Class-incremental learning (CIL) aims to acquire new classes over time while retaining prior knowledge, yet most setups and methods assume balanced task streams. In practice, the number of classes per task often varies significantly. We refer to this as step imbalance, where large tasks that contain more classes dominate learning and small tasks inject unstable updates. Existing CIL methods assume balanced tasks and therefore treat all tasks uniformly, producing imbalanced updates that degrade overall learning performance. To address this challenge, we propose One-A, a unified and imbalance-aware framework that incrementally merges task updates into a single adapter, maintaining constant inference cost. One-A performs asymmetric subspace alignment to preserve dominant subspaces learned from large tasks while constraining low-information updates within them. An information-adaptive weighting balances the contribution between base and new adapters, and a directional gating mechanism selectively fuses updates along each singular direction, maintaining stability in head directions and plasticity in tail ones. Across multiple benchmarks and step-imbalanced streams, One-A achieves competitive accuracy with significantly low inference overhead, showing that a single, asymmetrically fused adapter can remain both adaptive to dynamic task sizes and efficient at deployment.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Necessity of step-imbalanced continual learning and overview of our method. (a) Task splitting increases incremental steps, resulting in higher computation, more parameters, and stronger interference, which harms accuracy. (b) Direct merging averages task-specific parameters without alignment. (c) Our method aligns task subspaces via SVD and performs direction-aware fusion to preserve dominant knowledge while integrating information into a unified adapter with balanced stability and plasticity.
Figure 2: Performance comparison under balanced and step-imbalanced settings. All methods show clear degradation under step-imbalanced tasks.
Figure 3: Overview of One-A. For each layer, we decompose the large-task adapter via SVD to extract its dominant subspace UbΣb and project the small-task adapter for subspace alignment ( Va→b ). A global fusion is first performed between aligned components to obtain Vfused , followed by direction-wise gating gi on the update (Vfused−Vb) , which adaptively modulates each singular direction to balance stability and plasticity and yields the final merged adapter ΔWm .
Method
CIFAR100 (T=10)
CUB (T=20)
ImageNet-A (T=10)
ImageNet-R (T=40)
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
L2P [ 54 ]
64.63 ± 1.33
76.69 ± 1.02
53.04 ± 1.35
69.00 ± 1.08
34.52 ± 2.40
46.51 ± 3.08
45.79 ± 1.48
58.26 ± 1.48
DualPrompt [ 53 ]
71.43 ± 1.35
81.12 ± 0.46
53.76 ± 0.72
70.28 ± 1.41
32.08 ± 2.29
42.59 ± 2.64
45.13 ± 1.42
55.25 ± 1.19
CODA-Prompt [ 41 ]
81.40 ± 0.61
87.55 ± 0.34
66.02 ± 1.70
77.08 ± 0.76
44.37 ± 0.90
53.46 ± 1.41
53.18 ± 1.75
62.13 ± 0.79
Aper-adapter [ 57 ]
86.47 ± 1.87
91.04 ± 2.41
87.31 ± 0.22
91.38 ± 0.82
50.74 ± 1.84
61.31 ± 3.04
54.61 ± 0.14
63.36 ± 1.58
EASE [ 59 ]
86.90 ± 0.73
91.71 ± 0.88
83.12 ± 0.23
87.05 ± 2.75
56.11 ± 0.54
64.52 ± 1.03
67.02 ± 0.31
72.98 ± 0.83
Table 1: Last task accuracy ( AT ) and average accuracy ( Aˉ ) on multiple datasets with the step imbalance factor γ=0.01 and different task numbers. All results are averaged over 5 runs with mean ± standard deviation. Red denotes the best result and Blue denotes the second best in each column.
Method
γ=0.001
γ=0.05
T=10
T=20
T=10
T=20
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
Aper-adapter [ 57 ]
84.91
90.31
82.41
87.68
86.32
90.34
83.05
88.32
EASE [ 59 ]
87.52
91.98
84.79
90.42
87.02
91.74
84.42
89.23
SEMA [ 49 ]
84.70
88.58
74.85
81.86
85.63
91.18
81.48
87.85
ACMap [ 12 ]
83.43
90.15
83.80
88.84
85.81
91.21
84.25
89.08
Table 2: Last task accuracy ( AT ) and average accuracy ( Aˉ ) on multiple datasets with different step imbalance factors γ and task numbers T .
Figure 4: Accuracy at each step on ImageNet-A under different step-imbalance ratios γ∈{0.001,0.005,0.01,0.05} .
Figure 5: Forgetting curves under different configurations, along with the corresponding Aˉ .
ASA
GW
DG
CIFAR-100
ImageNet-A
T=10
T=20
T=10
T=20
72.43
78.34
45.82
47.60
✓
75.82
81.27
48.02
48.39
✓
82.46
80.74
51.32
49.24
✓
✓
84.31
82.76
53.65
52.01
✓
✓
✓
88.39
85.32
59.25
56.62
Table 3: Ablation study of each component of One-A on CIFAR100 and ImageNet-A.
