Organizations: School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China · Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR), Hong Kong Institute of Science and Innovation, Chinese Academy of Sciences (HKISI-CAS), Hong Kong, China · State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems (MAIS), Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CASIA), Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS), Beijing, China · Alibaba Group, Hangzhou, China
Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) seeks to transfer knowledge from a labeled source domain to an unlabeled target domain but often suffers from severe domain and scale gaps that degrade performance. Existing cross-attention-based transformers can align features across domains, yet they struggle to preserve content semantics under large appearance and scale variations. To explicitly address these challenges, we introduce the concept of beneficial noise, which regularizes cross-attention by injecting controlled perturbations, encouraging the model to ignore style distractions and focus on content. We propose the Domain-Adaptive Cross-Scale Matching (DACSM) framework, which consists of a Domain-Adaptive Transformer (DAT) for disentangling domain-shared content from domain-specific style, and a Cross-Scale Matching (CSM) module that adaptively aligns features across multiple resolutions. DAT incorporates beneficial noise into cross-attention, enabling progressive domain translation with enhanced robustness, yielding content-consistent and style-invariant representations. Meanwhile, CSM ensures semantic consistency under scale changes. Extensive experiments on VisDA-2017, Office-Home, and DomainNet demonstrate that DACSM achieves state-of-the-art performance, with up to +2.3% improvement over CDTrans on VisDA-2017. Notably, DACSM achieves a +5.9% gain on the challenging "truck" class of VisDA, evidencing the strength of beneficial noise in handling scale discrepancies. These results highlight the effectiveness of combining domain translation, beneficial-noise-enhanced attention, and scale-aware alignment for robust cross-domain representation learning.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Style/appearance gap and scale gap are two frequently observed challenges in UDA. Two modules, Domain Adaptive Transformer and Cross Scale Matching, are carefully designed for the specific issues. (a), the two objects share the same structure but have different appearances. Additionally, identical semantic categories may manifest different scales in different datasets, which can also cause confusion for the model. (b) The scale gap is frequently observed in many datasets but has not received much attention. The objects may appear at different scales.
Fig. 2: Transformer blocks with self and cross attentions. One attentional module consists of three input sources: the input feature z , the query Q , and the key and value pairs K/V . In self attention, Q and K/V come from the same domain. In cross attention, Q and K/V may come from different domains.
Fig. 3: DACSM Framework. Domain-Adaptive Cross-Scale Matching (DACSM) integrates the Domain-Adaptive Transformer (DAT) and the Cross-Scale Matching (CSM) modules into a single end-to-end architecture. Note that the Tokenizer (Patch Embedding) is applied only once at the input stage; subsequent blocks operate on feature tokens. The DAT employs self- and cross-attention to disentangle domain-shared content (queries) from domain-specific style (keys/values), ensuring query-consistent and content-biased feature learning. The residual connection adds the Source Query stream to the attention output, ensuring dimension matching. Beneficial noise is injected into cross-attention to suppress spurious style correlations and enhance robustness. The CSM module addresses scale discrepancies by rescaling source images with multiple factors and aligning target features through a sub-center classifier. Each sub-center learns scale-specific class features in the source domain, while the target features are adaptively matched to the most compatible scale.
Fig. 4: (Top) Illustration of a style swap operation. A 2D convolution extracts 3×3 patches with stride 1 and computes the normalized cross-correlations. There are nc=9 spatial locations and ns=4 feature channels immediately before and after the channel-wise argmax operation. A 2D transposed convolution reconstructs the full activations by placing each best-matching style patch at the corresponding spatial location. (Bottom) Style transfer results of StyleSwap and optimization-based methods. Both figures are borrowed from StyleSwap [ 35 ] .
Method
Ar 2 Cl
Ar 2 Pr
Ar 2 Re
Cl 2 Ar
Cl 2 Pr
Cl 2 Re
Pr 2 Ar
Pr 2 Cl
Pr 2 Re
Re 2 Ar
Re 2 Cl
Re 2 Pr
avg
JAN [ 18 ]
45.9
61.2
68.9
50.4
59.7
61.0
45.8
43.4
70.3
63.9
52.4
76.8
58.3
MCD [ 19 ]
48.9
68.3
74.6
61.3
67.6
68.8
57.0
47.1
75.1
69.1
52.2
79.6
67.8
CDAN [ 40 ]
50.7
70.6
76.0
57.6
70.0
70.0
57.4
50.9
77.3
70.9
56.7
81.6
65.8
CGDM-B [ 21 ]
67.1
83.9
85.4
77.2
83.3
83.7
74.6
64.7
85.6
79.3
69.5
87.7
78.5
SHOT-B [ 23 ]
67.1
83.5
85.5
76.6
83.4
83.7
76.3
65.3
85.3
80.4
66.7
83.4
78.1
DOT-B [ 25 ]
69.0
85.6
87.0
80.0
85.2
86.4
78.2
65.4
87.9
79.7
67.3
89.3
80.1
TABLE I: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on Office-Home. The A 2 B in each cell represents the adaptation from domain A to domain B. For transformer-based methods, the suffix ’-B’ is added to the method name. The ’avg’ means the average accuracy of all the target domains. The best performance is marked as bold . The number in the bracket represents the improvement over the best baseline.
