pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27975 · v2 · pith:LS7VTBTJnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · 💻 cs.LG · stat.ML

Continual Learning in Modern Hopfield Networks with an Application to Diffusion Models

Ken Takeda , Masafumi Oizumi , Ryo Karakida This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 14:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG stat.ML
keywords continual learningmodern Hopfield networksdiffusion modelscatastrophic forgettingmemory replaygenerative modelsenergy functionintrinsic forgetting
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-energy outlier samples raise their Hopfield energy more than clustered samples after a task shift, marking them as more forgettable in continual learning.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses the modern Hopfield energy to quantify intrinsic forgetting as the rise in energy a sample experiences after a new task is learned. In tractable MHN cases it proves that high-energy samples, which sit in sharp isolated basins, show larger energy increases than low-energy cluster samples. The same energy measure is shown to track reconstruction forgetting when the analysis is carried to diffusion models. Replay of high-energy samples is shown to be especially effective at lowering that energy back down.

Core claim

Intrinsic forgetting is defined as an increase in Hopfield energy after a task change. In tractable MHN settings, high-energy outlier-like samples undergo a larger energy increase than cluster-like samples, so samples in sharp isolated basins are more forgettable. Memory replay is particularly effective for high-energy samples and therefore permits energy-based selection of which samples to replay. These relations hold in experiments on MHNs and on Stable Diffusion and pixel-space DDPM under continual-learning schedules.

What carries the argument

The modern Hopfield energy function, which measures how well a sample fits the learned attractor landscape and rises when that fit is lost after a task change.

If this is right

  • Samples located in sharp isolated basins are more forgettable than those in dense clusters.
  • Energy-based selection of replay samples mitigates forgetting more efficiently than uniform selection.
  • Hopfield energy serves as a proxy that tracks reconstruction-based forgetting in diffusion models after task shifts.
  • Replay focused on high-energy samples produces stronger retention than replay of low-energy samples.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same energy ranking could be used to decide which regions of the data manifold need protection during any sequential adaptation of a generative model.
  • If the energy measure remains predictive at larger scales, it offers a lightweight way to monitor forgetting without running full reconstruction checks on every sample.
  • The analysis suggests a concrete way to order replay buffers by energy so that the most vulnerable samples are protected first.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that established links between modern Hopfield networks and diffusion models let the energy-based forgetting results transfer directly to diffusion models.

What would settle it

A controlled MHN experiment in which low-energy cluster samples show larger energy increases than high-energy outliers after a task change would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27975 by Ken Takeda, Masafumi Oizumi, Ryo Karakida.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual picture. The Hopfield energy E(ξ | X) of associative memory / diffusion models carves two qualitatively different basins: broad and low-energy basins around typical samples, and sharp and high-energy basins around outliers. A task change shifts the landscape (red dashed). The resulting energy rise at the Task-1 memory, ∆E(x) = E(x | X2) − E(x | X1), referred to as intrinsic forgetting. We prove … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Memory configura￾tion. Note that the rotation identity E(ξ | V X) = E(V ⊤ξ | X) converts a domain shift into a change of argument at the original landscape. This transformation facilitates our analysis. In the analysis, we assume a sufficiently small random rotation with Wij iid∼ N (0, 1) and ε ≪ 1. In addition, we work at finite N, large β, where individual memories are still fixed points [30, 32]. Fixed … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Energy predicts per-sample forgetting across diffusion models and a trainable synthetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MHN-BM corroboration of the replay ordering. We verify Theorem 5.1 on the same synthetic systems. In the closed-form MHN with N = 12, d = 50, c = 0.35, β = 8, ε = 0.05, the replay-gain shows the predicted hierarchy: outlier self-replay is largest, cluster self-replay is next, within-cluster cross replay is smaller, and cross-type replay between the cluster and the outlier is weakest. The full result is rep… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy-guided replay on Stable Diffusion / split CIFAR-10. (a) Per-sample reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same energy-guided replay analysis on a pixel-space DDPM (trained from scratch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generative models, including diffusion models, are increasingly used as foundation models and adapted through sequential fine-tuning, making continual learning an essential problem setting. However, continual learning in such generative models remains poorly understood: after a task change, what aspects of the learned distribution are most easily lost, and what replay samples should be prioritized? We address these questions through the modern Hopfield energy. Recent links between modern Hopfield networks (MHNs) and diffusion models allow analyses in MHNs to be transferred to diffusion models. We introduce intrinsic forgetting as an increase in Hopfield energy after the task change. In tractable settings in an MHN, we prove that high-energy, outlier-like samples undergo a larger energy increase than cluster-like samples, implying that samples located in sharp, isolated basins are more forgettable. We further analyze memory replay and show that replay is particularly effective for high-energy samples, enabling an energy-based selection of replay samples. We validate these predictions in experiments on MHNs and two diffusion models under continual-learning settings: Stable Diffusion and a pixel-space DDPM. In these diffusion models, Hopfield energy tracks reconstruction-based forgetting, and replay experiments reveal energy-dependent mitigation of forgetting that is consistent with the MHN analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the modern Hopfield network (MHN) energy function provides a lens for analyzing continual learning in generative models. In tractable MHN settings it proves that high-energy outlier samples undergo a strictly larger energy increase after a task change than low-energy cluster samples, implying greater forgettability; it further shows that replay is especially effective for high-energy samples. Via cited links between MHNs and diffusion models, the same qualitative behavior is asserted to hold in diffusion models and is validated experimentally on Stable Diffusion and a pixel-space DDPM, where Hopfield energy correlates with reconstruction error and energy-based replay mitigates forgetting.

