user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Generative Models from the perspective of Continual Learning

Paper content:
Which generative model is the most suitable for Continual Learning?
This paper aims at evaluating and comparing generative models on disjoint sequential image generation tasks.
We investigate how several models learn and forget, considering various strategies: rehearsal, regularization, generative replay and fine-tuning.
We used two quantitative metrics to estimate the generation quality and memory ability.
We experiment with sequential tasks on three commonly used benchmarks for Continual Learning (MNIST, Fashion MNIST and CIFAR10).
We found that among all models, the original GAN performs best and among Continual Learning strategies, generative replay outperforms all other methods.
Even if we found satisfactory combinations on MNIST and Fashion MNIST, training generative models sequentially on CIFAR10 is particularly instable, and remains a challenge.
Learning in a continual fashion is a key aspect for cognitive development among biological species BID4 .
In Machine Learning, such learning scenario has been formalized as a Continual Learning (CL) setting BID30 BID21 BID27 BID29 BID26 .
The goal of CL is to learn from a data distribution that change over time without forgetting crucial information.
Unfortunately, neural networks trained with backpropagation are unable to retain previously learned information when the data distribution change, an infamous problem called "catastrophic forgetting" BID6 .
Successful attempts at CL with neural networks have to overcome the inexorable forgetting happening when tasks change.In this paper, we focus on generative models in Continual Learning scenarios.
Previous work on CL has mainly focused on classification tasks BID14 BID23 BID29 BID26 .
Traditional approaches are regularization, rehearsal and architectural strategies, as described in Section 2.
However, discriminative and generative models strongly differ in their architecture and learning objective.
Several methods developed for discriminative models are thus not directly extendable to the generative setting.
Moreover, successful CL strategies for generative models can be used, via sample generation as detailed in the next section, to continually train discriminative models.
Hence, studying the viability and success/failure modes of CL strategies for generative models is an important step towards a better understanding of generative models and Continual Learning in general.We conduct a comparative study of generative models with different CL strategies.
In our experiments, we sequentially learn generation tasks.
We perform ten disjoint tasks, using commonly used benchmarks for CL: MNIST (LeCun et al., 1998) , Fashion MNIST BID34 and CIFAR10 BID15 .
In each task, the model gets a training set from one new class, and should learn to generate data from this class without forgetting what it learned in previous tasks, see Fig. 1 for an example with tasks on MNIST.We evaluate several generative models: Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), their conditional variant (CVAE ans CGAN), Wasserstein GANs (WGANs) and Figure 1 : The disjoint setting considered.
At task i the training set includes images belonging to category i, and the task is to generate samples from all previously seen categories.
Here MNIST is used as a visual example,but we experiment in the same way Fashion MNIST and CIFAR10.Wasserstein GANs Gradient Penalty (WGAN-GP).
We compare results on approaches taken from CL in a classification setting: finetuning, rehearsal, regularization and generative replay.
Generative replay consists in using generated samples to maintain knowledge from previous tasks.
All CL approaches are applicable to both variational and adversarial frameworks.
We evaluate with two quantitative metrics, Fréchet Inception Distance BID10 and Fitting Capacity BID17 , as well as visualization.
Also, we discuss the data availability and scalability of CL strategies.
Besides the quantitative results and visual evaluation of the generated samples, the evaluated strategies have, by design, specific characteristics relevant to CL that we discuss here.Rehearsal violates the data availability assumption, often required in CL scenarios, by recording part of the samples.
Furthermore the risk of overfitting is high when only few samples represent a task, as shown in the CIFAR10 results.
EWC and Generative Replay respect this assumption.
EWC has the advantage of not requiring any computational overload during training, but this comes at the cost of computing the Fisher information matrix, and storing its values as well as a copy of previous parameters.
The memory needed for EWC to save information from the past is twice the size of the model which may be expensive in comparison to rehearsal methods.
Nevertheless, with Rehearsal and Generative Replay, the model has more and more samples to learn from at each new task, which makes training more costly.Another point we discuss is about a recently proposed metric BID32 to evaluate CL for generative models.
Their evaluation is defined for conditional generative models.
For a given label l, they sample images from the generator conditioned on l and feed it to a pre-trained classifier.If the predicted label of the classifier matches l, then it is considered correct.
In our experiment we find that it gives a clear advantage to rehearsal methods.
As the generator may overfit the few samples kept in memory, it can maximizes the evaluation proposed by BID33 , while not producing diverse samples.
We present this phenomenon with our experiments in appendix D. Nevertheless, even if their metric is unable to detect mode collapse or overfitting, it can efficiently expose catastrophic forgetting in conditional models.
In this paper, we experimented with the viability and effectiveness of generative models on Continual Learning (CL) settings.
We evaluated the considered approaches on commonly used datasets for CL, with two quantitative metrics.
Our experiments indicate that on MNIST and Fashion MNIST, the original GAN combined to the Generative Replay method is particularly effective.
This method avoids catastrophic forgetting by using the generator as a memory to sample from the previous tasks and hence maintain past knowledge.
Furthermore, we shed light on how generative models can learn continually with various methods and present successful combinations.
We also reveal that generative models do not perform well enough on CIFAR10 to learn continually.
Since generation errors accumulate, they are not usable in a continual setting.
The considered approaches have limitations: we rely on a setting where task boundaries are discrete and given by the user.
In future work, we plan to investigate automatic detection of tasks boundaries.
Another improvement would be to experiment with smoother transitions between tasks, rather than the disjoint tasks setting.A SAMPLES AT EACH STEP Figure 11: Reproduction of EWC experiment BID27 with four tasks.
First task with 0 and 1 digits, then digits of 2 for task 2, digits of 3 for task 3 etc.
When task contains only one class, the Fisher information matrix cannot capture the importance of the class-index input vector because it is always fixed to one class.
This problem makes the learning setting similar to a non-conditional models one which is known to not work BID27 .
As a consequence 0 and 1 are well protected when following classes are not.
Figure 16: WGAN-GP samples on CIFAR10, with on training for each separate category.
The implementation we used is available here: https://github.com/caogang/wgan-gp.
Classes, from 0 to 9, are planes, cars, birds, cats, deers, dogs, frogs, horses, ships and trucks.Figure 17: WGAN-GP samples on 10 sequential tasks on CIFAR10, with Generative Replay.
Classes, from 0 to 9, are planes, cars, birds, cats, deers, dogs, frogs, horses, ships and trucks.
We observe that generation errors snowballs as tasks are encountered, so that the images sampled after the last task are completely blurry.

assistant: text: A comparative study of generative models on Continual Learning scenarios.