Method
plane
bcycl
bus
car
horse
knife
mcycl
person
plant
sktbrd
train
truck
avg
ALDA [ 42 ]
93.8
74.1
82.4
69.4
90.6
87.2
89.0
67.6
93.4
76.1
87.7
22.2
77.8
CGDM-B [ 21 ]
96.0
87.0
87.0
87.0
92.0
98.0
92.0
78.0
96.0
48.0
89.0
39.0
82.3
SHOT-B [ 23 ]
98.0
90.0
86.0
73.0
97.0
99.0
94.0
55.0
95.0
87.0
93.0
63.0
85.9
DOT-B [ 25 ]
99.0
93.0
89.0
79.0
98.0
96.0
93.0
80.0
98.0
96.0
94.0
69.0
90.3
CDTrans-B [ 13 ]
98.0
86.0
87.0
83.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
84.0
98.0
84.0
95.0
55.0
88.4
CSTrans-B [ 30 ]
97.0
90.9
90.3
62.5
95.2
94.6
91.1
49.8
97.0
93.6
82.8
60.3
83.8
TABLE II: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on VisDA-2017. The ’plane’ to ’truck’ in each cell represents the adaptation from domain ’synthetic’ to domain ’real’. For transformer-based methods, the suffix ’-B’ is added to the method name. The ’avg’ means the average accuracy of all the target domains. The best performance is marked as bold . Suboptimal results are underlined . The number in the bracket represents the improvement over the best baseline.
CDAN
clp
inf
pnt
qdr
rel
skt
avg
CGDM
clp
inf
pnt
qdr
rel
skt
avg
clp
-
13.5
28.3
9.3
43.8
30.2
25.0
clp
-
16.9
35.3
10.8
53.5
36.9
30.7
inf
18.9
-
21.4
1.9
36.3
21.3
20.0
inf
27.8
-
28.2
4.4
48.2
22.5
26.2
pnt
29.6
14.4
-
4.1
45.2
27.4
24.2
pnt
37.7
14.5
-
4.6
59.4
33.5
30.0
qdr
11.8
1.2
4.0
-
9.4
9.5
7.2
qdr
14.9
1.5
6.2
-
10.9
10.2
8.7
rel
36.4
18.3
40.9
3.4
-
24.6
24.7
rel
49.4
20.8
47.2
4.8
-
38.2
32.0
skt
38.2
14.7
33.9
7.0
36.6
-
26.1
skt
50.1
16.5
43.7
11.1
55.6
-
35.4
TABLE III: Comfusion matrax comparison with state-of-the-art methods on DomainNet. Each cell represents the adaptation from the source domain to the target domain. Columns are source domains, and rows are target domains. The best performance is marked as bold . For transformer-based methods, the suffix ‘-B’ is added to the method name. The ‘avg’ means the average accuracy of all the target domains. The number in the bracket represents the improvement over the best baseline.
Method
plane
bcycl
bus
car
horse
knife
mcycl
person
plant
sktbrd
train
truck
Average
CDTrans-B
97.7
86.4
86.9
83.3
97.8
97.2
95.9
84.1
97.9
83.5
94.6
55.3
88.4
+only CSM
98.2
91.3
89.5
84.1
98.3
97.6
95.9
84.2
97.7
89.4
95.6
59.7
90.1 (+1.7)
+only DAT
98.3
91.2
89.3
84.3
98.4
97.5
95.9
84.1
98.0
89.4
95.6
60.7
90.2 (+1.8)
+DAT+CSM (DACSM)
98.7
92.1
90.1
85.6
98.4
97.5
96.2
84.3
98.0
90.6
95.6
61.2
90.7 (+2.3)
TABLE IV: Ablation studies. Explore the enhancements and effects of the proposed innovations on VisDA-2017. The best performance is marked as bold . The number in the bracket represents the improvement over the best baseline.
Fig. 5: Scatter visualization of CDTrans and DACSM : The t-SNE visualization showcases the effects of domain alignment on the VisDA-2017 dataset. It is evident that CDTrans struggles to align the ’red’ cluster, resulting in noisy boundaries. In contrast, this figure highlights the capability of DACSM in aligning features from the source and target domains more effectively than CDTrans.
Fig. 6: Hyper parameter analysis. Average accuracy of different number of scales in CSM module on VisDa-2017.