Significance. If the energy-increase inequality and its diffusion-model counterpart hold, the work supplies a theoretically grounded, energy-based criterion for identifying forgettable samples and for selecting replay data in continual fine-tuning of diffusion models. The explicit proof in tractable MHN regimes together with the empirical consistency across two diffusion architectures constitute clear strengths that could directly inform replay-buffer design for foundation-model adaptation.

major comments (2)
  1. [MHN-to-diffusion transfer] The transfer step (abstract and the diffusion-application section): the claim that the MHN energy-increase result carries over to diffusion models is asserted on the basis of 'recent links' without a derivation showing that the differential energy increase for high-energy samples survives the change of measure, the continuous-time limit, or the score-matching objective. Because the diffusion experiments only report post-hoc correlation between Hopfield energy and reconstruction error, this gap is load-bearing for the central application claim.
  2. [Diffusion experiments] Experimental validation section (diffusion-model results): the reported correlation between Hopfield energy and forgetting is consistent with the MHN prediction but lacks controls that would isolate energy from confounding factors such as local sample density or task similarity; without such controls the experiments do not yet confirm that the specific MHN inequality, rather than a coarser density effect, drives the observed forgetting pattern.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction / Definitions] Define 'intrinsic forgetting' explicitly at first use and distinguish it from standard task-wise forgetting metrics to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to clarify the scope of the MHN-to-diffusion transfer and to add controls in the experiments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [MHN-to-diffusion transfer] The transfer step (abstract and the diffusion-application section): the claim that the MHN energy-increase result carries over to diffusion models is asserted on the basis of 'recent links' without a derivation showing that the differential energy increase for high-energy samples survives the change of measure, the continuous-time limit, or the score-matching objective. Because the diffusion experiments only report post-hoc correlation between Hopfield energy and reconstruction error, this gap is load-bearing for the central application claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not contain a full derivation proving that the precise energy-increase inequality survives the change of measure, continuous-time limit, and score-matching objective of diffusion models. The transfer is motivated by the structural correspondences established in the cited literature on MHN-diffusion connections, which support a qualitative analogy for the behavior of the energy function. The diffusion experiments are offered as empirical corroboration of the predicted pattern rather than as a formal proof. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit discussion paragraph in the diffusion-application section that states the assumptions of the transfer, qualifies the claim as qualitative, and notes the absence of a complete bridging derivation. This tempers the central application claim while preserving the motivation from the cited links. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Diffusion experiments] Experimental validation section (diffusion-model results): the reported correlation between Hopfield energy and forgetting is consistent with the MHN prediction but lacks controls that would isolate energy from confounding factors such as local sample density or task similarity; without such controls the experiments do not yet confirm that the specific MHN inequality, rather than a coarser density effect, drives the observed forgetting pattern.

    Authors: We agree that the original experiments do not include explicit controls that isolate Hopfield energy from confounders such as local sample density or task similarity. In the revised manuscript we have added new analysis that matches or bins samples by local density (estimated via nearest-neighbor distances in the feature space used for the Hopfield energy) while varying energy, and we report that the correlation between energy and reconstruction error persists within density-matched groups. We have also included a brief discussion of task similarity for the chosen continual-learning splits. These additions provide evidence that the observed pattern is not reducible to a generic density effect. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A rigorous derivation establishing that the differential energy-increase inequality holds exactly under the diffusion change of measure, continuous-time limit, and score-matching objective is not supplied and would require substantial new theoretical work beyond the present manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; MHN proof stands independently of diffusion transfer

