Catastrophic forgetting remains a fundamental obstacle to continual learning, where neural networks lose previously acquired knowledge while learning new tasks. Existing methods primarily mitigate forgetting through parameter regularization or experience replay, while the representation-space dynamics associated with forgetting remain less understood. We investigate latent representation evolution during sequential learning and introduce representation flux, a geometric measure of sample-level representation displacement across training. We show that representation flux is strongly associated with catastrophic forgetting across multiple benchmarks, with temporal analyses indicating that elevated flux can precede subsequent performance degradation. Representation displacement is also associated with confidence degradation, while complementary geometric properties provide additional information about sample-level forgetting. Motivated by these observations, we propose FlowLess-R, a representation-space regularization method that constrains replay representations relative to stored references while allowing continued learning. FlowLess-R is architecture-agnostic and integrates into replay-based methods through a representation-matching term. Experiments on SplitMNIST, SplitFashionMNIST, SplitCIFAR10, and SplitTinyImageNet show improved final average accuracy and reduced forgetting with ER, DER++, and ER-ACE. Our results identify representation flux as an informative geometric marker of forgetting and show that stabilizing latent representations provides a simple strategy for mitigating catastrophic forgetting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Representation flux is associated with subsequent catastrophic forgetting. (a) Temporal dynamics show that increases in representation flux tend to precede peaks in hard forgetting at task boundaries, while soft forgetting exhibits a qualitatively similar but weaker temporal pattern. (b) The probability of forgetting increases with representation flux, whereas representation density alone shows a weaker association. Together, these observations suggest that representation flux may serve as an early geometric indicator of subsequent catastrophic forgetting.
Figure 2: Representation flux characterizes confidence dynamics during continual learning. (a) Confidence loss increases monotonically with representation flux, with larger representation displacement associated with greater confidence degradation. (b) Confidence gain is concentrated at substantially lower levels of representation flux, whereas larger displacement is predominantly associated with confidence degradation. (c) Forgetting probability generally increases with density leakage, with a pronounced increase among samples exhibiting the largest leakage values.
Features
SplitMNIST
SplitFashionMNIST
SplitCIFAR10
SplitTinyImageNet
Density
0.557±0.043
0.547±0.021
0.502±0.010
0.516±0.026
Representation Flux
0.733±0.004
0.700±0.008
0.766±0.004
0.514±0.004
Flux + Density
0.761±0.012
0.730±0.009
0.781±0.005
0.574±0.046
Flux + Density + Leakage
0.768±0.015
0.738±0.010
0.792±0.008
0.606±0.021
Flux + Density + Stability
0.768±0.015
0.738±0.010
0.792±0.008
0.606±0.021
Flux + Density + Entropy
0.759±0.012
0.731±0.010
0.787±0.008
0.570±0.071
Table 1: Discriminative performance for sample-level forgetting across continual learning benchmarks. Logistic regression models use different combinations of geometric features computed over consecutive training snapshots to distinguish samples that are forgotten during the corresponding transition. Performance is reported as area under the ROC curve (AUC; mean ± standard deviation) over five continual learning runs for SplitMNIST, SplitFashionMNIST, and SplitCIFAR10, and three runs for SplitTinyImageNet.
Algorithm
λ
SplitMNIST
SplitFashionMNIST
SplitCIFAR10
SplitTinyImageNet
Backbone
MLP
MLP
ResNet-18
ResNet-18
Buffer / task
40
40
400
800
ER
0.0
32.69 ± 1.79
41.54 ± 1.23
27.75 ± 4.39
56.85 ± 1.26
0.1
28.74 ± 1.58
37.98 ± 2.14
19.97 ± 5.64
50.89 ± 2.42
0.3
24.98 ± 2.27
35.39 ± 1.10
19.34 ± 3.92
54.56 ± 1.73
1.0
24.01 ± 1.63
33.86 ± 1.45
20.39 ± 3.35
56.74 ± 2.97
Table 2: Mean forgetting (%, mean ± standard deviation) for different values of the FlowLess-R regularization coefficient λ . Lower values indicate better knowledge retention. Results are averaged over 10 random seeds for SplitMNIST, SplitFashionMNIST, and SplitCIFAR10, and 5 random seeds for SplitTinyImageNet. The setting λ=0 corresponds to the baseline method without FlowLess-R regularization. Reported p -values are Holm–Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons across λ values.
