Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit strong zero-shot capabilities, making them an attractive solution for continual learning across diverse tasks. However, during continual adaptation, both catastrophic forgetting and zero-shot degradation occur, severely degrading performance. In this paper, we introduce TASSO, a new paradigm that efficiently preserves the latent space geometry while ensuring network plasticity. We achieve this with two complementary techniques: subspace learning and geometry-aware knowledge distillation. Specifically, we first learn a sequence of task-specific low-rank projectors, which we use to project the latent representations before optimizing cross-entropy. Secondly, we employ a geodesic-distance-based loss that distills knowledge from the previous-task model while effectively preserving the latent space geometry. These design choices not only avoid unnecessary parameter updates along the full embedding dimensions but also improve learning by focusing on task-specific manifolds. Moreover, the geometry-aware distillation provides strong regularization and significantly reduces both catastrophic forgetting and zero-shot degradation throughout the continual learning sequence. Experimental results with the CLIP vision language model in the multi-domain task incremental and class incremental learning benchmarks demonstrate clear improvements over state-of-the-art methods in mitigating forgetting and preserving zero-shot capabilities.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: TASSO architecture. At each incremental step k , the vision encoder gik is optimized with a combination of three objectives: cross-entropy; task-specific subspace cross-entropy (computed according to the learnable projector U ); and geometry-aware knowledge distillation (retaining knowledge from the previous step’s encoder gik−1 ).
Figure 2: Schematic overview of how the metrics are computed. Accuracy denotes the mean performance over all tasks once Continual Learning has finished. Catastrophic Forgetting quantifies the average, worst-case loss in performance on previously learned tasks, relative to supervised training on each task. Zero-Shot Degradation captures the average, worst-case drop in performance on unseen future tasks, relative to the accuracy of the pretrained model before the start of continual learning.
Method
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Mean
Accuracy ( → )
Continual FT
76.16
76.24
78.03
68.69
76.64
75.44
72.71
77.45
75.17
LwF [ 23 ]
76.78
80.45
80.65
77.52
79.64
79.45
77.31
78.70
78.81
iCaRL [ 34 ]
77.99
79.77
79.93
76.66
79.26
79.08
77.06
78.61
78.55
ZSCL [ 43 ]
81.89
83.98
84.30
83.49
83.41
82.38
81.92
81.97
82.92
MoE-Adapters [ 40 ]
82.71
80.74
81.15
83.97
83.68
83.68
82.73
79.68
82.29
GIFT [ 39 ]
81.93
84.01
84.10
83.67
84.11
84.25
82.54
83.10
83.46
Table 1: Task-Specific evaluation (MTIL task). During inference, each image is compared only against the class embeddings of its task. We report percent Accuracy ( ↑ ), Catastrophic Forgetting ( ↓ ), and Zero-Shot Degradation (Z. S. Deg., ↓ ). Best in bold.
Method
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Mean
Accuracy ( → )
Continual FT
75.17
75.13
76.01
67.17
75.54
74.47
71.66
76.40
73.94
LwF [ 23 ]
74.14
77.44
77.94
74.89
77.30
77.43
75.50
76.51
76.39
iCaRL [ 34 ]
76.97
78.82
78.57
75.43
78.08
78.10
75.70
77.52
77.40
ZSCL [ 43 ]
80.49
82.54
82.99
82.08
82.17
80.99
80.30
80.09
81.46
GIFT [ 39 ]
79.99
81.68
81.95
83.08
83.48
83.27
81.58
81.27
82.04
SnD [ 41 ]
83.35
83.57
83.88
83.70
84.46
83.82
83.89
83.43
83.76
Table 2: Task-Agnostic evaluation (MCIL task). During inference, each image is compared against all 694 textual class embeddings. We report percent Accuracy ( ↑ ), Catastrophic Forgetting ( ↓ ), and Zero-Shot Degradation (Z. S. Deg., ↓ ). Best in bold.
Figure 3: Distribution of cosine distances between text anchors and vision class-prototypes. TASSO (in blue ) consistently achieves lower distances than SnD (the closest competitor, in orange ). Metrics computed in the last continual step of S1 ordering.
Figure 4: Stacked boxplot comparing the cosine distances between image prototypes and textual class embeddings (lower is better). TASSO (in blue ) and SnD (the closest competitor, in orange ). Metrics computed in the last continual step of S1 ordering.
