Learning to Learn: How to Continuously Teach Humans and Machines

Our education system comprises a series of curricula. For example, when we learn mathematics at school, we learn in order from addition, to multiplication, and later to integration. Delineating a curriculum for teaching either a human or a machine shares the underlying goal of maximizing the positive knowledge transfer from early to later tasks and minimizing forgetting of the early tasks. Here, we exhaustively surveyed the effect of curricula on existing continual learning algorithms in the class-incremental setting, where algorithms must learn classes one at a time from a continuous stream of data. We observed that across a breadth of possible class orders (curricula), curricula influence the retention of information and that this effect is not just a product of stochasticity. Further, as a primary effort toward automated curriculum design, we proposed a method capable of designing and ranking effective curricula based on inter-class feature similarities. We compared the predicted curricula against empirically determined effectual curricula and observed significant overlaps between the two. To support the study of a curriculum designer, we conducted a series of human psychophysics experiments and contributed a new Continual Learning benchmark in object recognition. We assessed the degree of agreement in effective curricula between humans and machines. Surprisingly, our curriculum designer successfully predicts an optimal set of curricula that is effective for human learning. There are many considerations in curriculum design, such as timely student feedback and learning with multiple modalities. Our study is the first attempt to set a standard framework for the community to tackle the problem of teaching humans and machines to learn to learn continuously.

KMIR: A Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Memorization, Identification and Reasoning Abilities of Language Models

Previous works show the great potential of pre-trained language models (PLMs) for storing a large amount of factual knowledge. However, to figure out whether PLMs can be reliable knowledge sources and used as alternative knowledge bases (KBs), we need to further explore some critical features of PLMs. Firstly, knowledge memorization and identification abilities: traditional KBs can store various types of entities and relationships; do PLMs have a high knowledge capacity to store different types of knowledge? Secondly, reasoning ability: a qualified knowledge source should not only provide a collection of facts, but support a symbolic reasoner. Can PLMs derive new knowledge based on the correlations between facts? To evaluate these features of PLMs, we propose a benchmark, named Knowledge Memorization, Identification, and Reasoning test (KMIR). KMIR covers 3 types of knowledge, including general knowledge, domain-specific knowledge, and commonsense, and provides 184,348 well-designed questions. Preliminary experiments with various representative pre-training language models on KMIR reveal many interesting phenomenons: 1) The memorization ability of PLMs depends more on the number of parameters than training schemes. 2) Current PLMs are struggling to robustly remember the facts. 3) Model compression technology retains the amount of knowledge well, but hurts the identification and reasoning abilities. We hope KMIR can facilitate the design of PLMs as better knowledge sources.