Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2110.03331v2

The field of continual machine learning poses unique challenges for set-up and evaluation. Critiques have been raised on the narrowness of algorithm-centric perspectives and evaluation protocols. To address these issues, the authors of this paper introduce the Continual Learning EValuation Assessment Compass (CLEVA-Compass). This provides a visual means to identify how approaches are practically reported and contextualized in the broader literature landscape. Rather than aiming for a precise formulation of desiderata which may not be applicable across diverse applications, CLEVA-Compass promotes research transparency and comparability by providing an intuitive chart that highlights the priorities of individual systems, where they resemble each other, and what elements are missing towards a fair comparison. The authors argue that this approach is necessary to move beyond current limitations in evaluating continual learning algorithms and enable more comprehensive comparisons across different scenarios. Overall, CLEVA-Compass represents an important step forward in promoting research transparency and comparability in continual machine learning.

• - Continual machine learning poses unique challenges for set-up and evaluation
• - Critiques have been raised on the narrowness of algorithm-centric perspectives and evaluation protocols
• - The authors introduce the Continual Learning EValuation Assessment Compass (CLEVA-Compass) to address these issues
• - CLEVA-Compass provides a visual means to identify how approaches are practically reported and contextualized in the broader literature landscape
• - CLEVA-Compass promotes research transparency and comparability by providing an intuitive chart that highlights the priorities of individual systems, where they resemble each other, and what elements are missing towards a fair comparison
• - This approach is necessary to move beyond current limitations in evaluating continual learning algorithms and enable more comprehensive comparisons across different scenarios
• - CLEVA-Compass represents an important step forward in promoting research transparency and comparability in continual machine learning.

Summary: Continual machine learning is hard to set up and evaluate. Some people think that only looking at the algorithms is too narrow. The authors made something called CLEVA-Compass to help with this. It shows how different approaches are reported and compared in research. This makes it easier to compare different systems fairly. Definitions- Continual machine learning: a type of machine learning where the system learns over time, instead of just once - Algorithm-centric perspectives: focusing only on the algorithms used in a system, without considering other factors - Evaluation protocols: rules or guidelines for testing and evaluating a system's performance - Research transparency: being open about how research is done, so others can understand and replicate it - Comparability: being able to compare things fairly, using the same standards or criteria

Continual Machine Learning: Introducing the Continual Learning Evaluation Assessment Compass (CLEVA-Compass)

Continual machine learning is an emerging field of research that poses unique challenges for setup and evaluation. Critiques have been raised on the narrowness of algorithm-centric perspectives and evaluation protocols, leading to a need for more comprehensive comparisons across different scenarios. To address these issues, the authors of this paper introduce the Continual Learning EValuation Assessment Compass (CLEVA-Compass). This provides a visual means to identify how approaches are practically reported and contextualized in the broader literature landscape.

What is CLEVA-Compass?

The CLEVA-Compass is an intuitive chart that highlights the priorities of individual systems, where they resemble each other, and what elements are missing towards a fair comparison. Rather than aiming for a precise formulation of desiderata which may not be applicable across diverse applications, it promotes research transparency and comparability by providing an easy way to compare algorithms across different scenarios.

How Does CLEVA-Compass Work?

The CLEVA-Compass works by mapping out key components related to continual learning such as system architecture, data representation, task definition/specification, training protocol/methods used etc., into four main categories: Representation & Task Definition; Training Protocols & Methods; System Architecture; and Evaluation Metrics & Results. Each category contains several subcategories that can be further broken down into specific details about each component within it. For example, under Representation & Task Definition there are subcategories such as Data Representation Type (e.g., image or text) or Task Type (e.g., classification or reinforcement learning). By mapping out these components in this way, researchers can quickly identify similarities between different approaches as well as any gaps in their evaluations that could lead to biased results or incomplete comparisons between algorithms.

Benefits of Using CLEVA-Compass

The authors argue that using CLEVA-Compass is necessary to move beyond current limitations in evaluating continual learning algorithms and enable more comprehensive comparisons across different scenarios. It also helps promote research transparency by making it easier for researchers to document their methods so others can replicate them accurately without having to guess at details from vague descriptions or code snippets provided in papers alone. Additionally, since all components are mapped out visually with clear labels instead of relying solely on text descriptions which may vary between papers depending on author preference or language barriers - readers will have an easier time understanding what’s being discussed even if they don’t have prior knowledge about particular topics mentioned in the paper itself. Overall, CLEVA-Compass represents an important step forward in promoting research transparency and comparability in continual machine learning while helping researchers better evaluate algorithms across various scenarios without sacrificing accuracy due to incomplete information or bias from subjective interpretations of results presented only through text descriptions alone