Organizations: College of Computer Science, Sichuan University, China · College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, China · Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Lab, ETH Zürich, Switzerland · School of Computer Science, Nanjing University, China · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, China
Continual Learning (CL) aims to train neural networks on a dynamic stream of tasks without forgetting previously learned knowledge. Among optimization-based approaches, C-Flat has emerged as a promising solution due to its plug-and-play nature and its ability to encourage uniformly low-loss regions for both new and old tasks. However, C-Flat requires three additional gradient computations per iteration, imposing substantial overhead on the optimization process. In this work, we propose C-Flat Turbo, a faster yet stronger optimizer that significantly reduces the training cost. We show that the gradients associated with first-order flatness contain direction-invariant components relative to the proxy-model gradients, enabling us to skip redundant gradient computations in the perturbed ascent steps. Moreover, we observe that these flatness-promoting gradients progressively stabilize across tasks, which motivates a linear scheduling strategy with an adaptive trigger to allocate larger turbo steps for later tasks. Experiments show that C-Flat Turbo is 1.0× to 1.25× faster than C-Flat across a wide range of CL methods, while achieving comparable or even improved accuracy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Brief illustration of C-Flat [ 6 ] . (a) SGD optimizes along the negative direction of the gradients, g=∇L(f(θT)) . (b) SAM [ 14 ] computes the gradients gs at an adversarially perturbed position θ+ρ⋅g/∥g∥ , and then updates the original model parameters. (c) C-Flat [ 6 ] further calculates the first-order flatness gradient gf , based on the perturbed parameters θ+ρ⋅(gs−g)/∥(gs−g)∥ .
Figure 2: Schematic illustration of C-Flat Turbo. Left: LookSAM [ 36 ] decomposes the SAM gradients into two components: one parallel to g that reduces the empirical loss, and an orthogonal component gvs that guides convergence toward a common low-loss region. Empirical results show that gvs varies significantly more slowly than g . Right: C-Flat Turbo investigates the latent invariance of gvf , the flatness component orthogonal to the gradients at the perturbed model θ+ϵ1∗ , which exhibits even slower variation than gvs in LookSAM.
Figure 3: Left: Distributions of gradient correction ratios for gs−g and gf across training epochs. A larger portion of data near the distribution tails indicates increasingly pronounced differences. Right: L2-norm distances between gradients and their counterparts from five steps earlier. Changes along the sharpness-related direction ( gvs ) and flatness-related direction ( gvf ) evolve more slowly than those along the empirical gradient directions ( g and g0 ).
Figure 4: Left: Gradient dynamics across tasks in CL. Both sharpness- and flatness-related gradients fluctuate substantially in early stages but progressively stabilize as training proceeds. Right: Q–Q plots of ∥g∥2 and ∥g0∥2 , showing that both statistics gradually approach a normal distribution over the course of learning.
Model
Method
CIFAR100 B0_Inc10
CUB B0_Inc10
IN-R B0_Inc20
ObjNet B0_Inc10
Img/s ↑
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Typical
iCaRL [ 42 ]
77.83
66.64
82.91
74.00
72.13
61.62
48.06
28.20
73.35 (100%)
+C-Flat [ 6 ]
79.72
67.15
83.47
74.81
72.92
62.35
49.59
29.03
19.72 ( 26.9% )
+C-Flat Turbo
79.82
68.54
84.00
75.12
73.11
62.38
50.49
29.30
45.89 ( 62.6% )
MEMO [ 70 ]
82.26
73.89
86.66
79.90
70.96
61.05
56.22
38.32
135.14 (100%)
+C-Flat [ 6 ]
82.61
75.49
87.03
80.73
71.69
62.93
56.50
39.45
46.11 ( 34.1% )
Table 1: Accuracy and training speeds using five state-of-the-art methods, with a pre-trained ViT-B/16-IN1K backbone. Red and green denote the baseline and the efficient optimizer, respectively. Bolded indicates the best result.
Figure 5: (a) Sensitivity analysis of k . (b) - (d) Evolution of loss, sharpness and flatness on EASE w/ and w/o C-Flat Turbo.
Method
ResNet-18
ResNet-34
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Img/s ↑
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Img/s ↑
iCaRL [ 42 ]
59.13 ±0.30
41.23 ±0.91
2333.3 (100%)
58.80 ±1.04
41.26 ±0.99
1250.4 (100%)
+C-Flat [ 6 ]
59.45 ±0.18
42.47 ±0.06
686.3 ( 29.4% )
59.55 ±0.93
42.09 ±0.61
359.8 ( 28.8% )
+C-Flat Turbo
59.84 ±0.05
42.84 ±0.18
1750.1 ( 75.0% )
59.75 ±0.55
42.34 ±0.54
960.6 ( 76.8% )
MEMO [ 70 ]
48.63 ±0.78
29.19 ±0.89
2413.8 (100%)
68.49 ±1.74
57.05 ±1.46
1873.2 (100%)
+C-Flat [ 6 ]
49.98 ±0.61
30.76 ±0.57
886.1 ( 36.7% )
69.00 ±1.39
59.29 ±0.73
569.1 ( 30.4% )
Table 2: Accuracy results with ResNet-18 and ResNet-34 trained from scratch. Bolded indicates the best result.
