Organizations: Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland · National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore · School of Computer Science and Technology, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
The world is inherently dynamic, and continual learning aims to enable models to adapt to ever-evolving data streams. While pre-trained models have shown powerful performance in continual learning, they still require finetuning to adapt effectively to downstream tasks. However, prevailing Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods operate through empirical, black-box optimization at the weight level. These approaches lack explicit control over representation drift, leading to sensitivity to domain shifts and catastrophic forgetting in continual learning scenarios. In this work, we introduce Continual Representation Learning (CoRe), a novel framework that for the first time shifts the finetuning paradigm from weight space to representation space. Unlike conventional methods, CoRe performs task-specific interventions within a low-rank linear subspace of hidden representations, adopting a learning process with explicit objectives, which ensures stability for past tasks while maintaining plasticity for new ones. By constraining updates to a low-rank subspace, CoRe achieves exceptional parameter efficiency. Extensive experiments across multiple continual learning benchmarks demonstrate that CoRe not only preserves parameter efficiency but also significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods. Our work introduces representation finetuning as a new, more effective and interpretable paradigm for continual learning.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : The overall structure of the proposed method. (a) illustrates a standard ViT block and (b) depicts the implementation of ReFT. Unlike previous finetuning approaches, ReFT directly intervenes in the model by modifying its intermediate features. Specifically, the features are projected into a low-rank subspace via learnable parameters R, w, and b, and then mapped back to the original dimension. Gray areas indicate frozen parameters, and green areas denote trainable components.
Method
Aircraft
Clathch101
CIFAR
DTD
EuroSAT
Flowers
Food
MNIST
OxfordPet
StanfordCars
SUN397
Avg
ViT [ 7 ]
64.50
99.01
95.14
92.57
96.34
99.86
96.23
96.49
97.09
72.15
93.25
Finetune
67.94
99.36
95.03
92.39
89.60
99.81
94.12
96.38
97.01
70.66
93.11
Prompt [ 10 ]
69.33
99.29
98.01
90.04
89.84
99.79
96.61
94.60
97.56
79.92
93.44
SSF [ 26 ]
66.63
99.31
97.52
93.85
94.39
99.81
95.96
97.36
96.98
75.11
93.14
Adapter [ 9 ]
64.55
99.08
97.98
92.57
95.89
99.86
96.40
99.48
96.97
72.22
93.19
CoRe(Ours)
75.09
99.43
98.15
92.71
96.43
99.87
96.77
99.60
97.00
79.41
93.48
TABLE I : Performance comparison of different methods under the Task Incremental Learning scenario. All experiments are based on the ViT-B/16-IN21K. Each task consists of 5 classes for DTD and OxfordPet, 2 classes for EuroSAT and MNIST, 20 classes for StandCars and SUN397, and 10 classes for the remaining datasets. The best results are highlighted in bold.
OfficeHome Inc65
CORe50 Inc50
CDDB Inc2
DomainNet Inc345
Method
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
ViT [ 7 ]
74.22
64.99
77.55
61.49
76.30
72.41
50.73
40.37
Finetune
69.06
58.15
75.86
58.22
71.98
66.64
55.31
42.54
Prompt [ 10 ]
75.30
65.95
76.20
57.20
76.51
72.42
55.32
44.09
SSF [ 26 ]
75.48
65.80
76.42
59.02
75.39
69.34
53.57
42.50
Adapter [ 9 ]
74.67
65.83
76.50
58.53
76.64
72.07
55.51
44.23
TABLE II : Performance comparison of different methods under the Domain Incremental Learning scenario. All experiments are conducted using ViT-B/16-IN21K. For all datasets, each task contains the same number of classes. The best results are highlighted in bold.
CIFAR Inc5
CUB Inc10
IN-R Inc5
IN-A Inc10
ObjNet Inc10
Omni Inc30
VTAB Inc10
Method
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
ViT [ 7 ]
87.57
81.26
92.20
86.73
62.58
54.55
60.5
49.44
65.45
53.59
79.34
73.15
85.99
84.38
Finetune
87.67
81.27
91.82
86.39
70.51
62.42
61.57
50.76
61.41
48.34
73.02
65.03
87.47
80.44
Prompt [ 10 ]
88.46
82.17
91.02
84.99
68.79
60.48
60.59
48.72
67.83
54.65
81.05
74.47
86.59
83.06
SSF [ 26 ]
87.78
81.98
91.72
86.13
68.94
60.60
62.81
51.48
69.15
56.64
80.53
74.00
85.66
81.92
Adapter [ 9 ]
90.65
85.15
92.21
86.73
72.35
64.33
60.53
49.57
67.18
55.24
80.75
74.37
85.95
84.35
TABLE III : Performance comparison of various finetuning methods under Class Incremental Learning scenario. All experiments are based on ViT-B/16-IN21K. Here, ’IN-R’ denotes ImageNet-R datasets, ’IN-A’ refers to ImageNet-A datasets, ’ObjNet’ represents the ObjectNet dataset, and ’Omni’ stands for the OmniBenchmark dataset. For all datasets, each task contains an equal number of classes. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Fig. 2 : Comparison of trainable parameters and Avg accuracy of finetuning methods, the experiments are conducted on CIFAR Inc10 with ViT-B/16-IN21K.
Fig. 3 : Average value of Last accuracy of methods under different random seeds. All the results are conducted on CIFAR Inc10 with ViT-B/16-IN21K.
