Learning new tasks in multimodal continual instruction tuning can cause catastrophic forgetting of previously acquired knowledge. Although multi-expert LoRA distributes learning across experts, updates to a dense low-rank expert can still affect many output features. We introduce Monarch-MoE, which replaces the dense factors in LoRA experts with block-diagonal factors connected by a fixed permutation. This structure provides blockwise gradient isolation: individual block-pair updates affect only one output block, while connections between all input and output blocks are maintained. To make these compact experts practical on memory-limited hardware, we combine batched computation, fused forward operators, and an optimized backward pass. Across three continual-learning methods evaluated on MLLM-DCL and UCIT with LLaVA-1.5-7B, Monarch-MoE improves first-task retention while reducing adapter parameters by approximately 75% and 50%, respectively. In the main comparison, first-task forgetting is as low as 0.52 percentage points on MLLM-DCL and 0.10 on UCIT, with method-dependent trade-offs in final performance. Our implementation supports fine-tuning and inference on a single 24 GB RTX 4090, with lower measured memory use and competitive runtime in the evaluated settings. Together, these algorithmic and systems improvements make structured experts a practical option for continual adaptation on memory-limited hardware.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Monarch factorization and channel permutation. (a) M=LPR connects all input–output block pairs. (b) P reorders the channels. The highlighted pair update changes only y1 at the expert output; full steps can update all pairs. Colors denote block pairs, not tasks.
MLLM-DCL (5 tasks)
UCIT (6 tasks)
Method
Params
MFT ↑
MFN ↑
MAA ↑
BWT ↑
F1↓
Params
MFT ↑
MFN ↑
MAA ↑
BWT ↑
F1↓
Existing methods (LoRA experts)
LoRA-FT †
∼ 80
64.98
53.00
61.13
-14.97
8.67
∼ 40
76.89
61.24
76.55
-18.78
33.97
MoELoRA †
∼ 93
64.94
54.78
61.76
-12.71
1.55
∼ 52
71.17
58.98
75.08
-14.63
21.16
CL-MoE †
∼ 405
66.06
54.88
61.79
-13.97
7.74
∼ 247
71.46
58.49
74.19
-15.56
24.97
O-LoRA †
∼ 400
65.16
55.54
62.12
-12.03
4.61
∼ 240
76.01
64.35
78.02
-13.99
13.90
Table 1: Full continual-learning results on MLLM-DCL and UCIT. † : MCITlib baselines. Bold : best value per metric and benchmark among the compared methods. Parameters include adapter factors and routers (millions); ∼ denotes a configuration estimate. Only the DCL standalone pair is parameter matched. Drop-in α : CL-MoE/O-LoRA 16 on DCL and 64 on UCIT; DISCO 256 on both. See Appendix B.1 for counts and Appendix B.2 for metric definitions.
Figure 2: Retention and representation stability on DCL. Left: first-task RS scores after each training stage. Raising dense LoRA rank from 16 to 160 does not recover Monarch’s retention. Right: adapter-output linear CKA relative to the first checkpoint, using the same 256 RS examples at layer 16. Higher similarity indicates more stable representations at this measurement point; it does not by itself establish task isolation.
Expert
ρ
Params (M)
MFT
MFN
MAA
BWT
F1
LoRA q=16
16
164.5
67.48
48.03
54.16
-24.32
25.98
LoRA q=160
160
1603.6
69.16
47.27
53.67
-27.37
26.19
Monarch m=8,r=2
128
164.5
63.77
51.21
59.90
-15.70
3.01
Monarch m=4,r=1
16
44.5
64.05
51.23
60.29
-16.02
3.07
Table 2: DCL capacity controls. ρ is the per-expert rank bound. The 44.5M variant matches the dense rank bound, whereas the 164.5M variant matches parameters. Output scales differ (Appendix B.1 ).
m
r
ρ=m2r
RS immediate
RS retained
Med
F1
1
8
8
79.35
76.06
52.91
3.29
2
4
16
79.17
76.07
52.03
3.10
4
2
32
78.95
76.63
51.45
2.32
8
1
64
78.77
77.03
50.48
1.74
Table 3: Two-task block-count probe at fixed factor budget. mr=8 , K=4 , α=8 and scale s=1 . Increasing m changes the rank bound; each task is trained for one epoch.
Figure 3: Repeatability and directional partition diagnostics. Left: all three seeds for the equal-budget RS → Med comparison, with mean ± sample standard deviation ( n=3 ); RS and Med use one and three epochs. Right: complete directional probe with r=2 and α=2 , one epoch per task, and one run per configuration. Points show first-task forgetting; the Med column reports immediate new-task scores. Factor allocation and effective scale vary across partitions. The panels use different protocols and axis ranges and should not be compared as one experiment.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Initialization
MFT
MFN
MAA
BWT
F1
Zero
64.05
51.23
60.29
-16.02
3.07
SVD-Low
62.22
52.05
59.12
-12.71
1.58
SVD-High
45.62
24.96
30.01
-25.82
20.47
Appendix
Table 4: Blockwise SVD initialization, DCL. Standalone K=4,m=4,r=1,α=1 ; the same 44.5M adapter budget.