Method
L2P [ 57 ]
EASE [ 67 ]
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Img/s ↑
Avg ↑
Last ↑
Img/s ↑
Vanilla
87.92 ±1.30
83.66 ±1.49
110.29 (100%)
91.16 ±0.71
87.49 ±0.32
166.67 (100%)
+SAM [ 14 ]
88.18 ±1.39
83.84 ±1.39
56.60 ( 51.3% )
91.36 ±0.82
87.61 ±0.27
86.71 ( 52.0% )
+LookSAM [ 36 ]
88.35 ±1.39
83.80 ±1.20
88.76 ( 80.5% )
90.89 ±0.86
86.99 ±0.28
132.74 ( 79.6% )
+C-Flat [ 6 ]
88.62 ±0.88
84.04 ±0.60
28.63 ( 30.0% )
91.60 ±1.18
87.69 ±0.50
44.25 ( 26.5% )
+C-Flat Turbo
89.57 ±0.36
84.48 ±0.09
65.50 (59.4%)
91.75 ±0.80
87.74 ±0.20
102.74 (61.6%)
Table 3: Accuracy and training speeds of L2P and EASE across various optimizers. Task orders are shuffled for evaluation on dynamic sequences. Red and green denote the baseline and the efficient optimizer. Bolded indicates the best result.
Figure 6: Accuracy and training speed comparison of different Turbo scheduling strategies. The upper part shows results on MEMO, while the lower part shows results on EASE.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Methods
Epochs
LR
BS
Tasks
Exemplar
ρ
λ
k
β
iCaRL
20
1e-3
32
10
20
0.1
0.2
5
0.8
MEMO
20
1e-3
32
10
20
0.1
0.2
5
0.8
L2P
5
2e-3
16
10
-
0.02
0.2
5
0.8
Ranpac
5
1e-2
16
10
-
0.05
0.2
5
0.8
EASE
5
2.5e-3
16
10
-
0.05
0.2
5
0.8
Appendix
Table 4: Hyperparameter settings for CIFAR100.
Optimizer
C-Flat Turbo
k0
2
2
2
5
5
5
10
10
10
c
5
10
20
5
10
20
5
10
20
Avg
92.19
92.18
92.05
92.08
92.08
92.01
92.07
92.04
92.04
Last
87.67
87.59
87.45
87.62
87.54
87.42
87.51
87.59
87.46
Img/s
99.17
99.91
63.19
104.86
102.74
99.05
104.64
106.89
107.39
Appendix
Table 5: Sensitivity analysis of the scheduler hyperparameters in C-Flat Turbo on CIFAR100.
m
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
Avg
91.98
92.07
92.05
92.06
91.86
91.94
Last
87.43
87.48
87.39
87.50
87.07
87.16
Img/s
75.56
105.43
97.69
102.74
154.52
135.18
Appendix
Table 6: Sensitivity analysis of the trigger threshold hyperparameter in C-Flat Turbo on CIFAR100.
Method
Optimizer
Backbone
Trainable / total params
Memory
EASE
C-Flat
ViT-Base-16
1.19M / 86.99M
2.14GB
C-Flat Turbo
ViT-Base-16
1.19M / 86.99M
2.15GB
C-Flat
ViT-Large-16
3.17M / 306.47M
5.34GB
C-Flat Turbo
ViT-Large-16
3.17M / 306.47M
5.37GB
iCaRL
C-Flat
ResNet-18
11.17M / 11.17M
1.55GB
C-Flat Turbo
ResNet-18
11.17M / 11.17M
1.66GB
Appendix
Table 7: Memory usage of different architectures. EASE uses a frozen backbone, while iCaRL updates the full backbone.
L2P
EASE
Method
Avg
Last
Img/s
Avg
Last
Img/s
+SS-SAM
89.50
84.45
77.42 (70.20%)
90.90
87.87
91.65 (54.99%)
+AE-SAM
89.70
84.48
80.86 (73.32%)
92.03
87.37
112.58 (67.54%)
+C-Flat Turbo
89.78
84.69
65.50 (59.4%)
92.36
87.96
102.74 (61.6%)
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison with SS-SAM and AE-SAM on L2P (left) and EASE (right).
Method
Clipart
Infograph
Painting
Quickdraw
Real
Sketch
Avg
DUCT
74.21
60.52
67.73
63.50
69.51
68.63
67.35
+C-Flat
74.93
60.88
68.10
63.30
70.22
69.41
67.81
+C-Flat Turbo
74.89
60.91
68.01
63.75
70.82
69.50
67.98
Appendix
Table 9: Results on DomainNet under the DIL setting.
Method
CIL
TIL
Avg
Last
Avg
Last
DualPrompt
85.77
89.10
97.79
99.40
+C-Flat
85.85
87.80
97.67
99.30
+C-Flat Turbo
86.01
87.00
97.94
99.40
Appendix
Table 10: Results on CIFAR100 under the CIL and TIL settings.