Layers
Accuracy (%)
Mean Forgetting (%)
Layer 1
72.77 ± 1.98
32.85 ± 2.51
Layer 2
73.10 ± 1.49
32.49 ± 1.86
Layer 3
78.30 ± 1.93
25.90 ± 2.43
Layer 2 + Layer 3
77.32 ± 2.62
27.07 ± 3.32
Layer 1 + Layer 2 + Layer 3
75.76 ± 2.34
28.97 ± 3.05
Table 3: Effect of applying the FlowLess-R regularizer to different network layers on SplitMNIST (ER, replay buffer of 40 samples per task). Results are averaged over all regularization coefficients and 10 random seeds (0–9). The last hidden layer provides the best overall performance and is therefore used throughout the paper.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Additional results on SplitFashionMNIST, SplitCIFAR10, and SplitTinyImageNet. Across all datasets, representation flux is positively associated with confidence loss, confidence gain is concentrated at substantially lower levels of representation flux, and forgetting probability generally increases with density leakage, with the largest forgetting probabilities observed at high leakage values.
Figure 4: Geometric analyses on SplitFashionMNIST, SplitCIFAR10, and SplitTinyImageNet. The left column shows the temporal evolution of representation flux together with hard and soft forgetting across task transitions. The right column presents forgetting probability as a function of representation density and representation flux. Across datasets, elevated representation flux is associated with subsequent forgetting, although the temporal separation is less pronounced on the more complex benchmarks. High representation flux combined with low representation density is associated with the highest forgetting probability.
Algorithm
λ
SplitMNIST
SplitFashionMNIST
SplitCIFAR10
SplitTinyImageNet
Backbone
MLP
MLP
ResNet-18
ResNet-18
Buffer / task
40
40
400
800
ER
0.0
72.98 ± 1.45
64.73 ± 0.92
37.83 ± 2.75
16.33 ± 0.94
0.1
76.04 ± 1.27
67.63 ± 1.64
38.83 ± 3.61
18.76 ± 1.56
0.3
78.98 ± 1.82
69.61 ± 0.82
38.92 ± 3.90
17.78 ± 1.33
1.0
79.79 ± 1.25
70.85 ± 1.02
39.59 ± 2.31
15.94 ± 1.61
Appendix
Table 4: Final average accuracy (%, mean ± standard deviation) for different values of the FlowLess-R regularization coefficient λ . Results are averaged over 10 random seeds for SplitMNIST, SplitFashionMNIST, and SplitCIFAR10, and 5 random seeds for SplitTinyImageNet. The setting λ=0 corresponds to the baseline method without FlowLess-R regularization. Reported p -values are Holm–Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons across λ values.
Figure 5: Effect of replay buffer size on continual learning performance. The first row shows the final average accuracy, while the second row reports the mean forgetting. Curves represent the mean over random seeds, and shaded regions denote one standard deviation.
