Papers › RMM: Reinforced Memory Management for Class-Incremental Learning
RMM: Reinforced Memory Management for Class-Incremental Learning
Yaoyao Liu, Bernt Schiele, Qianru Sun
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) [40] trains classifiers under a strict memory budget: in each incremental phase, learning is done for new data, most of which is abandoned to free space for the next phase. The preserved data are exemplars used for replaying. However, existing methods use a static and ad hoc strategy for memory allocation, which is often sub-optimal. In this work, we propose a dynamic memory management strategy that is optimized for the incremental phases and different object classes. We call our method reinforced memory management (RMM), leveraging reinforcement learning. RMM training is not naturally compatible with CIL as the past, and future data are strictly non-accessible during the incremental phases. We solve this by training the policy function of RMM on pseudo CIL tasks, e.g., the tasks built on the data of the 0-th phase, and then applying it to target tasks. RMM propagates two levels of actions: Level-1 determines how to split the memory between old and new classes, and Level-2 allocates memory for each specific class. In essence, it is an optimizable and general method for memory management that can be used in any replaying-based CIL method. For evaluation, we plug RMM into two top-performing baselines (LUCIR+AANets and POD+AANets [30]) and conduct experiments on three benchmarks (CIFAR-100, ImageNet-Subset, and ImageNet-Full). Our results show clear improvements, e.g., boosting POD+AANets by 3.6%, 4.4%, and 1.9% in the 25-Phase settings of the above benchmarks, respectively.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2301.05792")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: community (archive-listed): 2 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran; 2 identical to code first harvested elsewhere. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
4 samples harvested; 2 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 4 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from g-u-n/pycil. Some samples are identical code Syntology first harvested from another repository; for those, this paper's copy is not located and its licence is not recorded. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
8347652eeeb36202 · report
81b51807a56d10fa · report
fa5bbac75c929c9f · report
929c76a2fa2e8c42 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incremental Learning | CIFAR-100 - 50 classes + 10 steps of 5 classes | RMM (Modified ResNet-32) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 67.61 | #6 of 13 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | CIFAR-100 - 50 classes + 25 steps of 2 classes | RMM (Modified ResNet-32) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 66.21 | #2 of 5 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | CIFAR-100 - 50 classes + 5 steps of 10 classes | RMM (Modified ResNet-32) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 68.86 | #6 of 15 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet - 10 steps | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 67.45 | #5 of 10 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet - 500 classes + 10 steps of 50 classes | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 67.45 | #1 of 4 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet - 500 classes + 25 steps of 20 classes | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 63.93 | #1 of 1 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet - 500 classes + 5 steps of 100 classes | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 69.21 | #1 of 4 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet-100 - 50 classes + 10 steps of 5 classes | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 78.47 | #1 of 5 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet-100 - 50 classes + 25 steps of 2 classes | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 76.54 | #1 of 3 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet-100 - 50 classes + 5 steps of 10 classes | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 79.52 | #2 of 5 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Incremental Learning | ImageNet100 - 10 steps | RMM (ResNet-18) | Average Incremental Accuracy | 78.47 | #2 of 13 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections