Organizations: Centre for Frontier AI Research, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore 138632 · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, Key Laboratory of Machine Intelligence and Advanced Computing, Ministry of Education, China, and Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Computational Science, Guangzhou, China · School of Mathematics (Zhuhai), Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China
Test-Time Adaptation (TTA) methods aim to bridge the domain gap between the source and target domains. However, traditional TTA methods become ineffective when the label distribution shift occurs, a challenge commonly referred to as an open-world scenario. In this paper, we introduce a new method named Reliable Neural Collapse approximation (ReNC) for Open-World Test-Time Adaptation (OWTTA). Specifically, we leverage neural collapse as a structural prior for reliable target-domain adaptation. Guided by this prior, we justify that the pre-trained classifier weights can serve as the prototypes of the source domain. By measuring the similarity between samples and prototypes, we filter out the Out-Of-Distribution~(OOD) samples for reliable updates. Furthermore, we propose a neural collapse approximation mechanism to refine these prototypes, ensuring they can gradually adapt to the target domain while maintaining the neural collapse structure. Extensive experiments on several open-world benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method. Our empirical analysis suggests that ReNC better preserves NC-related properties in the target domain, providing useful evidence for explaining reliable OWTTA and offering new insights for model design. Code is available at https://github.com/JiaqiLin-AI/ReNC.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation of ReNC. (a) Existing methods use fixed source-domain prototypes, which may mismatch the target domain. (b) ReNC improves feature-prototype consistency and adapts prototypes toward target-domain neural collapse.
Figure 2: Entropy of CIFAR10-C with OOD samples ((a) Gaussian noise and (b) SVHN) pre-trained on CIFAR10. Minimizing entropy facilitates adaptation to the target domain. However, indiscriminately minimizing all entropy in an open-world scenario would degrade the model performance.
Figure 3: t-SNE visualization of extracted features on CIFAR10-C with OOD samples ((a) Gaussian noise and (b) SVHN) pre-trained on CIFAR10. Prototypes are generated using the feature class-means of source samples.
Figure 4: Similarity scores of CIFAR10-C with OOD samples ((a) Gaussian noise and (b) SVHN) pre-trained on CIFAR10. The differences in the similarity scores between ID and OOD samples provide a basis for their discrimination.
Figure 5: Simplex Equiangular Tight Frame (Simplex ETF) with different class numbers.
Datasets
#Images
#Classes
Target Domain
CIFAR10-C
10,000
10
Corruption
CIFAR100-C
10,000
100
Corruption
ImageNet-C
50,000
1,000
Corruption
ImageNet-R
30,000
200
Style Transfer
VisDA-C
55,388
12
Style Transfer
Table 1: In-distribution Datasets Information
CIFAR10-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
Tiny
CIFAR100-C
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
TEST
69.19
99.96
81.78
63.61
91.11
74.92
63.54
90.91
74.80
61.09
77.48
68.32
61.27
76.58
68.07
BN
39.44
60.57
47.77
60.19
69.56
64.54
69.21
80.17
74.29
69.02
75.15
71.95
68.83
73.33
71.01
TENT
42.75
61.99
50.60
63.21
72.80
67.67
70.84
82.92
76.41
69.70
76.23
72.82
69.22
74.07
71.56
SHOT
42.71
60.72
50.15
64.57
73.51
68.75
71.12
84.37
77.18
69.51
77.06
73.09
69.10
74.76
71.82
OSTTA
53.43
13.69
21.80
53.88
36.94
43.83
62.76
41.20
49.74
74.85
32.38
45.20
76.39
29.80
42.87
Table 2: Open-world test-time adaptation results on CIFAR10-C with OOD samples. Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