α= 1
α= 0.5
α= 0.1
α= 0.05
α= 0.01
Method
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
ViT [ 7 ]
87.13
81.26
87.07
81.14
86.70
80.88
86.51
80.47
84.70
78.07
Finetune
88.56
82.80
88.06
82.52
88.40
83.11
88.06
82.24
85.70
79.68
Prompt [ 10 ]
90.59
85.27
90.51
85.12
88.43
84.99
86.83
80.45
76.61
68.52
SSF [ 26 ]
90.71
85.21
90.55
85.09
90.17
84.88
89.71
84.38
87.03
80.96
Adapter [ 9 ]
92.27
87.50
91.94
87.14
89.51
84.15
88.29
82.69
85.25
79.09
TABLE IV : Performance comparison between CoRe and other finetune methods under different imbalance factors α . All experiments are conducted on CIFAR Inc10 with ViT-B/16-IN21K, the best results are highlighted in bold.
Fig. 4 : Last accuracy of various finetuning methods under Class Incremental Learning scenario using ViT-B/16-IN1K as the backbone. Each task contains the same number of classes across all datasets. Core consistently outperforms other finetuning approaches even with the ViT-B/16-IN1K architecture.
Reft Rank
Avg
Last
4
92.28
87.62
8
92.34
87.63
16
92.27
87.51
32
92.02
87.29
64
92.01
87.08
TABLE V : Ablation studies on ReFT rank, where ”Reft Rank” indicates the rank value of every ReFT in model. All experiments are conducted on CIFAR Inc10 with ViT-B/16-IN21K.
Layer
Avg
Last
1
91.95
87.25
3
91.59
86.61
6
92.16
87.40
9
92.17
87.59
12
92.24
87.63
TABLE VI : Ablation studies on the number of block layer inserted with ReFT. The ViT-B/16-IN21K architecture consists of 12 block layers. Here, ”1” indicates that ReFT is inserted into only one block layer, and ”12” denotes that ReFT is applied to every block layer. All experiments are conducted on CIFAR Inc10 with ViT-B/16-IN21K.
There is growing interest in applying Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) to Continual Learning, as it enables faster training, mitigates catastrophic forgetting, and facilitates better adaptation to new tasks. Prior approaches have explored a range of strategies, including extending new LoRA branches for each incoming task, training under orthogonal loss objectives across all task-specific LoRA modules, and employing gating mechanisms to integrate new and existing LoRA modules. However, these methods incur memory costs that grow linearly with the number of tasks, limiting their scalability. More recent approaches investigate training a single LoRA by leveraging asymmetries in its parameterization; however, they often suffer from insufficient representational alignment across the LoRA parameter space. To address these limitations, we propose Stiefel Optimization and Aligned Rotation (SOAR), a two-stage framework for continual LoRA learning. First, we constrain the A matrix to lie on the Stiefel manifold, thereby reducing coordinate misalignment to the space of orthogonal rotation matrices. Second, we introduce an Orthogonal Procrustes alignment procedure for the B matrix to estimate the optimal rotation, coupled with a per-rank retention merging strategy that quantifies directional agreement between representations of new and previously learned tasks. We conduct extensive experiments across multiple models and benchmarks, demonstrating that SOAR achieves strong continual learning performance without incurring additional memory overhead.
Pratik Rakesh Singh, Mohammadi Zaki, Akash Saha +2
Pre-trained models (PTMs) provide a strong foundation for continual learning by offering stable representations that facilitate lightweight adaptation to new tasks. However, adapting well to each task does not ensure reliable inference over all learned tasks. Since task boundaries are often artificial and semantically entangled, an input from an unknown task can remain ambiguous even with strong PTM features, making cross-task prediction a key bottleneck. We propose Task-Anchored Inference Latent Shaping (TAILS), a lightweight post-PTM module that can be integrated into diverse continual learners and optimized through a decoupled step. TAILS uses fixed task anchors as persistent references to accumulated knowledge. It interprets each sample's feature representation relative to these references, then composes relevant evidence across tasks into latent recall. Rather than selecting a task-specific path or adjusting classifier outputs, TAILS uses latent recall to directly correct the feature representation before prediction. It therefore resolves cross-task ambiguity at the representation level, while leaving the original PTM, method-specific modules, and classifier unchanged. Extensive experiments across multiple PTM-based continual learning paradigms show that TAILS can improve classification and task-inference performance with modest parameter overhead and negligible inference cost.
Zhiming Xu, Huiyu Yi, Zhen-Hao Xie +4
National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China · School of Electronic Science and Engineering, Nanjing University, China +1
Continual post-training (CPT) is a popular and effective technique for adapting foundation models like multimodal large language models to ever-evolving downstream tasks. While existing research primarily focuses on methods like data replay, model expansion, or parameter regularization, the fundamental role of the learning paradigm remains largely unexplored. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two core post-training paradigms: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT), investigating their respective impacts on knowledge retention during CPT. Our experiments are conducted across multiple multimodal tasks, utilizing Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct as the base model. The investigation yields two significant findings: (1) When continuously learning on downstream tasks, SFT leads to catastrophic forgetting of previously learned tasks. In contrast, RFT inherently preserves prior knowledge and achieves performance comparable to multi-task training. (2) RFT successfully protects and even enhances the model's general knowledge on standard benchmarks, while SFT degrades general model capabilities severely. Further analysis reveals that this stability is not primarily due to explicit mechanisms like KL penalty or chain-of-thought reasoning. We investigate RFT's learning dynamics and find that its selective update mechanism inherently prevents interference with established knowledge. Based on this insight, we propose a rollout-based instance filtering algorithm (RIF-RFT) that enhances the training efficiency of RFT by focusing on learnable samples. Our comprehensive study demonstrates the superiority of RFT as a robust paradigm for continual post-training.
Song Lai, Haohan Zhao, Rong Feng +9
Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Hong Kong Institute of Science & Innovation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hong Kong, China · City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Jilin University, Changchun, China +3