopt a similar paradigm, but our experiments involve
a much larger number of tasks. We also focus on methods
explicitly designed to mitigate catastrophic forgetting.
Soltoggio, Stanley, and Risi (2017) reviewed neural networks that can adapt their plasticity over time, which they
called Evolved Plastic Artificial Neural Networks. Their review covered a wide-range of brain-inspired algorithms and
also identified that the field lacks appropriate benchmarks.
However, they did not conduct any experiments or establish benchmarks for measuring catastrophic forgetting. We
remedy this gap in the literature by establishing large-scale
benchmarks for evaluating catastrophic forgetting in neural
networks, and we compare methods that use five distinct
mechanisms for mitigating it.

Mitigating Catastrophic Forgetting
While not exhaustive, we have identified five main approaches that have been pursued for mitigating catastrophic
forgetting in MLP-like architectures, which we describe in
the next subsections. We describe the models we have selected in greater detail in the Experimental Setup section.

Regularization Methods

Why Does Catastrophic Forgetting Occur?
Catastrophic forgetting in neural networks occurs because
of the stability-plasticity dilemma (Abraham and Robins
2005). The model requires sufficient plasticity to acquire
new tasks, but large weight changes will cause forgetting by
disrupting previously learned representations. Keeping the
network’s weights stable prevents previously learned tasks
from being forgotten, but too much stability prevents the
model from learning new tasks. Prior research has tried to
solve this problem using two broad approaches. The first is
to try to keep new and old representations separate, which
can be done using distributed models, regularization, and

Regularization methods add constraints to the network’s
weight updates, so that a new session is learned without interfering with prior memories. Hinton and Plaut (1987) implemented a network that had both ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ training
weights. The fast weights had high plasticity and were easily
affected by changes to the network, and the ‘slow’ weights
had high stability and were harder to adapt. This kind of
dual-weight architecture is similar in idea to dual-network
models, but has not been proven to be sufficiently powerful
to learn a large number of new tasks. Elastic weight consolidation (EWC) (Kirkpatrick et al. 2017) adds a constraint to
the loss function that directs plasticity away from weights

that contribute the most to previous tasks. We use EWC to
evaluate the regularization mechanism.

Ensemble Methods
Ensemble methods attempt to mitigate catastrophic forgetting either by explicitly or implicitly training multiple classifiers together and then combining them to generate the final
prediction. For the explicit methods, such as Learn++ and
TradaBoost, this prevents forgetting because an entirely new
sub-network is trained for a new session (Polikar et al. 2001;
Dai et al. 2007). However, memory usage will scale with the
number of sessions, which is highly non-desirable. Moreover, this prevents portions of the network from being reused for the new session. Two methods that try to alleviate
the memory usage problem are Accuracy Weighted Ensembles and Life-long Machine Learning (Wang et al. 2003; Ren
et al. 2017). These methods automatically decide whether a
sub-network should be removed or added to the ensemble.
PathNet can be considered as an implicit ensemble
method (Fernando et al. 2017). It uses a genetic algorithm to
find an optimal path through a fixed-size neural network for
each study session. The weights in this path are then frozen;
so that when new sessions are learned, the knowledge is not
lost. In contrast to the explicit ensembles, the base network’s
size is fixed and it is possible for learned representations to
be re-used which allows for smaller, more deployable models. The authors showed that PathNet learned subsequent
tasks more quickly, but not how well earlier tasks were retained. We have selected PathNet to evaluate the ensembling
mechanism, and we show how well it retains pre-trained information.

Rehearsal Methods
Rehearsal methods try to mitigate catastrophic forgetting by
mixing data from earlier sessions with the current session
being learned (Robins 1995). The cost is that this requires
storing past data, which is not resource efficient. Pseudorehearsal methods use the network to generate pseudopatterns
(Robins 1995) that are combined with the session currently
being learned. Pseudopatterns allow the network to stabilize
older memories without the requirement for storing all previously observed training data points. Draelos et al. (2016)
used this approach to incrementally train an autoencoder,
where each session contained images from a specific category. After the autoencoder learned a particular session, they
passed the session’s data through the encoder and stored the
output statistics. During replay, they used these statistics and
the decoder network to generate the appropriate pseudopatterns for each class.
The GeppNet model proposed by Gepperth and Karaoguz
(2016) reserves its training data to replay after each new
class was trained. This model used a self-organizing map
(SOM) as a hidden-layer to topologically reorganize the data
from the input layer (i.e., clustering the input onto a 2-D lattice). We use this model to explore the value of rehearsal.

Dual-Memory Models
Dual-memory models are inspired by memory consolidation
in the mammalian brain, which is thought to store memo-

ries in two distinct neural networks. Newly formed memories are stored in a brain region known as the hippocampus.
These memories are then slowly transferred/consolidated to
the pre-frontal cortex during sleep. Several algorithms based
on these ideas have been created. Early work used fast (hippocampal) and slow (cortical) training networks to separate pattern-processing areas, and they passed pseudopatterns back and forth to consolidate recent and remote memories (French 1997). In general, dual-memory models incorporate rehearsal, but not all rehearsal-based models are dualmemory models.
Another model proposed by Gepperth and Karaoguz
(2016), which we denote GeppNet+STM, stores new inputs
that yield a highly uncertain prediction into a short-term
memory (STM) buffer. This model then seeks to consolidate
the new memories into the entire network during a separate
sleep phase. They showed that GeppNet+STM could incrementally learn MNIST classes without forgetting previously
trained ones. We use GeppNet and GeppNet+STM to evaluate the dual-memory approach.

Sparse-Coding Methods
Catastrophic forgetting occurs when new internal representations interfere with previously learned ones (French 1999).
Sparse representations can reduce the chance of this interference; however, sparsity can impair generalization and ability
to learn new tasks (Sharkey and Sharkey 1995).
Two models that implicitly use sparsity are CALM and
ALCOVE. To learn new data, CALM searches among competing nodes to see which nodes have not been committed to another representation (Murre 2014). ALCOVE is a
shallow neural network that uses a sparse distance-based
representation, which allows the weights assigned to older
tasks to be largely unchanged when the network is presented with new data (Kruschke 1992). The Sparse Distributed Memory (SDM) is a convolution-correlation model
that uses sparsity to reduce the overlap between internal representations (Kanerva 1988). CHARM and TODAM are also
convolution-correlation models that use internal codings to
ensure that new input representations remain orthogonal to
one another (Murdock 1983; Eich 1982).
The Fixed Expansion Layer (FEL) model creates sparse
representations by fixing the network’s weights and specifying neuron triggering conditions (Coop, Mishtal, and Arel
2013). FEL uses excitatory and inhibitory fixed weights to
sparsify the input, which gates the weight updates throughout the network. This enables the network to retain prior
learned mappings and reduce representational overlap. We
use FEL to evaluate the sparsity mechanism.