Method
AT (%)
wAˉ (%)
FLOPs
#Adapters
Per-task adapter
43.15
55.67
39.19×
40(T)
MOS [ 44 ]
67.73
74.04
40.60×
40(T)
ACMap [ 12 ]
61.32
68.56
0.99×
1
One-A (Ours)
70.55
76.95
1.×
1
Table 4: Comparison of merging strategies on SI-CIL.
Figure 6: Illustration of the subspace behavior during adapter merging.
Figure 7: Sensitivity analysis on the gating parameters. Last-step accuracy ( AT ) under different quantile threshold τq and gating sharpness κ .
Figure 8: Generation of the step-imbalanced task sequence. Left: head-to-tail allocation based on exponential class ratios. Right: random permutation producing the final task order.
Figure 9: Illustration of long-tailed CIL vs. SI-CIL. We show an example with T=10 tasks and C=100 classes. Top (Long-tailed CIL): each task contains the same number of classes, while the number of samples per class is long-tailed. Bottom (SI-CIL): the number of samples per class is fixed, while the number of classes varies significantly across incremental steps.
Method
CIFAR100
ImageNet-A
Norm-based
86.23
55.17
SV-based
85.83
53.65
Class count-based
88.58
59.64
Table 5: Comparison of information proxies for global fusion in One-A under the SI-CIL setting. Results are last-step accuracy (%) on CIFAR100 and ImageNet-A.
Method
CIFAR100
ImageNet-A
w/o Lctr
88.34
59.38
w/o E(t)
88.26
58.99
One-A
88.58
59.64
Table 6: Ablation of the contrastive loss Lctr and the size-dependent epoch schedule E(t) in One-A under the SI-CIL setting. Results are last-step accuracy (%) on CIFAR100 and ImageNet-A.
Dataset
LR
Weight Decay
Batch Size
E0
r
CIFAR100
0.01
5×10−4
128
25
128
CUB
0.07
0.0005
16
10
128
ImageNet-A
0.08
0.003
64
40
128
ImageNet-R
0.03
0.005
24
30
64
Table 7: Dataset-specific hyperparameters used in both main and supplementary experiments.
Figure 10: Class-per-task distributions for the descending SI-CIL configurations.
Method
CIFAR100 (T=10)
CUB (T=20)
ImageNet-A (T=10)
ImageNet-R (T=40)
L2P [ 54 ]
76.16 ± 1.76
53.47 ± 2.39
36.71 ± 1.29
46.43 ± 1.01
DualPrompt [ 53 ]
71.38 ± 0.54
55.19 ± 0.98
33.16 ± 2.12
46.28 ± 0.60
CODA-Prompt [ 41 ]
80.01 ± 0.48
64.83 ± 0.95
45.93 ± 0.37
54.73 ± 0.22
Aper-adapter [ 57 ]
88.24 ± 0.72
87.67 ± 0.19
53.63 ± 0.60
62.79 ± 0.34
EASE [ 59 ]
86.56 ± 1.16
84.31 ± 0.45
56.16 ± 0.28
65.00 ± 0.77
SEMA [ 49 ]
88.31 ± 0.74
67.88 ± 1.97
43.95 ± 1.98
64.92 ± 1.02
Table 8: Last-task accuracy ( AT ) under the descending scenario with step-imbalance factor γ=0.01 . All results are averaged over 5 runs with mean ± standard deviation. Red denotes the best result and Blue denotes the second best in each column. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the improvement over the second-best method.
Method
T=5
T=10
T=20
T=40
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
L2P [ 54 ]
62.05 ± 1.81
74.68 ± 1.62
59.22 ± 1.14
73.24 ± 0.38
57.28 ± 0.87
70.04 ± 0.27
55.19 ± 0.95
66.77 ± 1.03
DualPrompt [ 53 ]
63.07 ± 0.49
75.41 ± 0.75
57.51 ± 0.96
72.52 ± 1.70
65.09 ± 1.12
77.32 ± 0.45
56.25 ± 1.89
71.15 ± 1.80
CODA-Prompt [ 41 ]
78.50 ± 0.42
86.14 ± 0.35
74.26 ± 0.15
83.30 ± 0.64
70.96 ± 1.43
81.85 ± 0.29
65.60 ± 1.18
77.53 ± 0.14
Aper-adapter [ 57 ]
87.67 ± 0.19
91.29 ± 0.74
87.28 ± 0.14
91.79 ± 0.63
86.89 ± 0.32
91.76 ± 0.57
87.19 ± 0.01
91.93 ± 0.63
EASE [ 59 ]
84.34 ± 0.33
89.51 ± 0.73
86.01 ± 0.23
90.83 ± 0.61
87.11 ± 0.13
91.79 ± 0.52
86.79 ± 0.39
91.88 ± 0.43
Table 9: Last-task accuracy ( AT ) and average accuracy Aˉ under the balanced scenario with CUB under different task numbers. All results are averaged over 5 runs with mean ± standard deviation. Red denotes the best result and Blue denotes the second best in each column.
