Continual Visual Learning under Evolving Semantic Concept Shift
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences Nador, Mohammed Premier University, Oujda, Morocco · Laboratory LaSTI, ENSAK, Sultan Moulay Slimane University, Khouribga, Morocco
Abstract
Visual foundation models are commonly adapted under the assumption that the appearance of incoming data may change while the semantic meaning of the prediction task remains fixed. In long-lived visual systems, however, taxonomies, policies, and concept definitions can themselves evolve, causing the same visual evidence to require a different interpretation. We study this setting as evolving semantic concept shift and introduce SemReWrite, a framework for selectively updating obsolete visual--semantic mappings while preserving knowledge that remains valid. SemReWrite represents changes between old and revised semantic specifications, combines semantic discrepancy with sparse revised supervision to localize affected visual regions, and uses an input-dependent low-rank rewriting mechanism together with structured semantic memory, preservation, and obsolete-decision suppression. We further introduce EvoShift-Bench, spanning ImageNet, iNaturalist, CUB-200-2011, and DomainNet, with semantic transitions including class split, merge, boundary revision, insertion, partial redefinition, recurrence, and mixed semantic--appearance shift. To explicitly evaluate selective semantic revision, we introduce Rewrite Accuracy (RA) and Preservation Accuracy (PA) for affected and unaffected regions, respectively, Obsolete Retention (OR) for measuring residual outdated semantic associations, and the Selective Revision Score (SRS), which jointly summarizes rewriting and preservation performance. Experiments show that SemReWrite achieves a stronger balance between learning revised semantics and retaining unaffected knowledge than prompt replacement, conventional fine-tuning, parameter-efficient adaptation, and continual-learning strategies.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Classes | Split | Merge | Boundary | Insertion | Recurring | Mixed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ImageNet | 1,000 | ✓ | ✓ | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| iNaturalist | 1,000 | ✓ | ✓ | – | ✓ | ✓ | – |
| CUB-200 | 200 | – | – | ✓ | – | ✓ | – |
| DomainNet | 345 | ✓ | ✓ | – | ✓ | – | ✓ |
| ID | Shift | Example |
|---|---|---|
| S1 | Split | Vehicle Car / Truck |
| S2 | Merge | Husky + Malamute Northern dog |
| S3 | Boundary revision | Semantic rule changes |
| S4 | Class insertion | Parent new subclass |
| S5 | Partial redefinition | Subset of concepts changes |
| S6 | Recurring shift |
| Method | Metric | Split | Merge | Boundary | Redefinition | Insertion | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old Model | Acc. | 65.2 0.5 | 69.1 0.4 | 61.0 0.6 | 63.1 0.7 | 58.5 0.8 | 63.4 |
| SRS | 65.2 0.6 | 68.1 0.5 | 62.0 0.7 | 63.4 0.6 | 59.0 0.8 | 63.5 | |
| New Text | Acc. | 74.6 0.6 | 76.8 0.5 | 70.5 0.8 | 72.4 0.7 | 70.8 0.7 | 73.0 |
| SRS | 75.4 0.6 | 77.2 0.5 | 72.0 0.7 | 73.8 0.7 | 71.9 0.8 | 74.1 | |
| Full FT | Acc. | 82.1 0.7 | 83.6 0.6 | 80.4 0.8 | 81.0 0.7 | 78.8 0.9 | 81.2 |
| SRS | 81.0 0.7 | 82.1 0.6 | 79.5 0.8 | 80.0 0.7 | 77.8 0.9 | 80.1 |
| Method | RA | PA | OR | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old Model | 51.6 0.7 | 94.2 0.3 | 41.8 1.0 | 66.7 0.6 |
| New Text | 65.8 0.8 | 92.5 0.4 | 29.7 0.9 | 76.9 0.6 |