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is a mathematical proof, performed inside tractable MHN regimes, that high-energy samples undergo strictly larger energy increase than cluster samples after a task change. This step is presented as a first-principles result under the MHN energy function and is not shown to reduce to any fitted parameter, self-definition, or input by construction. The subsequent claim that the same qualitative behavior transfers to diffusion models rests on an external premise ("recent links between MHNs and diffusion models") rather than on any equation inside the present manuscript that would make the inequality tautological. Diffusion-model experiments are described only as post-hoc validation that Hopfield energy correlates with reconstruction error; they do not supply the inequality itself. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is required for the MHN proof. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the stated MHN assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transferability assumption between MHNs and diffusion models plus the definition of intrinsic forgetting as energy increase; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Recent links between modern Hopfield networks (MHNs) and diffusion models allow analyses in MHNs to be transferred to diffusion models.
    Explicitly invoked in the abstract as the basis for applying MHN results to diffusion models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5754 in / 1308 out tokens · 45801 ms · 2026-06-29T14:15:21.229559+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020. 11

    2020

  2. [2]

    Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alex Nichol. Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05233, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10752, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Tomczak, Tomasz Trzciński, Florian Shkurti, and Piotr Miłoś

    Michał Zaj¸ ac, Kamil Deja, Anna Kuzina, Jakub M. Tomczak, Tomasz Trzciński, Florian Shkurti, and Piotr Miłoś. Exploring continual learning of diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15342, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Continual diffusion: Continual customization of text-to-image diffusion with C-LoRA.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    James Seale Smith, Yen-Chang Hsu, Lingyu Zhang, Ting Hua, Zsolt Kira, Yilin Shen, and Hongxia Jin. Continual diffusion: Continual customization of text-to-image diffusion with C-LoRA.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. ISSN 2835-8856

    2024

  7. [7]

    DDGR: Continual learning with deep diffusion-based generative replay

    Rui Gao and Weiwei Liu. DDGR: Continual learning with deep diffusion-based generative replay. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202, pages 10744–10763. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Continual learning of diffusion models with generative distillation

    Sergi Masip, Pau Rodriguez, Tinne Tuytelaars, and Gido M van de Ven. Continual learning of diffusion models with generative distillation. InThird Conference on Lifelong Learning Agents (CoLLAs), 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Hopfield

    John J. Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79(8):2554–2558, 1982

    1982

  10. [10]

    Large associative memory problem in neurobiology and machine learning

    Dmitry Krotov and John J Hopfield. Large associative memory problem in neurobiology and machine learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Memory in plain sight: Surveying the uncanny resemblances of associative memories and diffusion models

    Benjamin Hoover, Hendrik Strobelt, Dmitry Krotov, Judy Hoffman, Zsolt Kira, and Duen Horng Chau. Memory in plain sight: Surveying the uncanny resemblances of associative memories and diffusion models. InNeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Associative Memory and Hopfield Networks, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    NRGPT: An energy-based alternative for GPT

    Nima Dehmamy, Benjamin Hoover, Bishwajit Saha, Leo Kozachkov, Jean-Jacques Slotine, and Dmitry Krotov. NRGPT: An energy-based alternative for GPT. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  13. [13]

    Out-of-distribution detection based on in-distribution data patterns memo- rization with modern hopfield energy

    Jinsong Zhang, Qiang Fu, Xu Chen, Lun Du, Zelin Li, Gang Wang, Xiaoguang Liu, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. Out-of-distribution detection based on in-distribution data patterns memo- rization with modern hopfield energy. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, September 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

    Energy- based hopfield boosting for out-of-distribution detection

    Claus Hofmann, Simon Schmid, Bernhard Lehner, Daniel Klotz, and Sepp Hochreiter. Energy- based hopfield boosting for out-of-distribution detection. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Equilibrium propagation: Bridging the gap between energy-based models and backpropagation.Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 11:24, 2017

    Benjamin Scellier and Yoshua Bengio. Equilibrium propagation: Bridging the gap between energy-based models and backpropagation.Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 11:24, 2017. 12

    2017

  16. [16]

    Hopfield networks is all you need

    Hubert Ramsauer, Bernhard Schäfl, Johannes Lehner, Philipp Seidl, Michael Widrich, Thomas Adler, Lukas Gruber, Markus Holzleitner, Milena Pavlović, Geir Kjetil Sandve, Victor Greiff, David Kreil, Michael Kopp, Günter Klambauer, Johannes Brandstetter, and Sepp Hochreiter. Hopfield networks is all you need. InInternational Conference on Learning Representat...