Experimental Setup
We explore how well methods to mitigate catastrophic forgetting scale on hard datasets involving fine-grained image
and audio classification. These datasets were chosen because they contain 1) different data modalities (image and
audio), 2) a large number of classes, and 3) a small number
of samples per class. These datasets are more meaningful
(real-world problems) and more practical than MNIST. We

Classification Task
Classes
Feature Shape
Train Samples
Test Samples
Train Samples/Class
Test Samples/Class

MNIST

CUB-200

AudioSet

Gray Image
10
784
50,000
10,000
5,421-6,742
892-1,135

RGB Image
200
2,048
5,994
5,794
29-30
11-30

Audio
100
1,280
28,779
5,523
250-300
43-62

Table 1: Dataset Specifications
also use MNIST to showcase the value of these real-world
datasets. See Table 1 for dataset statistics.

Dataset Description
MNIST MNIST is a classic dataset in machine learning
containing 10 digit classes. Its grayscale images are 28 × 28.
CUB-200 Caltech-UCSD Birds-200 (CUB-200) is an image classification dataset containing 200 different bird
species (Wah et al. 2011). We use the 2011 version. Each
high-resolution image is turned into a 2048-dimensional
vector with ResNet-50 (He et al. 2016), which is a deep
convolutional neural network (DCNN) pre-trained on ImageNet (Russakovsky et al. 2015). Extracting image features
from the last hidden (fully-connected) layer of pre-trained
DCNNs is a common practice in computer vision. We report
mean-per-class accuracy, which is the CUB-200 standard.
AudioSet AudioSet (Gemmeke et al. 2017) is a hierarchically organized audio classification dataset built from
YouTube videos. It has over 2 million human-labeled, 10
second sound bytes drawn from one or more of 632 classes.
We used the pre-extracted frame-wise features from AudioSet concatenated in order. These features were extracted
using a variant ResNet-50 for audio data (Hershey et al.
2017), which was pre-trained on an early version of the
YouTube-8m dataset (Abu-El-Haija et al. 2016). We used
100 classes from AudioSet, none of which were super or
sub-classes of each other. The classes did not have any restrictions based on the AudioSet ontology, and all of them
had a quality estimation of over 70%. Each audio sample
can have multiple labels, so we chose training and testing
samples that were labeled with only 1 of the 100 classes.

Models Evaluated
We evaluated five models that correspond to each of the five
mechanisms described in the previous section: 1) EWC, 2)
PathNet, 3) GeppNet, 4) GeppNet+STM, and 5) FEL. To
choose the number of parameters to use across models, we
established a baseline MLP architecture that performed well
for CUB-200 and AudioSet when trained offline. The goal
is to determine which mechanism(s) work best for various
incremental learning paradigms. To provide a fair comparison, the number of parameters in each model were chosen
to be as close as possible to the number of parameters in the
baseline MLP. We optimized each model’s hyperparameters
to work well for our benchmarks, which are given in supple-

mental materials 1 . The supplemental materials provides the
stopping criteria for each model as defined by their creators,
which involved 1) training for a fixed period of time or 2)
using test accuracy to stop training early.
Standard Multi-Layer Perceptron For our baseline, we
use a standard MLP. Its architecture was chosen by optimizing performance using the entire training set for both CUB200 and AudioSet, i.e., it was trained offline. The offline
MLP achieves 62.1% accuracy on the CUB-200 test set and
46.1% on the AudioSet test set. We did a hyperparameter
search for the number of units per hidden layer (32-4,096),
number of hidden layers (2-3), and weight decay parameter
(0, 10−4 , 5 · 10−4). The MLP model was also trained incrementally to measure the severity of catastrophic forgetting.
Elastic Weight Consolidation EWC adds an additional
constraint to the loss function L (θ ), i.e.,
L (θ ) = Lt (θ ) + ∑
i

2
λ 
∗
,
Fi θi − θA,i
2

(1)

where L (θ ) is the combined loss function, θ is the network’s
parameters, Lt (θ ) is the loss for session Bt , λ is a hyperparameter that indicates how important the old task(s) are compared to the new task, F is the Fisher information matrix, and
θA∗ are the trainable parameters (weights and biases) important to previously trained tasks. The Fisher matrix is used to
constrain the weights important to previously learned tasks
to their original value; that is, plasticity is directed to the
trainable parameters that contribute the least to performing
previously trained tasks. The size of the hidden-layer was
chosen to match the baseline MLP’s capacity.
PathNet PathNet is a fixed size neural network that uses
a genetic algorithm to find the optimal path through the network. Only this path is trainable when learning a particular
session, which is why the authors described their model as
an evolutionary dropout network. PathNet creates an independent output layer for each task in order to preserve previously trained tasks, and it cannot be used without modifications for incremental class learning. Since entire portions of
the network are sequentially frozen as new tasks are learned,
there is a risk of PathNet losing its ability to learn once the
maximum capacity is reached. PathNet’s capacity was chosen to match the capacity of the MLP baseline.
GeppNet GeppNet and GeppNet+STM are biologicallyinspired approaches that use rehearsal to mitigate forgetting.
In these models, training the initial task starts by initializing the SOM-layer, which is used to project the probability
density of the input to a higher two-dimensional lattice. The
SOM-layer features are passed to a linear regression classification layer to make a prediction. During training, the SOMlayer is initialized with the first session for a fixed-period of
time, and then the SOM- and classification-layers are trained
jointly. The SOM-layer is only updated when a training example is determined by the model to be novel (i.e., using
1 Supplemental materials provided at the end of our arXiv submission: https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02072