LKD
Subspace
Accuracy
Forgetting
Zero-Shot
Learning
Degradation
✗
✗
76.86
9.82
11.63
L2
✗
84.48
1.71
1.75
Lgeo
✗
85.07
1.00
0.25
✗
✓
75.24
13.01
17.60
L2
✓
84.73
2.26
1.86
Table 3: Ablation study on the method components in the MTIL setting
r
Acc.
Forg.
Z.Shot
72
85.70
0.85
0.41
144
85.74
0.81
0.36
288
85.72
0.85
0.38
Table 4: Ablation study on the method hyperparameters in the MTIL sequence S1 setting: a) the rank r of the projector matrix U ; b) subspace learning loss scale α ; c) knowledge distillation loss weight β .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
LKD
Subspace
Accuracy
Forgetting
Zero-Shot
Learning
Degradation
✗
✗
75.70
9.99
13.73
L2
✗
83.27
1.85
1.72
Lgeo
✗
83.83
1.05
0.39
✗
✓
74.33
13.73
19.60
L2
✓
83.83
2.77
2.79
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation study on the method components in the MCIL setting.
Table 6: Ablation study on the hyperparameters. MCIL sequence S1 .
Accuracy
Forgetting
Z.S. Degradation
TASSO
85.74
0.81
0.36
TASSO(no Lsub sup.)
84.88
0.79
0.13
TASSO (proj-dec)
85.37
1.21
0.44
TASSO (alt)
85.51
0.70
0.20
Appendix
Table 7: Different optimization choices for the subspace learning loss Lsub .
Table 8: Subspace distillation ablation
Dataset
FGVC-Aircraft
DTD
EuroSAT
Flowers-102
Food-101
Oxford-Pets
Stanford-Cars
UCF-101
Original VLM
23.91
44.39
42.22
67.40
83.69
87.27
65.51
64.26
FGVC-Aircraft
53.74
44.56
42.74
66.95
83.58
86.92
65.32
64.10
DTD
53.98
80.14
45.65
66.83
83.39
87.30
64.97
64.21
EuroSAT
53.86
80.08
98.80
67.15
83.31
86.97
64.83
64.00
Flowers-102
53.95
80.26
98.72
99.07
83.25
87.05
64.71
63.89
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy for each domain at each incremental training step on sequence S1 in the MTIL benchmark.
Dataset
FGVC-Aircraft
DTD
EuroSAT
Flowers-102
Food-101
Oxford-Pets
Stanford-Cars
UCF-101
Original VLM
23.91
36.52
32.80
67.40
83.15
87.05
65.51
63.68
FGVC-Aircraft
52.84
36.94
33.05
66.91
83.06
86.70
65.32
63.55
DTD
52.69
78.31
34.30
66.42
82.40
87.11
64.97
63.63
EuroSAT
52.51
78.07
98.31
66.71
82.32
86.84
64.83
63.49
Flowers-102
52.72
77.96
98.17
98.94
82.26
86.86
64.71
63.34
Appendix
Table 10: Accuracy for each domain at each incremental training step on sequence S1 in the MCIL benchmark.
Seed
Accuracy
Forgetting
Z.S. Degradation
42
85.73
0.89
0.45
123
86.03
0.65
0.74
1234
85.62
0.73
0.43
12345
85.39
1.21
0.79
123456
85.79
0.61
0.50
1234567
85.87
0.63
0.85
Appendix
Table 11: Statistical significance of TASSO on S1 of MTIL. For fairness, we used seed 1102 to match the one used by the main competitor SnD [ 41 ] .
Dataset
Classes
Train
Test
FGVC-Aircraft [ 29 ]
100
3,334
3,333
DTD [ 6 ]
47
2,820
1,692
EuroSAT [ 10 ]
10
13,500
8,100
Flowers-102 [ 31 ]
102
4,093
2,463
Food-101 [ 3 ]
101
50,500
30,300
Oxford-Pets [ 32 ]
37
2,944
3,669
Appendix
Table 12: Number of classes and samples in the training and test splits of the dataset used in TASSO. (*): Note that only a subset of the 1.28M training samples from ImageNet has been used.