Setting
Expert
K
Rank specification
α
Params (M)
DCL standalone
LoRA
4
q=16
32
164.463 C
DCL capacity
LoRA
4
q=160
320 ∗
1603.633 C
DCL standalone
Monarch
4
(8,2)
1
164.463 C
DCL rank control
Monarch
4
(4,1)
1
44.532 C
DCL CL-MoE
Monarch
5
(4,2)
16
105.636 C
DCL O-LoRA
Monarch
5
(4,2)
16
99.942 C
Appendix
Table 5: Main expert configurations. q is a per-expert LoRA rank; (m,r) specifies symmetric Monarch. α is the adapter’s implemented multiplier before rank normalization. Counts marked C come from archived checkpoint-count summaries; E denotes an estimate from configurations.
Expert
Seed 42
Seed 1234
Seed 2026
Mean ± std
LoRA q=16
34.05
32.07
31.28
32.47±1.43
Monarch (8,2)
1.27
1.04
1.05
1.12±0.13
Appendix
Table 6: First-task forgetting (pp) over three seeds on the RS → Med prefix. Both models use the 164.5M-parameter standalone configurations. The last column reports mean ± sample standard deviation ( n=3 ); these are not repeated full DCL sequences.
mh
mw
r
α
s
RS immediate
RS retained
Med
F1
1
1
2
2
1.00
78.98
76.72
51.54
2.26
4
1
2
2
0.25
78.70
76.81
49.61
1.89
8
1
2
2
0.13
78.42
76.99
49.79
1.43
1
4
2
2
1.00
78.95
76.53
51.41
2.42
1
8
2
2
1.00
78.90
76.45
51.33
2.45
1
1
1
1
1.00
78.88
76.53
50.34
2.35
Appendix
Table 7: Directional and fixed- r probes. Upper: output-only versus input-only partitions. Lower: symmetric r=1 sweep, with increasing parameter count; it is not a same-budget experiment. The (8,8,1) row is the same run as Table 3 , not an independent replicate.
Expert
Task
E0
E1
E2
E3
Entropy
Dead (%)
Monarch
RS
25.83
24.25
24.63
25.29
.9998
.22
Med
25.36
26.08
24.01
24.56
.9996
.78
AD
25.71
26.26
24.42
23.60
.9994
1.67
Sci
25.84
25.80
24.71
23.65
.9995
1.45
Fin
26.04
26.14
24.77
23.05
.9991
2.34
LoRA
RS
25.89
25.78
23.81
24.52
.9996
.45
Appendix
Table 8: Archived router-utilization summary. Selection share is the percentage of top-2 expert selections. Entropy is normalized by log4 . “Dead” is the reported percentage of unused layer–expert slots, not an expert-selection share.
Method / α
MFT
MFN
MAA
BWT
F1
O-LoRA 16
64.48
54.08
61.61
-12.99
1.80
O-LoRA 64
58.97
59.46
57.63
0.61
-10.32
DISCO 16
58.84
56.30
58.44
-3.17
7.90
DISCO 192
63.14
62.68
63.70
-0.58
1.13
DISCO 256
63.89
63.56
64.86
-0.41
0.52
Appendix
Table 9: DCL scale sensitivity. Complete runs at each indicated α , with m=4,r=2 and zero initialization. No separate validation-based scale selection is documented.
Method / α
MFT
MFN
MAA
BWT
F1
CL-MoE 16
69.50
55.14
73.36
-17.23
28.27
CL-MoE 64
68.39
56.30
72.79
-14.51
19.23
O-LoRA 16
69.31
57.61
75.16
-14.04
15.13
O-LoRA 64
67.91
57.83
73.27
-12.11
7.66
DISCO 16
63.94
61.01
76.22
-3.52
0.20
DISCO 192
68.30
67.34
78.58
-1.15
0.13
Appendix
Table 10: UCIT scale sensitivity. Complete runs at each indicated α , with m=4,r=2 and zero initialization. No separate validation-based scale selection is documented.
Measurement
LoRA-MoE
Monarch-MoE
Steady training-step time (s)
11.907
9.964
Training throughput (samples/s)
1.344
1.606
Maximum training peak (recorded GB)
20.216
19.300
Inference forward time (s)
0.725
0.647
Inference mean peak (recorded GB)
16.205
16.186
Appendix
Table 11: Single-RTX-4090 DCL-RS measurements from the retained efficiency registry. Both standalone models have 164.5M adapter parameters, microbatch 4, and accumulation 4. Training memory is the maximum recorded step peak; inference memory is the mean forward-probe peak. GB follows the registry’s unit label. Forward probes are not autoregressive generation.