CIFAR100-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
Tiny
CIFAR10-C
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
TEST
25.30
99.99
40.38
24.76
46.81
32.39
26.34
91.65
40.92
26.20
86.68
40.24
25.79
87.86
39.88
BN
21.22
93.29
34.58
26.09
93.21
40.77
30.60
95.42
46.34
31.41
89.69
46.53
31.95
89.93
47.15
TENT
24.45
95.75
38.95
27.50
91.49
42.29
32.05
95.17
47.95
31.33
89.64
46.43
32.08
89.93
47.29
SHOT
25.98
96.62
40.95
28.26
87.36
42.71
32.42
95.14
48.36
31.18
89.71
46.28
32.07
90.10
47.30
OSTTA
12.20
40.58
18.76
17.97
46.56
25.93
33.33
62.59
43.50
36.81
52.15
43.16
42.75
43.67
43.21
Table 3: Open-world test-time adaptation results on CIFAR100-C with OOD samples. Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
ImageNet-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
TEST
11.79
40.85
18.30
11.33
59.57
19.04
11.62
82.04
20.36
BN
9.73
66.50
16.98
15.20
74.24
25.23
16.24
77.93
26.88
TENT
9.31
68.49
16.39
15.26
72.67
25.22
17.28
78.79
28.34
SHOT
9.70
64.57
16.87
14.76
71.69
24.48
17.70
79.63
28.96
OSTTA
13.90
65.34
22.92
20.54
57.34
30.25
21.93
59.43
32.04
Table 4: Open-world test-time adaptation results on ImageNet-C with OOD samples. Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
ImageNet-R
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
TEST
24.71
100.00
39.63
23.60
99.81
38.17
22.46
98.89
36.61
BN
16.38
89.76
27.70
18.70
82.97
30.52
19.03
86.08
31.17
TENT
16.87
93.23
28.57
19.81
84.72
32.11
20.09
87.99
32.71
SHOT
17.27
96.24
29.28
19.70
81.43
31.72
20.44
89.61
33.29
OSTTA
25.46
58.59
35.50
22.46
49.67
30.93
25.66
58.02
35.58
Table 5: Open-world test-time adaptation results on ImageNet-R with OOD samples. Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
VisDA-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
ACCI
ACCO
ACCH
TEST
41.27
100.00
58.43
43.12
97.41
59.78
42.06
99.46
59.12
BN
45.48
99.64
62.45
42.06
79.96
55.12
42.80
88.77
57.75
TENT
51.57
100.00
68.05
41.50
79.96
54.64
44.57
88.40
59.26
SHOT
42.39
99.94
59.53
42.69
68.08
52.48
43.45
72.69
54.33
OSTTA
39.60
54.33
45.81
46.41
29.81
36.30
44.91
45.55
45.23
Table 6: Open-world test-time adaptation results on VisDA-C with OOD samples. Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
CIFAR10
CIFAR100
ImageNet
VisDA
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
0.1712
0.2466
0.7541
0.6235
2.3275
1.1968
0.3031
0.5146
Table 7: NC1 and NC3 on each training dataset. Lower values indicate closer to the neural collapse state.
Dataset
CIFAR10
CIFAR100
ImageNet
VisDA
Ratio
1.526×10−2
7.693×10−3
1.116×10−3
1.873×10−3
Table 8: The ratio b to ⟨w,c⟩ quantifies their relative influence. Lower values imply that the bias term is increasingly negligible in the neural collapse state.
CIFAR10-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
Tiny
CIFAR100-C
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
TEST
0.7386
0.3548
0.7386
0.3548
0.7386
0.3548
0.7386
0.3548
0.7386
0.3548
BN
1.5176
0.4034
0.8026
0.3637
0.6209
0.3189
0.6052
0.3204
0.5970
0.3193
TENT
1.4132
0.3917
0.7314
0.3497
0.5924
0.3151
0.5946
0.3179
0.5884
0.3179
SHOT
1.3871
0.3914
0.7057
0.3461
0.5815
0.3147
0.5914
0.3180
0.5863
0.3185
OSTTA
1.4157
0.4056
0.7922
0.3633
0.6154
0.3194
0.5944
0.3212
0.5852
0.3203
Table 9: NC1 and NC3 on CIFAR10-C and CIFAR100-C with OOD samples. Best results are marked in bold, second best are underlined. The gray background indicates the highest ACCS .
ImageNet-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
TEST
3.7824
1.2762
3.7824
1.2762
3.7824
1.2762
BN
7.6031
1.2733
6.0601
1.2620
6.7761
1.2581
TENT
7.4605
1.2755
5.6129
1.2635
6.3444
1.2574
SHOT
7.6685
1.2759
5.8075
1.2610
6.3542
1.2557
OSTTA
6.0655
1.2586
4.1373
1.2554
4.1407
1.2557
Table 10: NC1 and NC3 on ImageNet-C with OOD samples. Best results marked in bold, second best underlined. The gray background indicates the highest ACCS .