the prediction probabilities to generate a confidence measure). After GeppNet has been trained on the initial session for a fixed period of time, it incrementally learns subsequent sessions. GeppNet performs updates to the SOMlayer and classification-layer when a training example is
considered novel. When GeppNet+STM detects novelty, it
instead uses a fixed-size short-term memory buffer to store
that training example, which then replays it during a sleep
phase. The sleep phase repeats after a fixed number of training iterations. Since the replay queue has a fixed-size (i.e.,
older examples are replaced), the GeppNet+STM model will
train more efficiently than GeppNet. GeppNet stores all previous training data and replays it along with the previous
data during a portion of its incremental learning step. GeppNet+STM also stores all previous and new training data;
however, each training example is only replayed if the model
is uncertain on the prediction. In addition, GeppNet+STM
is capable of making real-time predictions by determining
if the desired memory is in short-term memory (the memory
buffer) or in long-term storage (the SOM- and classificationlayers).
Fixed Expansion Layer FEL uses sparsity to mitigate
catastrophic forgetting (Coop, Mishtal, and Arel 2013).
FEL is a two hidden-layer MLP where the second hiddenlayer (FEL-layer) has a higher capacity than the first fullyconnected layer, but the weights are sparse and remain fixed
through training. Each FEL-layer unit is only connected to
a subset of the units in the first hidden layer, and these connections are split between excitatory and inhibitory weights.
Only a subset of the FEL-layer units are allowed to have
non-zero output to the final classification layer, which causes
only some of the units in the first hidden layer to be updated.

Experiments and Results
We have established three benchmark experiments for measuring catastrophic forgetting:
1. Data Permutation Experiment - The elements of every
feature vector are randomly permuted, with the permutation held constant within a session, but varying across sessions. The model is evaluated on its ability to recall data
learned in prior study sessions. Each session contains the
same number of examples.
2. Incremental Class Learning - After learning the base
set, each new session learned contains only a single class.
3. Multi-Modal Learning - The model incrementally learns
different datasets, e.g., learn image classification and then
audio classification.
For the data permutation and incremental class learning
experiments, each model was also evaluated on MNIST. The
goal is to examine whether results on MNIST generalize
to the real-world datasets. More results, including detailed
plots, can be found in the supplementary materials.

Evaluation Metrics
We propose three new metrics to evaluate a model’s ability
to retain prior sessions while still learning new knowledge,

Ωbase =

1 T αbase,i
∑ αideal
T − 1 i=2

(2)

Ωnew =

1 T
∑ αnew,i
T − 1 i=2

(3)

Ωall =

1 T αall,i
∑ αideal
T − 1 i=2

(4)

where T is the total number of sessions, αnew,i is the test accuracy for session i immediately after it is learned, αbase,i is
the test accuracy on the first session (base set) after i new
sessions have been learned, αall,i is the test accuracy of all
of the test data for the classes seen to this point, and αideal
is the offline MLP accuracy on the base set, which we assume is the ideal performance. Ωbase and Ωnew are normalized area under the curve metrics. Ωbase measures a model’s
retention of the first session, after learning in later study sessions. Ωnew measures the model’s ability to immediately recall new tasks. By normalizing Ωbase and Ωall by αideal , the
results will be easier to compare between datasets. Unless a
model exceeds αideal , results will be between [0, 1], which
enables comparison between datasets. Ωall computes how
well a model both retains prior knowledge and acquires new
information.

Experimental Results
Data Permutation Experiment This experiment evaluates a model’s ability to retain multiple representations of the
dataset, with each representation learned sequentially. These
representations are created by randomly permuting the elements of the input feature vectors, with the random permutation changing between sessions. An identically permuted
test set is used along with each session. This paradigm provides overlapping tasks in which each session contains the
same information and categories, so each session is of equal
complexity. This paradigm is identical to that used by Goodfellow et al. (2013) and Kirkpatrick et al. (2017).
Results are given in Table 2. In nearly every case, Ωall is
greater for MNIST than on CUB-200 or AudioSet, demonstrating the need for alternative incremental learning benchmarks. To some extent, EWC, PathNet, GeppNet, and GeppNet+STM retain prior knowledge without forgetting; however, GeppNet and GeppNet+STM fail to learn new sessions. PathNet and EWC seem to retain base knowledge
while still learning new information; however, PathNet performs better on AudioSet and MNIST, while EWC performs
better on CUB-200 (see discussion).
Incremental Class Learning In the incremental class
learning experiment, a model’s ability to sequentially learn
new classes is tested. The first session learned contains training data from half of the classes in each dataset: 5 for
MNIST, 100 for CUB-200, and 50 for AudioSet. Once this
base set was learned, each subsequent session contained
training data from a single new class. We measure meanper-class accuracy on the base set after each new class is
learned to assess a model’s long-term memory. We also calculate the accuracy of each class after it is trained to ensure

Model

Dataset

Data Permutation
Ωbase Ωnew
Ωall

Incremental Class
Ωbase Ωnew
Ωall

Multi-Modal
Ωbase Ωnew
Ωall

Memory
Constraints

Model
Size (MB)