Train (100 epoch)
Test (14k sample)
CDtrans
90m35s
21s
DACSM (Ours)
100m16s(+21s)
21s
TABLE V: The computational cost of DACSM on VisDA & DomainNet. DACSM does have a slightly higher computational cost than baseline methods. (m: minutes; s: seconds)
Fig. 7: Cross attention construction in DAT. (a) is a picture of source domain, (b) is the reconstructed graph by using fs→t obtained from CDTrans, (c) is the reconstructed graph by using fs→t obtained from DACSM, (d) is the reconstructed graph by using ft→s obtained from DACSM, (e) is a picture of target domain. This means that the reconstructed graph by fs→t learns the content of source domain and also learns the style information on the target domain.
Method
VisDA
DomainNet
A -distance
Base DAT
79.2
43.7
1.92
DAT+Noise
81.0
45.3
1.75
DAT+CSM
82.1
46.0
1.71
Full DACSM (Ours)
83.5
47.8
1.60
TABLE VI: Comparison of module configurations on VisDA-2017 and DomainNet, demonstrating the complementary effects of noise injection and cross-scale matching.
Method
Lclss
Ldst
Lclst
Lclss→t
Ls
Average
ViT-B
✓
-
-
-
-
73.4
CDTrans-B
✓
✓
✓
-
-
88.4 (+15.0)
DACSM
✓
✓
✓
-
-
89.6 (+1.2)
✓
✓
✓
✓
-
89.9 (+0.3)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
90.7 (+0.8)
TABLE VII: Comparison among different losses on VisDA-2017, cls and dst imply the classification and the distillation loss. cls → t and cls → t → s imply the classification loss and the classification loss from source to target. s implies the style loss. The ✓indicates that the loss is used and the - indicates that the loss is not used. The best results are in bold. The numbers in the brackets are the improvements over the Baseline.
Adversarial robustness in Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) remains a significant challenge due to noisy pseudo labels and inherent distributional shifts between the clean source and adversarially perturbed target domains. Existing approaches often fail to achieve an optimal trade-off between robustness and accuracy, as pseudo-labels generated by domain-adapted models tend to introduce classification errors under adversarial attacks. In this work, we propose SFT+RL, a two-stage robust UDA framework that integrates Supervised Fine Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) on top of CLIP's pre-trained visual encoder. In the SFT stage, we adversarially fine-tune a linear classifier using PGD-based perturbations over the labelled source domain while partially unfreezing CLIP's projection layer. It allows adaptation to adversarial noise while preserving CLIP's rich semantic priors. We introduce a confidence-guided pseudo-labeling strategy in the RL stage to annotate unlabeled target samples progressively. Pseudo labels are filtered using a decaying confidence threshold to balance quality and coverage, and the model is trained on a composite dataset formed by combining clean source samples with high-confidence target samples. Adversarial training is applied to mixed batches of clean and adversarial examples to enhance cross-domain robustness. Comprehensive evaluations on three benchmark datasets OfficeHome~\cite{tomm-ude}, PACS~\cite{pacs}, and VisDA~\cite{visda} demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Notably, SFT+RL achieves average improvements of 10.2% in clean accuracy and 15.8% in adversarial robustness across all three datasets, outperforming existing state-of-the-art methods.
Effective unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) requires a representation that captures transferable structure from both the labeled source domain and the unlabeled target domain. We introduce Joint Contrastive-Adversarial Representation Learning (JCAR), a two-stage framework that learns a common representation from the union of unlabeled source and target samples by combining contrastive learning with adversarial domain alignment, and then freezes the representation to fit a source-supervised predictor. We establish a non-asymptotic excess-risk bound for this procedure that couples representation and domain-discriminator estimation while separating downstream prediction, with explicit neural-network approximation errors. Under the stated assumptions and common Hölder smoothness β≥1, the bound identifies a sufficiently large unlabeled-sample regime in which the downstream rate is O(m−β/(2β+d)), where m counts labeled source samples and logarithmic factors are suppressed. The labeled-sample exponent is governed by the latent dimension d rather than the ambient dimension p, which enters the pretraining cost. Experiments on Office-31, Office-Home, and DomainNet demonstrate clear transfer gains across diverse domain shifts, with particularly strong performance when representations are learned from scratch.
Unsupervised video domain adaptation (UVDA) is a practical but under-explored problem. In this paper, we propose a frustratingly easy UVDA method, called MetaTrans. Specifically, MetaTrans adopts a concise learning objective that contains only two fundamental loss terms. Despite the simplicity of the learning objective, MetaTrans embodies an advanced UVDA idea, that is, handling the spatial and temporal divergence of cross-domain videos separately, through a subtle model architecture design. By implementing a temporal-static subtraction module, MetaTrans effectively removes spatial and temporal divergence. Extensive empirical evaluations, particularly on various cross-domain action recognition tasks, show substantial absolute adaptation performance enhancement and significantly superior relative performance gain compared with state-of-the-art UVDA baselines.
Pengfei Wei, Yiqun Sun, Zhiqiang Xu +2
1Magellan Technology Research Institute (MTRI), Japan · 2Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, UAE · 3Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.