Sequence
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
S1
FVGC
DTD
EuroSAT
Flowers
Food
Oxford
Stanford
UCF
Aircraft
102
101
Pets
Cars
101
S2
DTD
EuroSAT
Flowers
Food
Oxford
Stanford
UCF
FVGC
102
101
Pets
Cars
101
Aircraft
S3
EuroSAT
Flowers
Food
Oxford
Stanford
UCF
FVGC
DTD
102
101
Pets
Cars
101
Aircraft
Appendix
Table 13: Details on the 8 sequences used in the TASSO experimental evaluation.
Class-incremental learning aims to continuously acquire new knowledge while preserving previously learned information, thereby mitigating catastrophic forgetting. Existing methods primarily restrict parameter updates but often overlook their structural properties in high-dimensional spaces. From a subspace perspective, updates induced by different tasks tend to lie in multiple overlapping low-rank subspaces, leading to cross-task subspace interference and severe forgetting. To address this issue, we propose HDSD, a Hierarchical Dual-Subspace Decoupling framework for continual learning in vision-language models. Specifically, we introduce a lightweight Feature Modulation Module (FMM) that explicitly decomposes the parameter space into general and task-specific subspaces. Building on this design, we develop two complementary components. First, a General Fusion Module (GFM) evaluates relative parameter changes across tasks and uses an adaptive threshold to capture stable and transferable knowledge. Second, a Hierarchical Learning Module (HLM) performs structured parameter decomposition via Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) and uses a scaling mechanism to constrain updates within distinct subspace scales. Together, these designs reduce subspace interference and parameter drift. Extensive experiments on conventional benchmarks show that HDSD achieves state-of-the-art results.
Mengxin Qin, Xiang Zhang, Kun Wei +2
School of Electronic Engineering, Xidian University Xi’an 710071, China
Continual learning of pretrained vision-language models (VLMs) is prone to catastrophic forgetting, yet current approaches adapt to new tasks without explicitly preserving the cross-modal semantic geometry inherited from pretraining and previous stages, allowing new-task supervision to induce geometric distortion. We observe that the most pronounced drift tends to concentrate in vulnerable neighborhoods near the old-new semantic interface, where shared visual patterns are easily re-explained by new textual semantics. To address this under an exemplar-free constraint, we propose Semantic Geometry Preservation for Continual Learning (SeGP-CL). SeGP-CL first probes the drift-prone region by constructing a compact set of adversarial anchors with dual-targeted projected gradient descent (DPGD), which drives selected new-task seeds toward old-class semantics while remaining faithful in raw visual space. During training, we preserve cross-modal structure by anchor-guided cross-modal geometry distillation (ACGD), and stabilize the textual reference frame across tasks via a lightweight text semantic-geometry regularization (TSGR). After training, we estimate anchor-induced raw-space drift to transfer old visual prototypes and perform dual-path inference by fusing cross-modal and visual cues. Extensive experiments on five continual learning benchmarks demonstrate that SeGP-CL consistently improves stability and forward transfer, achieving state-of-the-art performance while better preserving semantic geometry of VLMs. Code is available at: https://github.com/chiyuan-IVIPLab/SeGP-CL.
Chiyuan He, Zihuan Qiu, Fanman Meng +4
School of Information and Communication Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
Vision-language models (VLMs) such as CLIP retain zero-shot recognition ability, but their open-world use often requires task-agnostic continual learning: tasks arrive sequentially, past data are unavailable, task identity is unknown, and the backbone cannot be retrained. We argue that this setting fails VLMs through three coupled pressures beyond the stability-plasticity tradeoff: (1) modal-consistency drift, (2) representation-space interference, and (3) per-task capacity shortfall. We propose COMET (Collaborative Mixture-of-Expert Transfer) to resolve these three issues respectively as follows. A frozen teacher provides only a feature reference on a shared image-text pool; Tri-Affinity Distillation preserves image-image, text-text, and image-text geometry; and Student-Aware Cross-Expert Distillation aligns new experts with compatible prior experts so routing errors degrade gracefully. We design COMET to keep capacity and inference separate: a contextual bandit keeps or merges full per-task experts using post-training signals, while a reconstruction router selects sparse experts at test time without teacher semantics. On the X-TAIL benchmark, we show that each proposed component improves continual learning performance. COMET shows that continual vision-language adaptation can preserve multimodal geometry, coordinate accumulated experts, and allocate capacity jointly when feature reference, expert shaping, routing, and capacity control are separated by construction.