PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Bridging the gap between offline and online continual learning

Yaqian Zhang, Eibe Frank, Bernhard Pfahringer, Albert Bifet

transfer & meta learningContinual LearningLifelong LearningOnline Continual LearningClass-incremental LearningTask-free Continual LearningOffline Continual Learning
89.30100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
81.30100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)
96.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — This work provides a theoretical framework to unify online and offline continual learning showing online CL leads to tighter generalization bound.

Abstract

Instead of training deep neural networks offline with a large static dataset, continual learning (CL) considers a new learning paradigm, which continually trains the deep networks from a non-stationary data stream on the fly. Despite the recent progress, continual learning remains an open challenge. Many CL techniques still require offline training of large batches of data chunks (i.e., tasks) over multiple epochs. Conventional wisdom holds that online continual learning, which assumes single-pass data, is strictly harder than offline continual learning, due to the combined challenges of catastrophic forgetting and underfitting within a single training epoch. Here, we challenge this assumption by empirically demonstrating that online CL can match or exceed the performance of its offline counterpart given equivalent memory and computational resources. This finding is further verified across different CL approaches and benchmarks. To better understand these counterintuitive experimental findings, we design a framework to unify and interpolate between online and offline CL and provide a theoretical analysis showing that online CL can yield a tighter generalization bound than offline CL.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 44 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 61% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 44)