Cited by 39Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsRobot Manipulation and Learning

Challenges in Task Incremental Learning for Assistive Robotics

Open access
Feng, Fan, Chan, Rosa H. M., Shi, Xuesong, Zhang, Yimin, She, Qi·2020·IEEE Access

Abstract

Recent breakthroughs in computer vision areas, ranging from detection, segmentation, to classification, rely on the availability of large-scale representative training datasets. Yet, robotic vision poses new challenges towards applying visual algorithms developed from these datasets because the latter implicitly assume a fixed set of categories and time-invariant distribution of tasks. In practice, assistive robots should be able to operate in dynamic environments with everyday changes. The variations of four commonly observed factors, including illumination, occlusion, camera-object distance/angles and clutter, could make lifelong/continual learning in computer vision more challenging. Large-scale datasets previously made publicly available were relatively simple, and rarely include such real-world challenges in data collection. Benefited from the recent released OpenLORIS-Object dataset, which explicitly includes these real-world challenges in the lifelong object recognition task, we evaluate three most adopted regularization methods in lifelong/continual learning (Learning without Forgetting, Elastic Weights Consolidation, and Synaptic Intelligence). Their performances were compared with the naive and cumulative training modes as the lower bound and upper bound of performances, respectively. The experiments conducted on the dataset focused on task incremental learning, i.e., incremental difficulty based on the four environment of factors. However, all the three most reported lifelong/continual learning algorithms have failed with the increase in encountered batches across various metrics with indistinguishable performance comparing to the naive training mode. Our results highlight the current challenges in lifelong object recognition for assistive robots to operate in real-world dynamic scene.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2019.2955480

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Through testing on OpenLORIS-Object, Mozaffari et al. found that EWC, SI, and LwF have little effect on solving lifelong vision challenges for assistive robotics.

    “Through testing based on the OpenLORIS-Object dataset, they found that the three most adopted regularization methods in lifelong learning (EWC, SI and LwF) have little effect on solving the lifelong vision challenges for assistive robotics.”

    From An Appraisal of Incremental Learning Methods (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. H. Shin, J. K. Lee, J. Kim, and J. Kim, ''Continual learning with deep generative replay,'' in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Long Beach, CA, USA, Dec. 2017, pp. 2990-2999.
  2. F. Zenke, B. Poole, and S. Ganguli, ''Continual learning through synap- tic intelligence,'' in Proc. 34th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., vol. 70, 2017, pp. 3987-3995.
  3. S.-W. Lee, J.-H. Kim, J. Jun, J.-W. Ha, and B.-T. Zhang, ''Overcom- ing catastrophic forgetting by incremental moment matching,'' in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Long Beach, CA, USA, Dec. 2017, pp. 4652-4662.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feng, F., Chan, R. H. M., Shi, X., Zhang, Y., & She, Q.
Affiliations
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2020
Volume
8
Pages
3434-3441
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2991061683
Cited by
39
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee (CityU11215618)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
Keywords
task-incremental learning, lifelong learning, continual learning, assistive robotics, robot vision, learning without forgetting, elastic weight consolidation, illumination variation, occlusion, clutter, camera angles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review