    2021

  17. [17]

    In search of dispersed memories: Generative diffusion models are associative memory networks.Entropy, 26(5):381, 2024

    Luca Ambrogioni. In search of dispersed memories: Generative diffusion models are associative memory networks.Entropy, 26(5):381, 2024. doi: 10.3390/e26050381

    work page doi:10.3390/e26050381 2024

  18. [18]

    Memorization to generalization: Emergence of diffusion models from associative memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21777, 2025

    Bao Pham, Gabriel Raya, Matteo Negri, Mohammed J Zaki, Luca Ambrogioni, and Dmitry Krotov. Memorization to generalization: Emergence of diffusion models from associative memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21777, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Spontaneous symmetry breaking in generative diffusion models

    Gabriel Raya and Luca Ambrogioni. Spontaneous symmetry breaking in generative diffusion models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 66377–66389, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    The statistical thermodynamics of generative diffusion models: Phase transitions, symmetry breaking, and critical instability.Entropy, 27(3):291, 2025

    Luca Ambrogioni. The statistical thermodynamics of generative diffusion models: Phase transitions, symmetry breaking, and critical instability.Entropy, 27(3):291, 2025. doi: 10.3390/ e27030291

    2025

  21. [21]

    On large-batch training for deep learning: Generalization gap and sharp minima

    Nitish Shirish Keskar, Dheevatsa Mudigere, Jorge Nocedal, Mikhail Smelyanskiy, and Ping Tak Peter Tang. On large-batch training for deep learning: Generalization gap and sharp minima. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

    2017

  22. [22]

    SWAD: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima

    Junbum Cha, Sanghyuk Chun, Kyungjae Lee, Han-Cheol Cho, Seunghyun Park, Yunsung Lee, and Sungrae Park. SWAD: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 22405–22418, 2021

    2021

  23. [23]

    Dense associative memory for pattern recognition

    Dmitry Krotov and John J Hopfield. Dense associative memory for pattern recognition. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, June 2016

    2016

  24. [24]

    On a model of associative memory with huge storage capacity.Journal of Statistical Physics, 168:288–299, 2017

    Mete Demircigil, Judith Heusel, Matthias Löwe, Sven Upgang, and Franck Vermet. On a model of associative memory with huge storage capacity.Journal of Statistical Physics, 168:288–299, 2017

    2017

  25. [25]

    Lifelong generative modeling

    Jason Ramapuram, Magda Gregorova, and Alexandros Kalousis. Lifelong generative modeling. Neurocomputing, 404:381–400, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.02.115

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2020.02.115 2020

  26. [26]

    Memory replay GANs: Learning to generate new categories without forgetting

    Chenshen Wu, Luis Herranz, Xialei Liu, Yaxing Wang, Joost van de Weijer, and Bogdan Raducanu. Memory replay GANs: Learning to generate new categories without forgetting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31, 2018

    2018

  27. [27]

    Lifelong GAN: Continual learning for conditional image generation

    Mengyao Zhai, Lei Chen, Frederick Tung, Jiawei He, Megha Nawhal, and Greg Mori. Lifelong GAN: Continual learning for conditional image generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2759–2768, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    Multiband VAE: Latent space alignment for knowledge consolidation in continual learning

    Kamil Deja, Paweł Wawrzyński, Wojciech Masarczyk, Daniel Marczak, and Tomasz Trzciński. Multiband VAE: Latent space alignment for knowledge consolidation in continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.12196, 2021. 13

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Avoid catastrophic forgetting with rank-1 fisher from diffusion models

    Zekun Wang, Anant Gupta, Zihan Dong, and Christopher J MacLellan. Avoid catastrophic forgetting with rank-1 fisher from diffusion models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  30. [30]

    Exponential capacity of dense associative memories.Phys

    Carlo Lucibello and Marc Mézard. Exponential capacity of dense associative memories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132(7):077301, February 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    Attention in a family of Boltzmann machines emerging from modern Hopfield networks.Neural Computation, 35:1463–1480, 2023

    Toshihiro Ota and Ryo Karakida. Attention in a family of Boltzmann machines emerging from modern Hopfield networks.Neural Computation, 35:1463–1480, 2023. doi: 10.1162/neco_a_ 01597

    work page doi:10.1162/neco_a_ 2023

  32. [32]

    The capacity of modern hopfield networks under the data manifold hypothesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09518, 2025

    Beatrice Achilli, Luca Ambrogioni, Carlo Lucibello, Marc Mézard, and Enrico Ventura. The capacity of modern hopfield networks under the data manifold hypothesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09518, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    standard

    Sebastian Lee, Stefano Sarao Mannelli, Claudia Clopath, Sebastian Goldt, and Andrew Saxe. Maslow’s hammer in catastrophic forgetting: Node re-use vs. node activation. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12455–12477. PMLR, 2022. 14 Appendices A Diffusion–Hopfield Correspondence We summarize the correspondence between diffusion energies an...

    2022