| Full FT | 84.7 0.6 | 80.1 0.9 | 13.6 0.7 | 82.3 0.7 |
| LoRA | 83.6 0.5 | 84.9 0.7 | 14.8 0.6 | 84.2 0.5 |
| EWC | 73.8 0.7 | 92.4 0.4 | 27.1 0.8 | 82.1 0.5 |
| LwF | 76.2 0.6 | 92.1 0.4 | 24.6 0.7 | 83.4 0.5 |
| Method | Metric | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Text | RA | 65.8 0.8 | 65.8 0.8 | 65.8 0.8 | 65.8 0.8 | 65.8 0.8 |
| PA | 92.5 0.4 | 92.5 0.4 | 92.5 0.4 | 92.5 0.4 | 92.5 0.4 | |
| SRS | 76.9 0.6 | 76.9 0.6 | 76.9 0.6 | 76.9 0.6 | 76.9 0.6 | |
| Full FT | RA | 74.2 1.0 | 80.5 0.8 | 84.7 0.6 | 88.2 0.6 | 90.1 0.5 |
| PA | 84.8 0.8 | 82.8 0.8 | 80.1 0.9 | 77.0 1.0 | 74.2 1.1 | |
| SRS | 79.1 0.8 | 81.6 0.7 | 82.3 0.7 | 82.2 0.8 | 81.4 0.9 |
| Method | Metric | Sketch | Corruption | Clipart | Low-light | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Text | Acc. | 58.3 0.9 | 62.1 0.8 | 60.7 0.9 | 63.8 0.8 | 61.2 |
| SRS | 50.2 1.0 | 55.1 0.9 | 52.4 0.9 | 56.3 0.8 | 53.5 | |
| Full FT | Acc. | 69.5 0.8 | 72.4 0.7 | 71.1 0.8 | 73.0 0.7 | 71.5 |
| SRS | 63.8 0.9 | 67.2 0.8 | 65.7 0.8 | 68.0 0.7 | 66.2 | |
| LoRA | Acc. | 71.2 0.7 | 73.7 0.6 | 72.8 0.7 | 74.4 0.6 | 73.0 |
| SRS | 66.0 0.8 | 68.9 0.7 | 67.8 0.7 | 69.5 0.6 | 68.0 |
| Step | Acc. | RA | PA | SRS | OR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90.6 0.3 | – | 94.1 0.3 | – | – | |
| 88.7 0.4 | 89.2 0.4 | 93.5 0.3 | 91.3 0.3 | 9.8 0.5 | |
| 88.0 0.4 | 88.5 0.4 | 93.2 0.3 | 90.8 0.3 | 9.2 0.5 | |
| 87.4 0.5 | 88.0 0.4 | 92.9 0.4 | 90.4 0.4 | 8.8 0.4 | |
| 86.9 0.5 | 87.4 0.5 | 92.6 0.4 | 89.9 0.4 | 8.4 0.4 | |
| 86.5 0.5 | 86.9 0.5 | 92.4 0.4 | 89.6 0.4 | 8.1 0.4 |
| Variant | RA | PA | OR | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No localization | 87.7 0.6 | 82.2 0.8 | 10.8 0.6 | 84.9 0.6 |
| No | 90.2 0.5 | 79.0 1.0 | 7.3 0.5 | 84.2 0.7 |
| No | 84.5 0.6 | 93.2 0.4 | 18.9 0.8 | 88.6 0.5 |
| No semantic graph | 86.1 0.5 | 92.0 0.4 | 10.7 0.6 | 89.0 0.4 |
| No semantic delta | 83.2 0.7 | 91.8 0.5 | 14.9 0.7 | 87.3 0.5 |
| Full-backbone update | 89.4 0.5 | 84.1 0.8 | 8.2 0.5 | 86.6 0.6 |
| Failure condition | Reason |
|---|---|
| Ambiguous update | The revised semantic specification does not clearly define what should change. |
| Non-visual semantics | The new distinction depends on information that cannot be inferred from the image. |
| Global revision | Most of the visual space becomes affected, reducing the advantage of selective adaptation. |
| Subtle change with few labels | Sparse supervision is insufficient to localize a fine-grained revised boundary. |
| Contradictory update | The new semantic definition conflicts with relations already represented in the concept graph. |
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| ImageNet | iNaturalist | CUB-200 | DomainNet | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Acc. | SRS | Acc. | SRS | Acc. | SRS | Acc. | SRS | |
| Full FT | 82.1 0.7 | 80.4 0.7 | 81.1 0.8 | 79.5 0.8 | 80.4 0.8 | 79.0 0.8 | 71.5 0.8 | 66.2 0.9 | |
| LoRA | 83.4 0.5 | 83.0 0.5 | 82.2 0.6 | 82.0 0.6 | 81.6 0.7 | 81.0 0.7 | 73.0 0.6 | 68.0 0.7 | |
| LwF | 79.8 0.7 | 80.5 0.6 | 78.6 0.8 | 79.2 0.7 | 76.6 0.9 | 78.0 0.8 | 68.9 0.9 | 63.4 0.9 | |
| StatA | 78.3 0.8 | 79.0 0.7 | 77.6 0.8 | 78.2 0.8 | 74.1 1.0 | 76.5 0.9 | 73.4 0.6 | 68.5 0.7 | |
| SemReWrite | 88.7 0.4 | 91.4 0.3 | 87.9 0.5 | 90.5 0.4 | 87.1 0.5 | 90.1 0.4 | 79.4 0.5 | 76.3 0.6 | |
| Backbone | Method | RA | PA | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLIP | LoRA | 83.6 0.5 | 84.9 0.7 | 84.2 0.5 |
| LwF | 76.2 0.6 | 92.1 0.4 | 83.4 0.5 | |