Method
CIFAR100 (T=10)
CUB (T=20)
AT
Aˉ
AT
Aˉ
Aper-adapter [ 57 ]
78.91 ± 0.63
85.24 ± 2.02
79.30 ± 0.02
85.78 ± 0.59
EASE [ 59 ]
81.20 ± 1.53
88.50 ± 0.95
79.40 ± 0.27
86.59 ± 0.73
InfLoRA [ 28 ]
71.69 ± 1.55
79.81 ± 2.42
49.32 ± 1.93
62.52 ± 2.99
SEMA [ 49 ]
64.41 ± 0.85
74.98 ± 2.15
49.06 ± 0.16
62.00 ± 1.53
ACMap [ 12 ]
80.50 ± 0.13
87.11 ± 0.83
79.47 ± 0.04
85.90 ± 0.63
Table 10: Last task accuracy ( AT ) and average accuracy ( Aˉ ) under the long-tailed step-imbalance setting.
Figure 11: Adapter rank sensitivity on ImageNet-A with T=10 tasks.
Figure 12: Inference accuracy and efficiency on CIFAR100 under SI-CIL
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) with pre-trained models (PTMs) aims to sequentially adapt PTMs to new categories without forgetting old knowledge. Built upon PTMs, existing adapter-based methods mainly train models via distinct task-specific adapters, and present a uniform knowledge allocation for each adapter during inference. However, this allocation mechanism ignores the nature of task discrepancy and leads to suboptimal utilization of adapters. Also, under CIL constraint, an allocator is prone to forgetting when tasks evolve. To address these issues, we propose a Non-Forgetting Allocation with Bi-Level Competition (NoFA-BC). NoFA-BC constructs a non-forgetting allocator (NFA) by transforming the allocator training into a recursive least-squares problem and achieves an allocator equivalent to that trained with all data. Based on the NFA, a Bi-Level Competition (BLC) including an intra-task level Winner-Takes-All (WTA) mechanism and inter-task Last-Ones-Fall (LOF) elimination is proposed to provide better allocation of adapter knowledge. WTA extracts the most significant logit within a task to represent the adapter's contribution and LOF suppresses the irrelevant adapters. With BLC, participation ratio of each adapter can be tailored for each input. Moreover, a Stability Enhancement (SE) process is incorporated to further improve the performance of old tasks.
Xiang Tan, Run He, Yawen Cui +6
South China University of Technology · Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Agency for Science, Technology and Research +3
Class-incremental learning (CIL) requires a model to incrementally learn tasks that contain new classes without accessing earlier training data while preserving the ability to recognize all seen classes. Recently, pretrained-model-based approaches have become prevalent by adapting a frozen backbone with additional lightweight trainable modules. Existing methods, however, exhibit limitations: task-specific adapters learn explicit per-task representations but are parameter- and computation-inefficient, while LoRA-based merging methods combine per-task LoRA parameters into a single model whose static aggregated weights cause representation interference during inference. To address these problems, we present FACET: task-conditioned FeAture transformation with ConditionEd feature consisTency, achieving excellent parameter efficiency while producing highly discriminative features during inference. When continually trained on a task sequence, FACET learns a single shared adapter that employs a dynamic task-conditioned feature transformation, shaping the overall feature distribution of the adapter into a mixture of overlap-reduced task-specific components. On the other hand, we propose an efficient replay-free task-conditioned feature consistency loss, aiming to mitigate catastrophic forgetting of the learned mixture distribution in the adapter's feature space. Even when maintaining only a single adapter, FACET demonstrates robust scalability. On both very long task sequences (e.g., 200 tasks) and standard short task sequences (e.g., 20 tasks), our method achieves superior performance while using significantly fewer trainable parameters and GFLOPs. The code will be made open source upon acceptance.
Yunxiang Fu, Meng Lou, Yizhou Yu
School of Computing and Data Science The University of Hong Kong
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) requires models to learn new classes without forgetting old ones. A common method is to freeze a pre-trained model and train a new, lightweight adapter for each task. While this prevents forgetting, it treats the learned knowledge as a simple, unstructured collection and fails to use the relationships between tasks. To this end, we propose the Semantic-guided Adaptive Expert Forest (SAEF), a new method that organizes adapters into a structured hierarchy for better knowledge sharing. SAEF first groups tasks into conceptual clusters based on their semantic relationships. Then, within each cluster, it builds a balanced expert tree by creating new adapters from merging the adapters of similar tasks. At inference time, SAEF finds and activates a set of relevant experts from the forest for any given input. The final prediction is made by combining the outputs of these activated experts, weighted by how confident each expert is. Experiments on several benchmark datasets show that SAEF achieves SOTA performance.
Ruiqi Liu, Boyu Diao, Hangda Liu +3
Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China