ImageNet-R
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
TEST
20.6384
1.0441
20.6384
1.0441
20.6384
1.0441
BN
30.1058
1.0541
28.6891
1.0577
27.8901
1.0540
TENT
27.4597
1.0478
27.5288
1.0549
26.6687
1.0507
SHOT
26.1513
1.0437
27.2900
1.0539
25.9399
1.0480
OSTTA
25.8711
1.0483
24.8492
1.0584
24.3873
1.0555
Table 11: NC1 and NC3 on ImageNet-R with OOD samples. Best results marked in bold, second best underlined. The gray background indicates the highest ACCS .
VisDA-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
NC1
NC3
TEST
1.8591
0.8081
1.8591
0.8081
1.8591
0.8081
BN
1.3001
0.7268
1.2937
0.7217
1.2915
0.7126
TENT
1.1664
0.7034
1.3417
0.7287
1.1755
0.7005
SHOT
1.0559
0.6944
1.1516
0.7098
1.1388
0.7003
OSTTA
1.4202
0.7503
1.2309
0.748
1.2792
0.7308
Table 12: NC1 and NC3 on VisDA-C with OOD samples. Best results marked in bold, second best underlined. The gray background indicates the highest ACCS .
CIFAR10-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
Tiny
CIFAR100-C
Le+
Ld
Ls
U.P.
ACCH
ACCH
ACCH
ACCH
ACCH
✓
86.05
78.60
82.10
69.25
68.04
✓
✓
86.07
78.56
82.06
69.27
68.00
✓
✓
✓
86.05
78.62
82.06
69.27
68.00
✓
✓
88.02
89.21
83.22
73.77
72.13
✓
✓
✓
88.07
89.24
83.30
73.42
71.47
Table 13: Ablation study on the CIFAR10-C and CIFAR100-C with OOD samples. Best results marked in bold, second best underlined.
ImageNet-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
Le+
Ld
Ls
U.P.
ACCH
ACCH
ACCH
✓
33.11
34.96
36.56
✓
✓
33.25
35.00
36.47
✓
✓
✓
32.27
35.33
36.44
✓
✓
52.84
52.10
52.45
✓
✓
✓
51.67
51.23
51.53
Table 14: Ablation study on the ImageNet-C, ImageNet-R and VisDA-C with OOD samples. Best results marked in bold, second best underlined.
Running Time
CIFAR10-C
CIFAR100-C
ImageNet-C
ImageNet-R
VisDA-C
TEST
0.000623
0.000626
0.001139
0.001188
0.001165
BN
0.000632
0.000658
0.001163
0.001242
0.001203
TENT
0.003121
0.003208
0.005682
0.005821
0.005640
SHOT
0.002406
0.002496
0.004015
0.003910
0.003733
OSTTA
0.001202
0.001230
0.002643
0.002656
0.003850
EATA
0.001726
0.001830
0.002824
0.002860
0.003195
Table 15: Per-sample running time (in seconds) across all datasets, measured with Noise OOD samples.
Figure 6: Parameter analysis of the optimal balance parameter λ in Eq. ( 10 ).
Figure 7: Open-world test-time adaptation results of ReNC at different OOD sample ratios.
t
CIFAR10-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
Tiny
CIFAR100-C
Average
TEST
81.78
75.10
74.85
68.38
68.07
73.64
BN
47.77
64.19
74.18
71.72
71.32
65.83
TENT
50.60
67.37
76.44
72.75
71.76
67.78
SHOT
50.15
67.74
77.16
72.97
71.89
67.98
OSTTA
21.80
43.70
46.89
48.22
47.47
41.62
Table 16: Continual OWTTA results on CIFAR10-C with OOD samples. Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
CIFAR10-C
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
Tiny
CIFAR100-C
TEST
92.99
91.04
90.40
86.16
81.60
BN
91.81
90.57
87.89
84.80
80.34
TENT
89.15
92.47
90.89
86.23
82.12
SHOT
93.61
92.37
90.36
86.21
82.11
OSTTA
37.21
44.75
49.78
50.36
50.60
EATA
90.26
89.55
88.94
85.55
81.12
Table 17: OWTTA results under ViT backbone, evaluated by ACCH . Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
ImageNet-R
Noise
MNIST
SVHN
TEST
39.63
38.17
36.61
BN
27.70
30.52
31.17
TENT
28.57
32.11
32.71
SHOT
29.28
31.72
33.29
OSTTA
35.50
30.93
35.58
EATA
27.55
31.07
31.21
Table 18: Comparison of vision-language model extensions on ImageNet-R with OOD samples, evaluated by ACCH . Best marked in bold, second best underlined.