MLP

MNIST
CUB
AS

0.434
0.488
0.186

0.996
0.917
0.957

0.702
0.635
0.446

0.060
0.020
0.016

1.000
1.000
1.000

0.181
0.031
0.044

N/A
0.327
0.197

N/A
0.412
0.609

N/A
0.610
0.589

Fixed-size

1.91
4.24
2.85

EWC

MNIST
CUB
AS

0.437
0.765
0.129

0.992
0.869
0.687

0.746
0.762
0.251

0.001
0.105
0.021

1.000
0.000
0.580

0.133
0.094
0.034

N/A
0.944
1.000

N/A
0.369
0.588

N/A
0.872
0.984

Fixed-size

3.83
8.48
5.70

PathNet

MNIST
CUB
AS

0.687
0.538
0.414

0.887
0.701
0.750

0.848
0.655
0.615

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
0.908
0.069

N/A
0.376
0.540

N/A
0.862
0.469

New output
layer for
each task

2.80
7.46
4.68

GeppNet

MNIST
CUB
AS

0.912
0.606
0.897

0.242
0.029
0.170

0.364
0.145
0.343

0.960
0.628
0.984

0.824
0.640
0.458

0.922
0.585
0.947

N/A
0.156
0.913

N/A
0.010
0.005

N/A
0.089
0.461

Stores all
training
data

190.08
53.48
150.38

GeppNet+STM

MNIST
CUB
AS

0.892
0.615
0.820

0.212
0.020
0.041

0.326
0.142
0.219

0.919
0.727
1.007

0.599
0.232
0.355

0.824
0.626
0.920

N/A
0.031
0.829

N/A
0.329
0.005

N/A
0.026
0.418

Stores all
training
data

191.02
55.94
151.92

FEL

MNIST
CUB
AS

0.117
0.043
0.081

0.990
0.764
0.848

0.279
0.184
0.239

0.451
0.316
0.283

1.000
1.000
1.000

0.439
0.361
0.240

N/A
0.110
0.473

N/A
0.329
0.320

N/A
0.412
0.494

Fixed-size

4.54
6.16
6.06

Table 2: Results on MNIST, CUB-200 (CUB), and AudioSet (AS) for our evaluation metrics as well as model size (in MB) for
each model/dataset combination.
the model is still learning, and we calculate the performance
of all previously learned classes.
PathNet is incapable of learning new classes incrementally because it creates a separate output layer for each additional session. Accessing that output layer during prediction time requires a priori information on which session the
model needs to access. This means PathNet requires the testing label to make the appropriate prediction, which would
result in a misleading high test accuracy. For this reason, we
omitted PathNet from this experiment.
Results are summarized in Table 2 and Fig. 2 contains
plots for the mean-per-class test accuracy for all classes seen
so far. The only models that were able to both retain the
base knowledge and learn new classes were GeppNet, GeppNet+STM, and FEL, with the clear winner being GeppNet.
Much like the data permutation experiment, the CUB-200
and AudioSet results were noticeably lower than the MNIST
results. GeppNet+STM did well at retaining the base set, but
it struggled to learn new classes on CUB-200 and AudioSet.
This could be because the model only trains during sleep
for efficiency reasons. Additionally, the short-term memory
buffer is emptied after training each study session, which is
when the model is evaluated. This type of model could work
better in a real-time environment. FEL learned new classes
well, but suffered from forgetting of the base set. FEL may
benefit from larger model capacity, but this would require
more memory/processing power.
Multi-Modal Experiment The goal of the multi-modal
experiment is to determine if a network can learn and retain multiple dissimilar tasks that have 1) inputs with different dimensionality and feature distributions and 2) a different number of classes. A system like this could be useful

for learning tasks that have multi-modal data using a single
network and could be more efficient than building a separate neural network for each modality (e.g., video has visual and audio information). In this experiment, we evaluated each model’s ability to perform image and audio classification with CUB-200 and AudioSet respectively. In this experiment, there are only two incrementally learned sessions,
where each session contains AudioSet or CUB-200. We
compare learning AudioSet first then CUB-200 (AS/CUB)
and learning CUB then AudioSet (CUB/AS).
The ResNet features obtained from CUB-200 have a
higher dimensionality than the AudioSet features, so we
zero-padded the AudioSet input to match the dimensionality of CUB-200. This experiment is done by training one
dataset to completion followed by training the other dataset
to completion (and vice-versa). Once both modalities have
been trained, we evaluate the first modality that was trained
in order to measure how well the model was able to retain
what it learned about the first task.
Table 2 shows summary results for the multi-modal experiment, where the corresponding row is the modality that was
trained first, i.e. the row for CUB-200 is where CUB-200 is
learned first followed by AudioSet. Additional results are in
supplementary materials. Although several models perform
well at one of the two experiments, EWC is the only model
capable of preserving the first modality while also learning
the second modality for both cases, which we explore further
in the discussion.

Discussion
In our paper we introduced new metrics and benchmarks
for measuring catastrophic forgetting. Our results reveal that
none of the methods we tested solve catastrophic forgetting,

60

60
50
40
30

40

30

0
50

0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

10

40

10

10

Number of Classes Trained

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

50

20

20

20
0

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

70

Accuracy (%) for Classes
Trained on so Far

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

80

Accuracy (%) for Classes
Trained on so Far

Accuracy (%) for Classes
Trained on so Far

100

Number of Classes Trained

(a) MNIST

(b) CUB-200

60

70

80

90

Number of Classes Trained

100

(c) AudioSet

Figure 2: Results for incremental class learning experiment. This shows the mean-class test accuracy for all classes seen so far.

Model

Data
Permutation

Incremental
Class

Multi-Modal

Model

Data
Permutation

Incremental
Class

MLP
EWC
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet+STM
FEL

0.594
0.586
0.706
0.284
0.229
0.234

0.085
0.087
N/A
0.818
0.790
0.347

0.600
0.913
0.666
0.275
0.222
0.453

MLP
EWC
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet+STM
FEL

16
16
1,385
507
179
53

15
13
N/A
1,123
410
8

Table 3: Summary of Experimental Results. Average of Ωall
over MNIST, CUB-200, and AudioSet results.

Table 4: Training time (minutes) for each model on CUB200.

while also enabling the learning of new information. Table
3 summarizes these results for each of our experiments by
averaging Ωall over all datasets. While no method excels at
incremental learning, some perform better than others.
PathNet performed best overall on the data permutation experiments, with the exception of CUB-200. However, PathNet requires being told which session each test
instance is from, whereas the other models do not use this
information. This may give it an unfair advantage. PathNet works by locking the optimal path for a given session.
Because permuting the data does not reduce feature overlap, the model requires more trainable weights (less feature
sharing) to build a discriminative model, causing PathNet
to saturate (freeze all weights) more quickly. When PathNet reaches the saturation point, the only trainable parameters are in the output layer. While EWC was the second best
performing method in the permutation experiments, it only
redirects plasticity instead of freezing trainable weights.
Both GeppNet variants performed best at incremental
class learning. These models make slow, gradual changes
to the network that are inspired by memory consolidation
during sleep. For these models, the SOM-layer was fixed to
23 × 23 to have the same number of trainable parameters as
the other models. With 100-200 classes, this corresponds to
2-5 hidden layer neurons per class respectively. The experiments on MNIST in Gepperth and Karaoguz (2016) used 90
hidden-layer neurons per class, so their performance may
improve if their model capacity was significantly increased,
but this would demand more memory and computation.
EWC performed best on the multi-modal experiment.
This may be because features between the two modalities
are non-redundant. We hypothesize that EWC is a better

choice for separating non-redundant data and PathNet may
work well when working with data that has different, but
not entirely dissimilar, representations. To explore this, we
used the Fast Correlation Based Filter proposed by Yu and
Liu (2003) to show the features in MNIST and AudioSet are
more redundant than those in CUB-200 (see supplemental
material). The performance of EWC and PathNet for both
the data permutation and multi-modal experiments are consistent with this hypothesis.
Table 2 shows the memory constraints and usage of each
model. While we kept the number of trainable parameters
roughly the same across all models in their hidden layers,
some require additional memory resources. PathNet generates a new output layer for each session. Both GeppNet variants store all training data and rehearse over it during their
incremental learning stage. The creators of EWC stored validation data from all previous sessions and used it to minimize forgetting when learning a new session. This was not
done in our experiments to fairly compare it to the other
models, which only had access to validation data for the current session.
Table 4 shows the total time to train each model for the
data permutation and incremental class learning experiments
using CUB-200. Both variants of GeppNet are orders of
magnitude slower because they train the model one sample
at a time. PathNet is also very slow at the data permutation
task because the optimal path through a large DCNN needs
to be found for each permutation. The fixed-size models are
noticeably faster; however, only EWC was effective at mitigating catastrophic forgetting (in the data permutation and
multi-modal experiments).
In general, models that expand as a function of the num-