Method
reuse
scheduler
trigger
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
Avg
Img/s
EASE
×
×
×
98.40
96.25
94.63
93.88
91.80
90.92
90.47
88.09
87.58
87.17
91.92
166.67
+C-Flat
×
×
×
98.50
96.45
94.87
94.08
91.94
91.05
90.64
88.44
87.93
87.58
92.15
44.25
+C-Flat Turbo
✓
×
×
98.50
96.37
94.77
93.94
91.92
91.05
90.67
88.28
87.81
87.45
92.08
67.20
✓
✓
×
98.40
96.31
94.74
93.89
91.90
91.00
90.70
88.25
87.75
87.40
92.03
74.63
✓
✓
✓
98.50
96.60
95.07
94.15
92.08
91.27
90.73
88.52
88.00
87.57
92.25
102.74
Appendix
Table 11: Per-task accuracy and ablation study results for EASE trained on the 10-split CIFAR100 dataset.
Figure 7: Visualization of L2-norm distances of the gradients every 5 steps across 10 tasks.
Continual learning remains a major challenge for modern deep networks, partly because commonly used optimizers lack inherent mechanisms for continual adaptation. One such natural mechanism is fast and slow adaptation to balance stability and plasticity. This mechanism has deep roots in neuroscience and biology, but there is no consensus on how to best incorporate it in commonly used optimizers. Here, we show that this can be easily done via the VCL framework, where past posteriors are used as priors in the future. Our key idea is to incorporate slow adaptation via merging of past posteriors to slow down the drift in the knowledge as learning progresses. The merged posterior is then used as the prior in the VCL update to implement the fast-weight updates. These steps can be seamlessly implemented in the IVON optimizer, whose form and costs are nearly identical to that of Adam. We call this new optimizer the Continual IVON (CoVON) optimizer and show that it not only consistently improves over existing VCL optimizers, but also performs better than other weight-regularization strategies across domain-incremental learning, continual pre-training, and fine-tuning of large language models.
Subarnaduti Paul, Yohan Jung, Mohammad Emtiyaz Khan +3
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany · Department of Computer Science & AI, Jeonbuk National University, Republic of Korea · Department of Computer Science, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany +3
In Online Continual Learning (OCL), a neural network sequentially learns from a non-stationary data stream in a single-pass with access only to a limited memory replay buffer. This contrasts sharply with off-line continual learning where training is multiple epoch dependent on large datasets. The main challenge faced by OCL is to overcome catastrophic forgetting of past tasks (stability) while learning new ones efficiently (plasticity). Existing methods counter forgetting via replay-based rehearsal, output level distillation, fixed regularization, or meta-learning on the current data. However, these methods have limitations: rehearsal introduces a stored sample bias; distillation operates on output-distributions without modulating parameter updates; fixed-regularization penalizes parameters irrespective of sensitivity; stream-only meta-learning lacks a feedback controlled parameter update. We propose Meta-Adaptive Network Gradient Optimization (MANGO), an OCL framework that balances stability-plasticity via gradient-gating and meta-learned regularization. Gradient-gating scales parameter updates based on sensitivity, preventing destructive updates. Meta-learned regularization adapts stability coefficients, evaluating the effect of parameter update on replay. In MANGO, replay acts as both a training signal and a forgetting evaluator. We evaluated our method on three standard OCL benchmark datasets. MANGO outperforms strong baselines, achieving state-of-the-art results with consistent performance across replay sizes. In domain incremental learning on CLEAR-10 and class incremental learning on CIFAR-100 and Tiny-ImageNet, it achieves highest accuracy among all baselines and achieves positive Backward Transfer, overcoming forgetting on CLEAR-10.
Alleviating catastrophic forgetting while enabling further learning is a primary challenge in continual learning (CL). Orthogonal-based training methods have gained attention for their efficiency and strong theoretical properties, and many existing approaches enforce orthogonality through gradient projection. In this paper, we revisit orthogonality and exploit the fact that small singular values correspond to directions that are nearly orthogonal to the input space of previous tasks. Building on this principle, we introduce NESS (Null-space Estimated from Small Singular values), a CL method that applies orthogonality directly in the weight space rather than through gradient manipulation. Specifically, NESS constructs an approximate null space using the smallest singular values of each layer's input representation and parameterizes task-specific updates via a compact low-rank adaptation (LoRA-style) formulation constrained to this subspace. The subspace basis is fixed to preserve the null-space constraint, and only a single trainable matrix is learned for each task. This design ensures that the resulting updates remain approximately in the null space of previous inputs while enabling adaptation to new tasks. Our theoretical analysis and experiments on three benchmark datasets demonstrate competitive performance, low forgetting, and stable accuracy across tasks, highlighting the role of small singular values in continual learning. The code is available at https://github.com/pacman-ctm/NESS.
Cuong Anh Pham, Praneeth Vepakomma, Samuel Horváth
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI), UAE · Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA