Paper:
Most of the artificial neural networks are using the benefit of labeled datasets whereas in human brain, the learning is often unsupervised. The feedback or a label for a given input or a sensory stimuli is not often available instantly. After some time when brain gets the feedback, it updates its knowledge. That's how brain learns. Moreover, there is no training or testing phase. Human learns continually. This work proposes a model-agnostic continual learning framework which can be used with neural networks as well as decision trees to incorporate continual learning. Specifically, this work investigates how delayed feedback can be handled. In addition, a way to update the Machine Learning models with unlabeled data is proposed. Promising results are received from the experiments done on neural networks and decision trees.

Review:
The paper claims to tackle a semi-supervised continual learning problem where the feedback or the labeled data is delayed and is provided based on the model performance. Authors do not provide standard benchmarks for comparison and no baseline is considered.
The idea of using unlabeled data for continual learning is interesting and to the best of my knowledge this is the first work that suggests using delayed feedback for continual learning but unfortunately they do not consider measuring forgetting and this work seems an online learning method using delayed feedback.
I vote for rejecting this paper due to the following reasons. I have listed the issues in chronological order and not their importance.
1- I start with the writing. The paper, in its current form, needs to be thoroughly proofread and reorganized. The text does not read well and is vague in most parts (for example section 3 and 4). The text is informal in some parts (ex. in Figure 1). There are also grammar errors and typos for which I have found passing my writing through the free version of Grammarly very helpful in getting rid of most such errors. 
2- As one of the main motivations for the paper, authors claim humans learn continuously in an unsupervised fashion (paragraph one). I disagree with this statement because we all have been constantly learning from the feedback we have been receiving the environment throughout our lives. For example we all have learned how to walk by falling on the ground multiple times and using the pain signal in our muscles as a negative feedback to correct our movements. Getting corrected while speaking or question answering in our dialogues are examples of receiving feedback from the environment letting our learning behavior receiving lots of supervision.
3- The related work section misses significant number of prior work on continual learning (I have provided a short list at the end [4,5,6] but authors are strongly encouraged to read more on this literature). However, my biggest concern is that I this work should not be introduced as a continual learning algorithm. The proposed method is an online learning method with delayed feedback which has been extensively studied before. Authors should consider citing the pioneering work in this field such as Weinberger & Ordentlich (2002) [2] or Joulani et al from ICML 2013 [3]. Providing comparison to [3] is strongly encouraged. Also note that the citation for “catastrophic forgetting” is wrong and should be corrected to McCloskey & Cohen (1989). 
4- The figures and tables do not meet the conventional scientific standards and have to be significantly improved.
5- Authors use softmax probabilities as a confidence score which are known to be uncalibrated by large as deep models are usually overconfident about their predictions. (see [1] for example). Was this investigated at all? Using a calibration technique might be able to help with this [1].
6- On page 4, paragraph 5, the authors claim that “in continual learning instant update is not done”. This is vague to me and I think it is not true because there are plenty of supervised continual learning approaches where the labeled data is available when a task is learned (for example [4,5,6])
7- The experimental setting is not well designed and does not use a standard continual learning setting and there is no baseline included which are very important reasons for rejecting this paper. Authors can benefit from applying their method on standard benchmark datasets commonly used in the literature to provide a fair comparison. Most importantly authors should evaluate their method against prior work. 
8- Exploring continual learning for decision trees is completely vague not justified in the paper.
[1] Guo, Chuan, et al. "On calibration of modern neural networks." Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70. JMLR. org, 2017.
[2] Joulani, Pooria, Andras Gyorgy, and Csaba Szepesvári. "Online learning under delayed feedback." International Conference on Machine Learning. 2013.
[3] Weinberger, Marcelo J., and Erik Ordentlich. "On delayed prediction of individual sequences." IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 48.7 (2002): 1959-1976.
[4] Kirkpatrick, James, et al. "Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks." Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 114.13 (2017): 3521-3526.
[5]Lopez-Paz, David, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. "Gradient episodic memory for continual learning." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2017.
[6] Serrà, J., Surís, D., Miron, M. & Karatzoglou, A.. (2018). Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting with Hard Attention to the Task. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, in PMLR 80:4548-4557