179 questions
No questions match those filters.
You had to delete your original training dataset for co...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansThe instinct — load the checkpoint, lower the learning rate a bit, and fine-tune on the new class — looks conservative and isn’t. Every gradient step in that fine-tuning run is computed purely against the new objective, and with no old data present to balance it, there is nothing in the loss stopping the update from overwriting exactly the weights the old behavior depends on. You haven’t added a class to the model’s repertoire; you’ve traded old competence for new competence, and the old one doesn’t come back with a warning.
This is the plasticity-stability dilemma stated plainly: you need the model to remain plastic enough to learn something new while staying stable enough not to erase what it already knows. The standard industrial answer is rehearsal — mix a sample of old data back into the fine-tuning batch so the loss keeps a live signal protecting prior behavior. That’s exactly the option removed here by the compliance deletion, so you need a defense that doesn’t require old examples at all.
Elastic Weight Consolidation gets you there. Before deleting the old data, or from a saved checkpoint’s gradient statistics, compute the Fisher Information Matrix, which quantifies how sensitive the old task’s loss is to each individual weight — effectively a map of which parameters are load-bearing. Add a quadratic penalty term to the new task’s loss, scaled by that Fisher importance, so that moving a high-importance weight incurs a steep cost while moving a low- importance one is nearly free. The optimizer is then mathematically steered to learn the new class using the parts of the network that aren’t structurally supporting the old one, rather than overwriting them indiscriminately.