mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Comparative Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting Mitigation in Sequential Task Adaptation for Continual Natural Language Processing Systems

arXiv 2603.18641 ↗First posted 19 Mar 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Neural language models deployed in real-world applications must continually adapt to new tasks and domains without forgetting previously acquired knowledge. This work presents a comparative empirical study of catastrophic forgetting mitigation in continual intent classification. Using the CLINC150 dataset, we construct a 10-task label-disjoint scenario and evaluate three backbone architectures: a feed-forward Artificial Neural Network (ANN), a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and a Transformer encoder, under a range of continual learning (CL) strategies. We consider one representative method from each major CL family: replay-based Maximally Interfered Retrieval (MIR), regularization-based Learning without Forgetting (LwF), and parameter-isolation via Hard Attention to Task (HAT), both individually and in all pairwise and triple combinations. Performance is assessed with average accuracy, macro F1, and backward transfer, capturing the stability-plasticity trade-off across the task sequence. Our results show that naive sequential fine-tuning suffers from severe forgetting for all architectures and that no single CL method fully prevents it. Replay emerges as a key ingredient: MIR is the most reliable individual strategy, and combinations that include replay (MIR+HAT, MIR+LwF, MIR+LwF+HAT) consistently achieve high final performance with near-zero or mildly positive backward transfer. The optimal configuration is architecture-dependent. MIR+HAT yields the best result for ANN and Transformer, MIR+LwF+HAT, on the other hand, works the best for GRU, and in several cases CL methods even surpass joint training, indicating a regularization effect. These findings highlight the importance of jointly selecting backbone architecture and CL mechanism when designing continual intent-classification systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2026.

Builds on

14 of 25 references.

References · 14

  1. 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,718
  2. 2016Learning without Forgettingcited by 2,465
  3. 2017Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learningcited by 1,871
  4. 2016Progressive Neural Networkscited by 1,332
  5. 2018Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Reviewcited by 1,313
  6. 2017PackNet: Adding Multiple Tasks to a Single Network by Iterative Pruningcited by 882
  7. 2018Overcoming catastrophic forgetting with hard attention to the taskcited by 672
  8. 2019Episodic Memory in Lifelong Language Learningcited by 188
  9. 2019LAMOL: LAnguage MOdeling for Lifelong Language Learningcited by 156
  10. 2020Continual Lifelong Learning in Natural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 152
  11. 2024Continual Learning with Pre-Trained Models: A Surveycited by 151
  12. 2021Continual Learning for Text Classification with Information Disentanglement Based Regularizationcited by 86
2 more
  1. 2022Continual Learning of Natural Language Processing Tasks: A Surveycited by 83
  2. 2023Prompt Learning With Knowledge Memorizing Prototypes For Generalized Few-Shot Intent Detectioncited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.