Setting
Samples/s
Peak (MB)
Exit code
Local LoRA q=32,α=64,K=5
–
23,966
1
Monarch m=4,r=2,α=16,K=5
1.039
23,410
0
Appendix
Table 12: Separate five-expert capacity probe on one RTX 4090 at microbatch 4 and sequence limit 2048. Peak-memory units follow the source field (MB). The dense run’s exit code does not identify its failure cause.
Setting
Adapter (M)
Samples/s
Latency (ms)
Peak (MiB)
LoRA-MoE
164.5
5.90
169.5
14,582
Monarch-MoE
44.5
5.42
184.5
14,352
Appendix
Table 13: Archived single-GPU generation benchmark with model-level compilation. Monarch uses m=4,r=1,K=4 ; LoRA uses q=16,K=4 . Peak memory is recorded in MiB.
Continual multimodal instruction tuning requires multimodal large language models to acquire new task abilities sequentially while preserving previously learned knowledge. LoRA-MoE provides a promising solution by introducing expert-based capacity, but repeatedly learning and maintaining full LoRA experts leads to substantial parameter overhead. This raises a natural question: is full expert expansion necessary for every new task? To answer it, we analyze the SVD of task-specific LoRA updates and observe substantial overlap in their input- and output-side LoRA direction subspaces, with task-specific adaptation largely captured by lightweight coordinates over these subspaces. Motivated by this observation, we propose CoRe-MoE, a Compact Reusable MoE framework for parameter-efficient continual multimodal instruction tuning. CoRe-MoE extracts reusable input- and output-side direction bases from an initial expert bank, and for subsequent tasks trains only compact coordinate experts together with task-specific low-rank routers. Experiments on two representative MLLMs show that CoRe-MoE improves final average performance over the strongest competing baseline by up to 5.90 points, while using less than 1% of the trainable parameters required by sequential LoRA for later tasks. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/runzezz/CoRe-MoE.
Runze Liu, Naibin Gu, Mingxu Ai +4
Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Catastrophic forgetting remains a major obstacle to continual learning in large language models (LLMs) and vision--language models (VLMs). Although Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures offer an efficient path to scaling, existing LoRA-based MoE continual learning methods still face a fundamental trade-off: they either isolate experts too aggressively, limiting knowledge transfer across tasks, or allow task-specific updates to overwrite important existing parameters, leading to severe forgetting. To address this, we propose CP-MoE, a continual learning framework built around a transient expert that captures early task-specific updates and guides their integration into stable experts. CP-MoE introduces a consistency-preserving routing bias, which uses the transient expert to estimate representation similarity with stable experts and steer routing towards more compatible expert selection, and a transient expert-guided regularisation mechanism, which selectively protects important historical parameters during merging. Together, these components reduce parameter interference and forgetting while preserving cross-task knowledge transfer. We validate CP-MoE on both unimodal and multimodal continual learning benchmarks with LLM-based and VLM-based MoE models. On SuperNI benchmark, spanning diverse sequential language tasks, CP-MoE achieves state-of-the-art performance and stronger zero-shot transfer to unseen tasks. On VQA v2 dataset, it scales effectively to multimodal visual reasoning, consistently reduces forgetting, and outperforms strong MoE baselines.
Yang Liu, Toan Nguyen, Flora D. Salim
School of Computer Science and Engineering University of New South Wales Australia
Multimodal Continual Instruction Tuning aims to continually enhance Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) by learning from new data without forgetting previously acquired knowledge. Mixture of Experts (MoE) architectures naturally facilitate this by incrementally adding new experts and expanding routers while keeping the existing ones frozen. However, despite expert isolation, MoE-based continual learners still suffer from forgetting due to routing-drift: old-task tokens become mistakenly attracted to newly added experts, degrading performance on prior tasks. We analyze the failure mode at the token level and reveal the token's dilemma: ambiguous and old tokens in new-task data offer minimal learning benefit yet induce forgetting when routed to new experts, due to their ambiguous routing assignment during training. Motivated by this, we propose LLaVA-DyMoE, a dynamic MoE framework that incrementally expands the MoE with drift-aware token assignment. We characterize token types via their routing score distributions and apply targeted regularization. Specifically, a token-level assignment guidance steers ambiguous and old tokens away from new experts to preserve established routing patterns and alleviate routing-drift, while complementary routing score regularizations enforce expert-group separation and promote new-expert specialization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our LLaVA-DyMoE effectively mitigates routing-drift-induced forgetting, achieving over a 7% gain in mean final accuracy and a 12% reduction in forgetting compared to baselines. The project page is https://zhaoc5.github.io/DyMoE.