| SemReWrite | 88.9 0.4 | 93.4 0.3 | 91.1 0.3 | |
| SigLIP | LoRA | 82.8 0.6 | 84.0 0.6 | 83.4 0.5 |
| LwF | 75.5 0.7 | 91.3 0.5 | 82.7 0.5 | |
| SemReWrite | 88.0 0.4 | 92.0 0.4 | 89.9 0.3 |
| Shots | AUROC | AUPRC | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 82.0 0.7 | 76.8 0.9 | 71.9 1.0 |
| 2 | 86.3 0.6 | 82.1 0.8 | 78.4 0.8 |
| 4 | 90.2 0.5 | 87.9 0.6 | 84.6 0.6 |
| 8 | 92.6 0.4 | 90.8 0.5 | 87.6 0.5 |
| 16 | 94.0 0.3 | 92.5 0.4 | 89.4 0.4 |
| Severity | LwF | LoRA | SemReWrite |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.10 | 84.0 | 86.2 | 92.0 |
| 0.20 | 83.7 | 85.4 | 91.6 |
| 0.30 | 83.0 | 84.2 | 91.1 |
| 0.40 | 81.9 | 82.9 | 90.5 |
| 0.50 | 80.4 | 81.3 | 89.8 |
| 0.60 | 78.6 | 79.4 | 88.9 |
| Specification | RA | PA | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canonical | 88.9 | 93.4 | 91.1 |
| Paraphrase-1 | 88.5 | 93.2 | 90.8 |
| Paraphrase-2 | 88.1 | 93.0 | 90.5 |
| Short definition | 87.4 | 92.6 | 89.9 |
| Verbose definition | 87.9 | 92.8 | 90.3 |
| Ambiguous definition | 77.6 | 88.0 | 82.4 |
| Label noise | LoRA | SemReWrite |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 84.2 | 91.1 |
| 5% | 83.4 | 90.7 |
| 10% | 82.2 | 89.9 |
| 20% | 79.8 | 88.3 |
| 30% | 76.9 | 85.9 |
| Corruption | RA | PA | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0% | 88.9 | 93.4 | 91.1 |
| 10% | 88.6 | 92.9 | 90.7 |
| 20% | 88.1 | 92.0 | 90.0 |
| 30% | 87.2 | 90.7 | 88.9 |
| 40% | 86.0 | 88.9 | 87.4 |
| RA | PA | SRS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2,048 | 84.8 | 93.7 | 89.0 |
| 4 | 4,096 | 87.4 | 93.6 | 90.4 |
| 8 | 8,192 | 88.9 | 93.4 | 91.1 |
| 16 | 16,384 | 89.5 | 93.0 | 91.2 |
| 32 | 32,768 | 89.7 | 92.6 | 91.1 |
| Transitions | LwF | LoRA | SemReWrite |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 83.5 | 84.4 | 91.2 |
| 5 | 82.3 | 83.0 | 90.4 |
| 10 | 80.7 | 81.2 | 89.4 |
| 20 | 77.6 | 77.6 | 87.4 |
| Method | First | Return | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full FT | 87.9 | 75.5 | 12.4 |
| LwF | 84.8 | 81.9 | 2.9 |
| Replay | 85.9 | 83.1 | 2.8 |
| SemReWrite | 89.0 | 87.8 | 1.2 |
| Method | Split | Merge | Boundary | Redef. | Insertion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full FT | 12.4 | 11.8 | 14.9 | 13.7 | 15.1 |
| LoRA | 13.8 | 13.1 | 16.0 | 15.2 | 16.1 |
| LwF | 23.4 | 21.8 | 27.5 | 25.7 | 24.6 |
| Replay | 20.7 | 19.6 | 23.9 | 22.8 | 22.5 |
| SemReWrite | 7.3 | 6.8 | 8.9 | 7.8 | 8.7 |
| Appearance shift | RA | PA | OR | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real Sketch | 71.9 | 76.4 | 12.8 | 74.1 |
| Clean Corruption | 75.0 | 79.5 | 10.9 | 77.2 |
| Real Clipart | 73.8 | 78.1 | 11.7 | 75.9 |
| Normal Low-light | 76.0 | 80.1 | 10.2 | 78.0 |
| Loc. | RA | PA | OR | SRS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | – | – | 86.8 | 76.5 | 16.2 | 81.3 |
| ✓ | – | – | 88.0 | 82.0 | 14.3 | 84.9 |
| ✓ | ✓ | – | 84.5 | 93.2 | 18.9 | 88.6 |
| ✓ | – | ✓ | 90.2 | 79.0 | 7.3 | 84.2 |
| – | ✓ | ✓ | 86.9 | 84.1 | 9.9 | 85.5 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 88.9 | 93.4 | 7.9 | 91.1 |
| Parameter | Default value |
|---|---|
| Primary backbone | CLIP ViT-B/16 |
| Image resolution | |
| Revised labels / concept | 4 |
| Adapter rank | 8 |
| Localizer hidden dimension | 256 |
| Localizer dropout | 0.1 |
Continual Learning
Continual Learning studies how models acquire knowledge from changing data streams while retaining or selectively revising what they learned before.
See all 307 papers