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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18641 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18641/

## Key facts

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.00796/) (2016)
- [Learning without Forgetting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.09282/) (2016)
- [Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.08840/) (2017)
- [Progressive Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.04671/) (2016)
- [Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07569/) (2018)
- [PackNet: Adding Multiple Tasks to a Single Network by Iterative Pruning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.05769/) (2017)
- [Overcoming catastrophic forgetting with hard attention to the task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.01423/) (2018)
- [Episodic Memory in Lifelong Language Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.01076/) (2019)
- [LAMOL: LAnguage MOdeling for Lifelong Language Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03329/) (2019)
- [Continual Learning with Pre-Trained Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.16386/) (2024)
- [Continual Lifelong Learning in Natural Language Processing: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.09823/) (2020)
- [Continual Learning for Text Classification with Information Disentanglement Based Regularization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.05489/) (2021)
- [Continual Learning of Natural Language Processing Tasks: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12701/) (2022)
- [Prompt Learning With Knowledge Memorizing Prototypes For Generalized Few-Shot Intent Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.04971/) (2023)

## 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.