Towards Robust Evaluations of Continual Learning

The experiments used in current continual learning research do not faithfully assess fundamental challenges of learning continually. We examine standard evaluations and show why these evaluations make some types of continual learning approaches look better than they are. In particular, current evaluations are biased towards continual learning approaches that treat previous models as a prior (e.g., EWC, VCL). We introduce desiderata for continual learning evaluations and explain why their absence creates misleading comparisons. Our analysis calls for a reprioritization of research effort by the community.