Figure 8: Nemenyi post-hoc analysis of all the baselines.
Test-Time Adaptation (TTA) aims to mitigate distributional shifts between training and test domains during inference time. However, existing TTA methods fall short in the realistic scenario where models face both continually changing domains and the simultaneous emergence of unknown semantic classes, a challenging setting we term Open-set Continual Test-Time Adaptation (OCTTA). The coupling of domain and semantic shifts often collapses the feature space, severely degrading both classification and out-of-distribution detection. To tackle this, we propose DOmain COmpensation (DOCO), a lightweight and effective framework that robustly performs domain adaptation and OOD detection in a synergistic, closed loop. DOCO first performs dynamic, adaptation-conditioned sample splitting to separate likely ID from OOD samples. Then, using only the ID samples, it learns a domain compensation prompt by aligning feature statistics with the source domain, guided by a structural preservation regularizer that prevents semantic distortion. This learned prompt is then propagated to the OOD samples within the same batch, effectively isolating their semantic novelty for more reliable detection. Extensive experiments on multiple challenging benchmarks demonstrate that DOCO outperforms prior CTTA and OSTTA methods, establishing a new state-of-the-art for the demanding OCTTA setting.
Yingkai Yang, Chaoqi Chen, Hui Huang
College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University
Deep neural nets achieve remarkable performance when training and test data share the same distribution, but this assumption frequently breaks in real-world deployment, where data undergoes continual distributional shifts. Continual Test-Time Adaptation (CTTA) addresses this challenge by adapting pretrained models to non-stationary target distributions on-the-fly, without access to source data or labeled targets, while mitigating two critical failure modes: catastrophic forgetting of source knowledge and error accumulation from noisy pseudo-labels over extended time horizons. In this comprehensive survey, we formally define the CTTA problem, analyze the diverse continual domain shift patterns that characterize different evaluation protocols, and propose a hierarchical taxonomy that categorizes existing methods into three families: optimization-based strategies (entropy minimization, pseudo-labeling, parameter restoration), parameter-efficient methods (normalization layer adaptation, adaptive parameter selection), and architecture-based approaches (teacher-student frameworks, adapters, visual prompting, masked modeling). We systematically review representative methods within each category and present comparative benchmarks and experimental results across standard evaluation settings. Finally, we discuss the limitations of current approaches and highlight emerging research directions, including the adaptation of foundation models and black-box systems, thereby providing a roadmap for future research in robust continual test-time adaptation.
The University of Texas at Dallas, USA · LIVIA ETS Montreal, ILLS International Laboratory on Learning Systems (ILLS), McGill - ÉTS - MILA - CNRS - Université Paris-Saclay - CentraleSupélec · Tulane University, USA +2
This paper studies continual test-time adaptation (CTTA), the task of adapting a model to constantly changing unseen domains in testing while preserving previously learned knowledge. Existing CTTA methods mostly focus on adaptation to the current test domain only, overlooking generalization to arbitrary test domains a model may face in the future. To tackle this limitation, we present a novel online test-time domain generalization framework for CTTA, dubbed TestDG. TestDG aims to learn features invariant to both current and previous test domains on the fly during testing, improving the potential for effective generalization to future domains. To this end, we propose a new model architecture and a test-time adaptation strategy dedicated to learning domain-invariant features, along with prototype selection and update mechanisms for effectively managing information from previous test domains. TestDG achieved state of the art on three of four public CTTA benchmarks and performed on par with the best prior method on ImageNet-C. Moreover, it showed superior generalization to unseen test domains.