MLP
EWC
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet+STM
FEL

In
cr
em
e
Si
m n ta
lC
ila
D r D las
iss
s
a
i m ta
i
la
M
em r D
at
or
a
y
Tr
E
ai
f
fic
ns
ie
Q
ui nt
ck
ly

Model

✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✗

✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗

✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗

✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗

✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓

Table 5: Summary of the optimal performer on the incremental class learning, data permutation (Similar Data), and
multi-modal (Dissimilar Data) experiments, as well as the
memory/computational efficiency of each model.

ber of sessions and those that are allowed to store data
from prior sessions may have limited real-world application.
In our opinion, methods for mitigating catastrophic forgetting should have the amount of total memory they use constrained. While our summary statistics did not take this into
account, it is an important factor in deploying a method that
learns incrementally. This is the reason we chose to keep the
number of trainable parameters fixed across all models.
An alternative would have been to tune the number of
trainable parameters in each model for each experiment,
which is what we did for the data permutation and incremental class learning experiments as well (see Supplemental Materials for details). Although in most cases the base
performance increased, there were no changes to any of
our conclusions on which model/mechanism yielded superior performance. The one interesting thing we did observe
is that the sparsity model (i.e. FEL) can sometimes improve significantly; however, the cost is a 40x increase in
the models memory footprint. This reinforces our claim that
a model that only uses the sparsity mechanism to mitigate
catastrophic forgetting may not be ideal in a deployed environment. We urge future incremental learning algorithm
creators to take memory footprint into account, especially
when comparing to other models.
Our metrics could be expanded to other training
paradigms such as reinforcement learning, unsupervised
learning, etc. In reinforcement learning, the agent learns an
initial study-session (e.g. an ATARI game), which represents
the base knowledge. We would track the performance of the
base-knowledge as the model learns additional games and
ensure that the model is learning new games as well. The
main difference is that the performance metrics would be
normalized by the maximum performance for each studysession when the model only has to learn that single study
session. In unsupervised learning, we could follow the experiments performed by (Draelos et al. 2016) where the metrics would be the same, but we would train the models using
a different loss function (e.g. reconstruction error).

Conclusion
In this paper, we developed new metrics for evaluating catastrophic forgetting. We identified five families of mechanisms for mitigating catastrophic forgetting in DNNs. We
found that performance on MNIST was significantly better
than on the larger datasets we used. Using our new metrics, experimental results (summarized in Table 5) show that
1) a combination of rehearsal/pseudo-rehearsal and dualmemory systems are optimal for learning new classes incrementally, and 2) regularization and ensembling are best at
separating multiple dissimilar sessions in a common DNN
framework. Although the rehearsal system performed reasonably well, it required retaining all training data for replay.
This type of system may not be scalable for a real-world lifelong learning system; however, it does indicate that models
that use pseudorehearsal could be a viable option for realtime incremental learning systems. Future work on lifelong
learning frameworks should involve combinations of these
mechanisms. While some models perform better than others
in different scenarios, our work shows that catastrophic forgetting is not solved by any single method. This is because
there is no model that is capable of assimilating new information while simultaneously and efficiently preserving the
old. We urge the community to use larger datasets in future
work.

Acknowledgements
A. Abitino was supported by NSF Research Experiences
for Undergraduates (REU) award #1359361 to R. Dube. We
thank NVIDIA for the generous donation of a Titan X GPU.

References
Abraham, W. C., and Robins, A. 2005. Memory retention–
the synaptic stability versus plasticity dilemma. Trends in
Neurosciences 28(2):73–78.
Abu-El-Haija, S.; Kothari, N.; Lee, J.; et al.
2016.
Youtube-8m: A large-scale video classification benchmark.
arXiv:1609.08675.
Coop, R.; Mishtal, A.; and Arel, I. 2013. Ensemble learning
in fixed expansion layer networks for mitigating catastrophic
forgetting. IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks and Learning
Systems 24(10):1623–1634.
Dai, W.; Yang, Q.; Xue, G.-R.; and Yu, Y. 2007. Boosting
for transfer learning. In ICML, 193–200. ACM.
Draelos, T. J.; Miner, N. E.; Lamb, C. C.; Vineyard, C. M.;
Carlson, K. D.; James, C. D.; and Aimone, J. B. 2016. Neurogenesis deep learning. arXiv:1612.03770.
Eich, J. M. 1982. A composite holographic associative recall
model. Psych. Review 89(6):627.
Fernando, C.; Banarse, D.; Blundell, C.; Zwols, Y.; Ha, D.;
Rusu, A. A.; Pritzel, A.; and Wierstra, D. 2017. Pathnet: Evolution channels gradient descent in super neural networks. arXiv:1701.08734.
French, R. M. 1997. Pseudo-recurrent connectionist networks: An approach to the ‘sensitivity-stability’ dilemma.
Connection Science 9(4):353–380.
French, R. M. 1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist
networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(4):128–135.
Gemmeke, J. F.; Ellis, D. P. W.; Freedman, D.; Jansen, A.;
Lawrence, W.; Moore, R. C.; Plakal, M.; and Ritter, M.
2017. Audio set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset
for audio events. In ICASSP.
Gepperth, A., and Karaoguz, C. 2016. A bio-inspired incremental learning architecture for applied perceptual problems. Cognitive Computation 8(5):924–934.
Goodfellow, I. J.; Mirza, M.; Xiao, D.; Courville, A.;
and Bengio, Y. 2013. An empirical investigation of
catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks.
arXiv:1312.6211.
Goodrich, B., and Arel, I. 2014. Unsupervised neuron selection for mitigating catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. In IEEE 57th Int. Midwest Symposium on Circuits
and Systems (MWSCAS), 2014, 997–1000. IEEE.
He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual
learning for image recognition. In CVPR, 770–778.
Hershey, S.; Chaudhuri, S.; Ellis, D. P.; et al. 2017. Cnn
architectures for large-scale audio classification. In ICASSP.
Hinton, G. E., and Plaut, D. C. 1987. Using fast weights to
deblur old memories. In Proc. of the Ninth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 177–186.
Kafle, K., and Kanan, C. 2017. Visual question answering: Datasets, algorithms, and future challenges. Computer
Vision and Image Understanding.
Kanerva, P. 1988. Sparse distributed memory. MIT press.