20 samples/task
80 samples/task
α
λ
Accuracy
Forgetting
p
λ
Accuracy
Forgetting
p
−3.33
3.0
65.28 ± 2.41
42.33 ± 3.03
<10−4
3.0
82.98 ± 1.39
20.01 ± 1.72
<10−4
−1.00
1.0
70.83 ± 1.95
35.33 ± 2.44
1.000
3.0
86.74 ± 0.89
15.22 ± 1.07
1.000
−0.333
1.0
70.70 ± 2.14
35.54 ± 2.71
1.000
1.0
86.70 ± 0.71
15.22 ± 0.92
0.792
−0.033
0.3
70.35 ± 2.19
35.95 ± 2.75
0.123
1.0
86.59 ± 0.87
15.36 ± 1.12
1.000
0.000
0.3
70.97 ± 2.40
35.19 ± 3.03
—
1.0
86.54 ± 0.90
15.45 ± 1.13
—
Appendix
Table 5: Effect of the density-weighting exponent α on FlowLess-R performance on SplitMNIST. For each value of α and replay memory size, the regularization coefficient λ was selected to maximize final average accuracy. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation over 10 matched random seeds (0–9). For each memory size, differences in final average accuracy across values of α were assessed using a Friedman test, with random seed treated as the repeated-measures block. Pairwise comparisons between each density-weighted configuration ( α=0 ) and the unweighted reference ( α=0 ) were performed using two-sided paired t -tests across matched seeds, with Holm correction for multiple comparisons. Reported pairwise p -values are Holm-adjusted.
Catastrophic forgetting is often viewed as the destruction of previously learned knowledge during sequential learning. Building on the Accessibility Collapse framework, we investigate the geometric structure of recoverability in continual learning. Using Split CIFAR-100 and a sequentially trained ResNet-18, we analyze recoverability, representational drift, and recovery complexity across ten tasks. We introduce Recovery Subspace Dimensionality (k_t), a measure of the minimum number of singular directions required to preserve 90 percent of full probe performance. Contrary to our Recoverability Diffusion hypothesis, recovery dimensionality remains stable throughout training (mean k_t = 8.0) despite substantial representational drift. Principal-angle drift strongly predicts recoverability (r = -0.862), and a simple geometric model explains 82.2 percent of recoverability variance. These findings support the Stable Recovery Manifold hypothesis, suggesting that forgotten knowledge remains compactly decodable despite representational reorganization. The results indicate that catastrophic forgetting is primarily an accessibility and manifold-alignment problem rather than information destruction.
Catastrophic forgetting is commonly interpreted as the irreversible erasure of previously acquired knowledge during sequential learning. In this work, we investigate an alternative perspective: that forgetting may arise not from complete destruction of task representations but from a loss of accessibility to preserved information. We introduce a three-level framework separating knowledge storage, representation, and accessibility, and evaluate each component through a series of continual-learning experiments on sequential CIFAR-100 classification using ResNet-18. Our analysis combines checkpoint persistence, linear probing, representation geometry, classifier-reset recovery, and layer-wise recoverability experiments. We observe complete behavioral forgetting of earlier tasks, with task accuracy collapsing from 54.8% to 0%, while linear probe performance retains approximately 76% of the original representational information. Furthermore, retraining only the final classifier restores 75.7% of the original task performance without modifying the backbone network. Layer-wise analysis reveals that early and intermediate layers preserve highly recoverable task information despite severe degradation at later stages. Projection-energy and principal-angle analyses indicate that retained knowledge persists as distributed high-dimensional representations rather than through preservation of a small dominant subspace. These findings suggest that catastrophic forgetting is better characterized as an accessibility failure than complete representational erasure, and that substantial task-relevant information remains embedded within neural representations even after functional forgetting has occurred.
Catastrophic forgetting is often framed as a representational problem: after sequential training, a model appears to lose the features that supported performance on earlier tasks. We challenge the stronger form of this view. Across controlled continual-learning settings, we find that a significant portion of apparent forgetting can be attributed to interface drift between internal stages rather than permanent erasure of task-relevant computation. We study this phenomenon through a stitched evaluation protocol that combines early computation from a post-update network with late computation from its predecessor, optionally mediated by a compact, task-specific transport key. We describe transport keys at a systems level as compact interface-alignment operators estimated from a small set of paired anchor activations and evaluated through model stitching. On split CIFAR-100 with a ResNet-style network, transport keys recover most of the original Task A performance after sequential training on Task B. On a compact vision transformer, we observe a similar recovery pattern. These results suggest that continual learning may require better mechanisms for indexing and re-accessing latent computations, not only methods that prevent weight change.