Khilari, P., and Bhope, V. 2015. A review on speech to
text conversion methods. Int. J. of Advanced Research in
Computer Engineering and Technology 4:3067–3072.
Kirkpatrick, J.; Pascanu, R.; Rabinowitz, N.; Veness, J.;
et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences
201611835.
Kruschke, J. K. 1992. Alcove: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psych. review 99(1):22.
Long, J.; Shelhamer, E.; and Darrell, T. 2015. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR,
3431–3440.
McCloskey, M., and Cohen, N. J. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning
problem. Psych. of Learning & Motivation 24:109–165.
Mnih, V.; Kavukcuoglu, K.; Silver, D.; Graves, A.;
Antonoglou, I.; Wierstra, D.; and Riedmiller, M. 2013. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. In NIPS Deep
Learning Workshop.
Murdock, B. B. 1983. A distributed memory model for
serial-order information. Psych. Review 90(4):316.
Murre, J. M. 2014. Learning and categorization in modular
neural networks. Psych. Press.
Polikar, R.; Upda, L.; Upda, S. S.; and Honavar, V. 2001.
Learn++: An incremental learning algorithm for supervised
neural networks. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 31(4):497–508.
Ren, B.; Wang, H.; Li, J.; and Gao, H. 2017. Life-long
learning based on dynamic combination model. Applied Soft
Computing 56:398–404.
Robins, A. 1995. Catastrophic forgetting, rehearsal and
pseudorehearsal. Connection Science 7(2):123–146.
Russakovsky, O.; Deng, J.; Su, H.; Krause, J.; Satheesh, S.;
Ma, S.; Huang, Z.; Karpathy, A.; Khosla, A.; Bernstein, M.;
et al. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. IJCV 115(3):211–252.
Schroff, F.; Kalenichenko, D.; and Philbin, J. 2015. Facenet:
A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In
CVPR, 815–823.
Sharkey, N. E., and Sharkey, A. J. 1995. An analysis of
catastrophic interference. Connection Science 7:301–329.
Soltoggio, A.; Stanley, K. O.; and Risi, S. 2017. Born to
learn: the inspiration, progress, and future of evolved plastic
artificial neural networks. arXiv:1703.10371.
Triki, A. R.; Aljundi, R.; Blaschko, M. B.; and Tuytelaars, T.
2017. Encoder based lifelong learning. arXiv:1704.01920.
Wah, C.; Branson, S.; Welinder, P.; Perona, P.; and Belongie,
S. 2011. The caltech-ucsd birds-200-2011 dataset. Tech
Report: CNS-TR-2011-001.
Wang, H.; Fan, W.; Yu, P. S.; and Han, J. 2003. Mining concept-drifting data streams using ensemble classifiers.
226–235. ACM.
Yu, L., and Liu, H. 2003. Feature selection for highdimensional data: A fast correlation-based filter solution. In
ICML, 856–863.

Training Parameters
Training Parameter

Value

Units per Layer
Hidden Layers
Mini-Batch Size
Hidden-Layer Activation
Optimizer
Initial Learning Rate
Convergence Criteria

400
2
256
ReLU
Nadam
8e-4
Early-Stopping

Table S1: Training parameters for the MLP baseline model

Training Parameter

Value

Units per Layer
Hidden Layers
Mini-Batch Size
Hidden-Layer Activation
Optimizer
Initial Learning Rate
Convergence Criteria

400
2
250
ReLU
Adam
2e-4
Early Stopping

Table S2: Training parameters for the EWC model

Training Parameter

Value

Layers (L)
Modules (M)
Modules per Layer (N)
Units per Module
Mini-Batch Size
Hidden Layer Activation
Optimizer
Initial Learning Rate
Convergence Criteria

2
10
5
80
16
ReLU
Adam
2e-3
Early Stopping

Table S3: Training parameters for the PathNet model.

Training Parameter

Value

SOM Shape
Mini-Batch Size
Hidden-Layer Activation
Initial SOM Learning Rate
MLP Learning Rate
Modulation Threshold (θminc )

23x23
1
Custom
0.1
1e-3
0.5
80,000 iterations (Base)
20,000 iterations (Incremental)

Convergence Criteria

Table S4: Training parameters for the GeppNet and GeppNet+STM models.

Training Parameter

Value

Hidden Layer Units

400
1200 (CUB-200)
2000 (AudioSet)
1200 (Multi-modal experiment)
256
Adam
2e-2
Early Stopping

FEL Layer Neurons
Mini-Batch Size
Optimizer
Initial Learning Rate
Convergence Criteria

Table S5: Training parameters for the FEL model.

Reproduction Validation Experiments
In the following section we have documented our results
from our reproduction of some of the experiments previously done with each of these models. PathNet is not included in this section because we were able to get the model
directly from Fernando et al. (2017).
Fig. S1 demonstrates the results for our implementation of
EWC from the MNIST experiment proposed by Kirkpatrick
et al. (2017). Unlike the training methodology employed in
our main paper, for the reproduction, we used the validation
data from previous permutations to help retain previously
trained tasks which is consistent with the original implementation of EWC. The results show the mean test accuracy across all permuted datasets seen so far. We performed
a grid search across the hyperparameters (hidden layer size
and learning rate) listed in the paper. Our model performs
similarly to the one in Kirkpatrick et al. (2017).
100.0

Average Accuracy Across
All Permutations (%)

Supplemental Material

97.5

95.0

92.5

90.0

87.5

85.0

82.5

80.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Number of Permutations Trained

8

9

Figure S1: Our results for EWC on the MNIST experiment
created by Kirkpatrick et al. (2017).
Table S6 contains results from our GeppNet and GeppNet+STM model verification experiment. Each test “IncX” involves training the base with every class except for
“X” and then adding Class “X” incrementally. Gepperth and
Karaoguz (2016) do not list specific percentages for each
test, but the results in Table S6 are similar to the author’s.
The three reported metrics, in order, include the accuracy of
the base prior to the incremental training step, the accuracy
of the new class after the incremental training step, and the
overall accuracy of all test data after the incremental training
step.

Base

Accuracy
New Class

Overall

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

92.9
92.4

93.2
83.2

92.6
90.4

Inc-1

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

92.9
93.1

97.8
97.0

93.3
93.1

Inc-2

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

93.3
92.9

81.8
84.0

92.0
90.4

Inc-3

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

93.9
94.1

80.6
55.6

91.9
88.8

Inc-4

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

94.1
93.6

72.0
94.5

90.6
85.3

Inc-5

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

94.1
93.9

74.0
62.0

91.5
89.8

Inc-6

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

93.1
92.7

93.0
89.9

92.9
91.4

Inc-7

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

93.7
92.7

83.9
77.4

92.2
85.4

Inc-8

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

94.5
94.0

73.6
74.7

92.1
90.4

Inc-9

GeppNet
GeppNet+STM

94.8
94.6

74.0
55.0

91.0
89.6

Test

Model

Inc-0

Table S6: Tests to verify that GeppNet and GeppNet+STM
were correctly implemented. These tests use the parameters
and training strategy from Gepperth and Karaoguz (2016).
Table S7 shows the results from the FEL verification experiment. We reproduced the non-stationary MNIST classification task with all ten digits proposed by Coop, Mishtal,
and Arel (2013). Complete reproducibility was difficult because the authors do not state the learning rate or number of
epochs for training, but the results are still comparable.
Non-Stationary
Percentage

FEL Network
Performance

0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00

86.2
67.9
55.2
46.7
46.2

Table S7: Tests to verify that FEL was correctly implemented. Tests match parameters and training strategy from
Coop, Mishtal, and Arel (2013).

Plots and Tables for Experimental Results
In this section we provide plots and tables demonstrating
the performance of the various models on the data permutation, incremental class learning, and multi-modal experiments. Additionally, we provide a comparison of results on
the MNIST dataset to results on the harder CUB-200 and
AudioSet datasets.

Data Permutation Experiment Fig. S2 shows the results
of the data permutation experiment on the MNIST, CUB200, and AudioSet datasets. The first column of Fig. S2
shows the performance of the first session (original data) as
the network learns new permutations and the second column
of Fig. S2 shows the performance of the current permutation
to demonstrate that the network is still learning new information. Although GeppNet and GeppNet+STM appear to be
retaining the original task, they do not appear to be acquiring
new information.
While performance is worse for all models on the CUB200 and AudioSet datasets than on MNIST (See Fig. S2
and Table 2), some models exhibit similar trends in behavior independent of the dataset. In particular, GeppNet and
GeppNet+STM retain the original data, but are unable to
learn new information for both the CUB-200 and AudioSet
datasets, which is similar to the behavior they exhibited on
MNIST. In addition, FEL is prone to catastrophically forgetting the original data while maintaining the ability to learn
new information, with worse performance than the MLP for
learning new information on all three datasets.
While EWC and PathNet have the best overall performance, both models perform worse on the CUB-200 and
AudioSet datasets than on MNIST. Although PathNet is
able to retain some knowledge of the original data while
still maintaining the ability to learn new information on
the CUB-200 and AudioSet datasets, its retention accuracy
and newly trained task accuracy are much lower than in the
MNIST experiments. Additionally, the EWC and MLP models exhibit similar behavior to one another on AudioSet with
both models catastrophically forgetting the original data,
while still maintaining some ability to learn new information.
For the permutation task on the CUB-200 dataset, EWC
performs the best, with similar trends to its performance on
MNIST. With many of the models yielding significantly different trends and worse overall performance for the permutation task on the CUB-200 and AudioSet, it is important
to consider scalability to large datasets before choosing a
model for an incremental learning based task.
Incremental Class Learning Experiment Fig. S3 shows
the results of the incremental class learning experiment.
Similar to the permutation task, results for the incremental
class learning experiment (See Fig. S3 and Table 2) on the
CUB-200 and AudioSet are much worse than on MNIST.
Overall, MLP and EWC do not perform well for the incremental task and GeppNet, GeppNet+STM, and FEL perform
the best on all three datasets, with significantly better results
on the MNIST dataset. Both GeppNet and GeppNet+STM
are capable of retaining prior knowledge while also learning new classes; however, GeppNet performs better since it
trains for every iteration (instead of only during the sleep
phase).
Multi-Modal Experiment Table S8 shows the results for
the multi-modal experiment. The results indicate that EWC
performs the best for this task, which is consistent with the
results presented in Table 2.

EWC
FEL
MLP
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM

80
60
40
20
00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

100

Most Recent Permutation
Accuracy (%)

First Permutation
Accuracy (%)

100

EWC
FEL
MLP
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM

80
60
40
20
00

9

Number of Permutations Trained

(a) First Permutation - MNIST

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Number of Permutations Trained

First Permutation
Accuracy (%)

40
30

EWC
FEL
MLP
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM

60

Most Recent Permutation
Accuracy (%)

EWC
FEL
MLP
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM

50

50
40
30

20

20

10

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

00

9

Number of Permutations Trained

(c) First Permutation - CUB-200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Number of Permutations Trained

(d) Most Recent Permutation - CUB-200
EWC
FEL
MLP
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM

First Permutation
Accuracy (%)

40
30

50

EWC
FEL
MLP
PathNet
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM

Most Recent Permutation
Accuracy (%)

50

40
30
20

20

10

10
00

2

(b) Most Recent Permutation - MNIST

60

00

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

00

9

Number of Permutations Trained

(e) First Permutation - AudioSet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Number of Permutations Trained

(f) Most Recent Permutation - AudioSet

Figure S2: Data Permutation experiment for MNIST, CUB-200, and AudioSet. The first column shows the performance of the
original task as new tasks are learned and the second column shows the performance of the most recent permutation.

Fast Correlation Based Filter
H (X) = − ∑ P (xi ) log2 (P (xi ))
In this paper, we used the Fast Correlation Based Filter
(FCBF) to measure feature redundancy in each dataset (Yu
and Liu 2003). FCBF uses symmetric uncertainty to measure the independence (inverse redundancy) between two
random variables X,Y . Symmetric uncertainty is defined in
Eq. 5 where H (X) is the entropy of X (Eq. 6), H (X|Y ) is the
entropy of X after observing Y (Eq. 7), and IG (X|Y ) is the
information gain between X and Y (Eq. 8).

SU (X,Y ) = 2 ·

IG (X|Y )
H (X) + H (Y )

(5)

(6)

i

H (X|Y ) = − ∑ P (y j ) ∑ P (xi |y j ) log2 (P (xi |y j ))
j

(7)

i

IG (X|Y ) = H (X) − H (X|Y )

(8)

Table S9 shows the total number of non-redundant features for each dataset along with the percentage of features
that are not redundant in each dataset. The results show that
the features in MNIST and AudioSet are noticeably more
redundant than the features found in CUB-200.

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

80
60
40
20
0

100

Accuracy (%) for Classes
Trained on so Far

Base Set Accuracy (%)

100

80
60
40
20
0

10

Number of Classes Trained On
(a) Base Set Accuracy for MNIST

Number of Classes Trained

10

(b) Overall Accuracy for MNIST

Base Set Accuracy (%)

60
50
40

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

70

Accuracy (%) for Classes
Trained on so Far

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

70

60
50
40
30

30

20

20

10

10

0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

Number of Classes Trained On

Number of Classes Trained

(c) Base Set Accuracy for CUB-200

(d) Overall Accuracy for CUB-200

Base Set Accuracy (%)

40
30

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

50

Accuracy (%) for Classes
Trained on so Far

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

50

40
30
20

20

10

10
0
50

EWC
FEL
MLP
GeppNet
GeppNet
+STM
Offline
Model

60

70

80

90

Number of Classes Trained On

100

(e) Base Set Accuracy for AudioSet

0
50

60

70

80

90

Number of Classes Trained

100

(f) Overall Accuracy for AudioSet

Figure S3: The results from the incremental learning experiment for MNIST, CUB-200, and AudioSet. The results are the
mean-per-class accuracy of each model for the entire testing set over time. The first column shows the base set accuracy and
the second column shows the overall accuracy. The dashed line shows the performance of the offline MLP.
Figure S4 is a visualization of these results, where we
show the symmetric uncertainty matrix for each dataset. The
results are a F × F matrix where F is the dimensionality of
the feature vector (e.g. CUB-200 is 2048). The bright areas represent features that are strongly correlated with one
another (they are more redundant). The results show significant feature overlap in MNIST which is expected since it
is a gray-scale image with zero values in the background.
AudioSet also has sub-diagonals across the matrix which
correspond to highly correlated features that repeat over
some interval. Each AudioSet sample consists of ten 128dimensional sub-vectors that are concatenated together to
form a single vector. Each sub-vector is the feature repre-

sentation of the audio signal for a single second. Since the
sounds repeat across the entire ten seconds, the corresponding features are strongly correlated in those locations. The
CUB-200 features appear to not be strongly correlated. This
is probably because each sample is the ResNet-50 feature
representation which is highly discriminative.

Ideal Model
Table S10 show the experimental results when the model
capacity is not constrained; that is, we performed a hyperparameter search to find the best model for each model/dataset
combination. The base results are a bit higher than the results
where we constrained the model capacity (Table 2), but the

Accuracy
Initial
Final
MLP

CUB/AS
AS/CUB

61.8 / 41.2
47.7 / 60.9

20.3 / 41.2
9.1 / 60.9

EWC

CUB/AS
AS/CUB

64.3 / 36.9
47.4 / 58.8

58.6 / 36.9
47.1 / 58.8

PathNet

CUB/AS
AS/CUB

59.2 / 37.6
44.7 / 54.0

56.4 / 37.6
3.2 / 54.0

GeppNet

CUB/AS
AS/CUB

38.3 / 1.0
41.8 / 0.5

9.7 / 1.0
42.1/ 0.5

GeppNet+STM

CUB/AS
AS/CUB

36.9 / 1.0
40.1 / 0.5

1.9 / 1.0
38.2 / 0.5

FEL

CUB/AS
AS/CUB

40.5 / 32.9
33.8 / 32.0

6.8 / 32.9
21.8 / 32.0

Table S8: Results from Multi-Modal Experiment. AS denotes
AudioSet. For each experiment, “A/B” indicates where task
A is trained first followed by the training of task B. Initial
Accuracy is the performance for tasks A/B immediately after each are trained. Final Accuracy is the performance for
each task after both tasks are trained.
Dataset

Non-Redundant
Features

Percentage of
Total Features

MNIST
AudioSet
CUB-200

39
129
450

5.0%
10.1%
22.0%

(a) MNIST

Table S9: Non-redundant features in MNIST, AudioSet, and
CUB-200 datasets. This was determined using the Fast Correlation Based Filter algorithm.
main conclusions remain the same.

(b) CUB-200

(c) AudioSet

Figure S4: Symmetric uncertainty coefficients for all three
datasets.

Data Permutation
Ωbase Ωnew
Ωall

Incremental Class
Ωbase Ωnew
Ωall

CUB
AS

0.449
0.336

0.936
0.950

0.619
0.578

0.000
0.025

0.640
1.000

EWC

CUB
AS

0.426
0.118

0.830
0.459

0.525
0.182

0.362
0.249

PathNet

CUB
AS

0.538
0.414

0.701
0.750

0.655
0.615

GeppNet

CUB
AS

0.571
0.877

0.112
0.238

GeppNet+STM

CUB
AS

0.610
0.857

FEL

CUB
AS

0.575
0.191

Model

Dataset

MLP

Memory
Constraints

Model
Size (MB)

0.011
0.050

Fixed-size

36.54
4.44

0.010
0.000

0.302
0.213

Fixed-size

13.19
4.41

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

New output layer
for each task

7.46
4.68

0.167
0.346

0.758
1.024

0.558
0.495

0.675
0.972

Stores all
training data

58.33
153.12

0.014
0.125

0.137
0.272

0.803
1.025

0.217
0.372

0.686
0.942

Stores all
training data

59.77
153.94

0.880
0.853

0.732
0.444

0.735
0.595

0.976
0.999

0.672
0.541

Fixed-size

209.06
247.07

Table S10: Results on CUB-200 (CUB) and AudioSet (AS) for our evaluation metrics as well as model size (in MB) for
each model/dataset combination. In these experiments, we optimized the model capacity and other hyperparameters for each
model/dataset combination.

